The Sack Heads Radio Show
12 views | +0 today
The Sack Heads Radio Show
Our Weekly talk show about Politics, News and everything ELSE!
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Sack Heads Radio!

Sack Heads Radio Show: Being a TOTAL BOEHNER!

Sack Heads Radio Show: Being a TOTAL BOEHNER! | The Sack Heads Radio Show |
Sack Heads Radio's insight:

Our show from Dec. 7!


No comment yet.
Scooped by Sack Heads Radio!

"That Bitch Sandy" - Benghazi

"That Bitch Sandy" - Benghazi | The Sack Heads Radio Show |

Welcome to the last show BEFORE the election! We have a full show tonight.

Started the show with our usual B.S. session and some news of the day.

Our special guest "Mr. E" (actually @Bigmouthpatriot on twitter) was on and discussed being a "Black Conservative" and the democrats exploitation of black Americans.

We had an amazing call from a Long Island resident who had just lived through Superstorm Sandy. We discussed the storm, and also politics. She was a self described "liberal" so we explored that.

We re-re-re-re-re visited Benghazi, yet more information is coming out, and it looks even more damning for the White House and President Obama.

Our last show before the election, so GET OUT AND VOTE!

Reminder, we are off next week (great timing huh) as we are moving studios (finally). Join us on 11/17 where we pick it back up!

Check our webpage at, Like us on facebook or twitter @sackheads!

No comment yet.
Scooped by Sack Heads Radio!

Sack Heads Radio Show: Presidential Debate Part 2 and Falling On The Sword

Sack Heads Radio Show: Presidential Debate Part 2 and Falling On The Sword | The Sack Heads Radio Show |

Welcome to another episode of Sack Heads Radio, where we fight liberalism and ignorance through applied awesomeness. This week got a little out of control as we discussed the second presidential debate, Libya, the upcoming third presidential debate, and Shaun blindsided Clint with a quote from Chris Matthews. Clint went ballistic, calling Chris Matthews a "fat f&?%" and challenging him to a live constitutional debate. Chris has not called us back yet. Weird. Anyway, thanks for listening and enjoy the show!
Check our webpage at, Like us on Facebook or twitter @sackheads!

No comment yet.
Scooped by Sack Heads Radio!

Sack Heads Radio Show: End the membership of the United States in the United Nations

Sack Heads Radio Show: End the membership of the United States in the United Nations | The Sack Heads Radio Show |
No comment yet.
Scooped by Sack Heads Radio!

Sack Heads Radio Show: New Information On Embassy Attacks

Sack Heads Radio Show: New Information On Embassy Attacks | The Sack Heads Radio Show |

Started off discussing Mitt Romney's tax return! Man, is he generous.

Then, we discuss the follow up to the Embassy Attacks, and what did the administration know? Why did Carney do a two step instead of being honest?

Also, We turned up an article that proves the Obama administration took a million dollar donation from an Anti-Islamic film maker.

All that, your phone calls and some base ball talk, Join us! (347) 205-9399
Check our webpage at, Like us on facebook or twitter @sackheads!

No comment yet.
Scooped by Sack Heads Radio!

Sack Heads Radio Show: The Institution for Continuing Indoctrination - By Sack Head Mikaela

Sack Heads Radio Show: The Institution for Continuing Indoctrination - By Sack Head Mikaela | The Sack Heads Radio Show |

There I was, attempting to enjoy my gourmet college dining hall food, when I received a text message from one of my friends at the University of California, Santa Cruz. What I received left an even worse taste in my mouth than the dining hall food.
Actual Poster from UCSC

Upon opening the picture message, I discovered something that was shocking—and yet not at all. Apparently, UCSC has taken it upon itself to display posters from the Party for Socialism & Liberation all around campus—posters titled “Our 10-Point Program.” A picture is attached to be viewed in all of its glory, but I am going to go through each point individually for the sheer joy it brings me. Well, honestly and more accurately, it’s more rage than joy. But I digress. I will now proceed to quote the poster verbatim point by point, then provide my refutation. See if anything seems striking. If not, I’ll lay it out for you in the end.

Point 1: Make a job a Constitutional right.

No. Just no. This very first point is idiotic because it in effect mandates operating above full employment. For those who don’t know, operating above full employment is actually detrimental to the economy. In the late 1960s, Milton Freidman explained this. Basically, he claimed that there is a natural rate of unemployment consistent with aggregate demand and mainly determined by supply side economics. In practice, an economy cannot have zero unemployment because there will always be some frictional unemployment—people take the time to find a good job, or the best job for them, enabling workers to obtain jobs which suit their skill levels. Another way to think of full employment is when the economy is operating at full capacity—all resources are being utilized, so it is impossible to increase real output. At this point, any increase in aggregate demand results in inflation. But enough of the econ lesson. The main point is: some unemployment will always exist naturally to the benefit of the economy. Making this unconstitutional would not only be impossible and unpractical, but also disastrous for an already struggling economy.

Point 2: Make health care, free education, and affordable housing Constitutional rights.

Again, YOU CAN’T DO THIS. Let’s take a look at the status quo. First, in regards to health care, we have already seen how polarizing, unpopular, and ineffective the health care reform has been—not to mention expensive. Free education—sounds great to a college student like myself, until you consider the reality of it. Free education, funded by the federal government places even more power in the hands of the federal government, when it should actually be a state by state issue. Furthermore, it’s simply unfeasible. Public schools are already begging for more funding, and our education system is growing ever more chaotic. Decreasing federal dependence would be the first step towards resolving this issue—not the contrary.

Also, I would love to know how they propose to make affordable housing a Constitutional right. That one just gets me. Nowhere in the Constitution does the federal government possess that power—not in the enumerated, implied, resulting, or inherent powers. Also, what is affordable for one person is not necessarily so for another. How is “affordable” defined? Affordable for whom? How would this affect the housing market, a key to revitalizing the American economy? Ultimately, all these “Constitutional” promises would necessitate one thing: more taxes. Many, many, many more taxes. More public services equals more public funding. Think that’ll be popular?

Point 3: Shut down all U.S. military bases around the world—bring all the troops, planes & ships home.

I feel like this point speaks for itself, but I’ll provide my two cents anyway. With increasing global tensions, the U.S. military, the most powerful military in the world, is kind of a big deal, to say the least. I might argue that it is not be time to dismantle the military in its entirety and render the U.S. defenseless when the Middle East and Europe are on fire…just maybe. I mean, I guess I could be wrong, but the last time I checked, Iran’s been attempting to develop nuclear weapons, Egypt’s leadership is comprised of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the brutal “hermit kingdom” North Korean regime remains menacing—not to mention Pakistan, China, Syria, and countless other threats to national security. Needless to say, the conditions of today demand a strong American military defense with bases around the world.

Point 4: Stop racist police brutality and mass incarceration.

A 2011 New York Times article titled “Even as Violent Crime Falls, Killing of Officers Rises” brought to the attention a new trend: “According to statistics compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 72 officers were killed by perpetrators in 2011, a 25 percent increase from the previous year and a 75 percent increase from 2008. The 2011 deaths were the first time that more officers were killed by suspects than car accidents, according to data compiled by the International Association of Chiefs of Police.” I am not claiming that police brutality is non-existent. However, I am saying that the bigger problem here is the safety of the men and women that fight to keep us safe every day, risking their own lives for our protection. Repulsively enough, there is always disproportionate attention given to those poor rapists and murders who fell victim to excessive force compared to officers who get shot down on the freeway shoulder.

In regards to mass incarceration, it is important to realize that incarceration rates vary greatly state by state. Furthermore, these rates do not directly correspond to crime rates or demographics. Rather, they are largely influenced by policy choices. I can say it until I’m blue in the face, and yet these socialists and “liberators” just won’t comprehend: the federal government is not the answer to all of our woes; sometimes, these little things called states are best suited to govern themselves in local matters. The Founding Fathers understood this. I don’t understand why modern Americans can’t.

Point 5: Defend our unions.

I would simply insert some witty remark here and move on because in my mind that is all this point warrants, but I have an inkling that actually logically tackling this point might prove more effective. John Hawkins of summed it up best in his article “5 Reasons Unions are Bad for America.” As he admits, there was a point in American History in which unions helped improve the safety of the workplace. However, laws changed, the need for unions dwindled, and their membership shrank. In response, unions desperately became more explicitly involved in politics, especially through the Democratic Party, pushing through their own self-benefitting agendas. Today, unions are doing more harm than good because they are dismantling entire industries, destroying public education, costing citizens billions in tax dollars, and bankrupting cities and states. Hawkins labels unions fundamentally anti-democratic: “The way unions behave in this country is undemocratic, un-American, and it should trouble anyone who cares about freedom and individual rights.” I would have to agree.

Point 6: Equality for women and free, safe, legal abortion on demand.

I find a few things troubling about this goal. First of all, it forces tax payers to absorb the costs that would emerge to provide this service—even pro-life taxpayers in moral opposition. The result of this policy would inevitably be taxpayers footing the bill for someone else’s lack of morality and responsibility—perhaps even someone else who does not pay taxes.

Another problem: these abortions would be “on demand.” So theoretically, could women six months along who have suddenly had a change of heart and receive an abortion? There is no distinction here, and that is frightening in and of itself.

Point 7: Full rights for all immigrants.

This demands “FULL rights for ALL immigrants”—meaning it encompasses illegal immigrants as well. Call me old fashioned, but I believe that if you want rights granted by the U.S. Constitution, you should be a U.S. citizen. I do not understand all these efforts to look at illegal immigration through rose-colored glasses and to offer illegals all these extra services which we do not even provide to our own citizens—like paying for their kid’s higher education. The left has tried to euphemize the situation by labeling these efforts with names like the “Amnesty Dream Act,” but in reality, it’s becoming nightmare. I would assert that Gary Johnson has a pretty virtuous stance on immigration: make legal immigration easier because it benefits the economy and social fabric, and tackle illegal immigration by increasing border security.

Point 8: Full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.

This is the one and only point of the 10-Point Program that I do not automatically reject. I will yet again provide Presidential candidate Gary Johnson as an example: “government must be neutral on personal beliefs.” As a libertarian, I tend to concur with the idea that, as Johnson put it, “Government should not impose its values upon marriage. It should allow marriage equality, including gay marriage. It should also protect the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs.” I realize that that opinion may not be popular among all conservatives, but it is the one I hold—after all, our Founders were staunch supporters of equality, as is evident throughout the Constitution. An adult that has played a significant mentoring role in my life is a lesbian. She has been in a steady relationship for years upon years and knows that she has found the person she wants to spend the rest of her life. Whether or not I would want this lifestyle for myself is irrelevant. Their union would in no way impede upon my civil liberties, and I therefore have no right to thwart theirs.

Point 9: Save the planet—End capitalism.

Yes, because you know what has proven to be virtuous and good for civil rights throughout history? Communism. And as far as the environment goes, Communism will certainly be the way to save it. Take for instance Maoist China and how the environment flourished under it. Oh wait… The Great Leap forward caused the world’s largest famine. In response, large-scale destruction of pasture for indiscriminate agricultural reclaim led to desertification, as well as the perishing of livestock en masse. In fact, several essays have been written to manifest the severe environmental damage done under Mao.

Countless human rights violations have been committed under totalitarian regimes. Sticking with the Mao example, he shook Chinese society to its very core with his ruthless ruling. He committed gross civil rights violations, including closing all schools and creating the Red Guards, his youthful militant followers—which eliminated an entire generation of educated citizens. Officials were dragged out and displayed to be publicly derided and disgraced. Massive crop failures and food shortages ensued. He aimed to wash away all that was “decadent” by his standards in Chinese society. He forced people to live in communes and pooled their private property, including pots and pans. The list goes on.

Some may retort, “Well yeah, but that’s communism, not socialism.” To that I say, Mao Zedong believed that campaigns were the ultimate means to effect the “socialist transformation” of Chinese society. What arose was Communism. This is the cycle.

Point 10: Seize the banks—Jail Wall Street criminals.

But wait. I thought Point 4 sought to lower incarceration rates? Now we’re jailing Wall Street bankers en masse? Interesting. I would also like to ask how they plan to seize the banks, and with whom the power thereof will come to lie? Peta Lindsay, the candidate for this Party For Socialism and Liberation, claims to have received positive reactions to her idea of removing the profit motive from the nation’s credit system because people have “been hurt by banks.” The fact that this kind of socialism could even be deemed favorable by even only mildly liberal Americans proves to be cause for concern—especially when all the attention has been given to the presidential debates and not to grassroots movements like these.


Now taking a step back, let’s ponder the significance: Is this merely an inconsequential poster on a college campus, or is this something bigger?

I would first like to frame this in the context of the Communist Goals of 1963—which were entered into the Congressional record by Albert Herlong, Jr. (a Floridian who served in Congress from 1949-1969). This list of 45 goals possesses some interesting parallels between the 10-Point Program I’ve been talking about. In fact, I was able to cross-reference the two and find links for every single one of the ten points of the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

Starting with point 1, making a job a Constitutional right, communist goal 37 aims to “infiltrate and gain control of big business.”

Point 2, in regards to free education, corresponds to communist goal 17: “Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.” One way to do this could certainly be categorical grants, which enable the federal government to provide educational funding, in exchange for the school agreeing to specific conditions and “educational goals.”

Point 3 aims to shut down all military bases, just like communist goal 3. “Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.”

Point 4 and its goal of stopping police brutality and mass incarceration connects to two communist goals, 38 and 42. Goal 38 ultimately aims to remove “powers of arrest from the police.” 44 “create[s] the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition.”—Gang violence is just fine, but police had better keep themselves in check.

Point 5 matches perfectly with communist goal 36: “Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.”

Point 6 and communist goal 25 cover abortion and ultimately social morality. Communist goal 25 reads, “Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity…” Legalizing free abortion on demand certainly accomplishes this.

Point 7 demands full rights for illegal immigrants. A connection can be drawn between that and communist goal 16, which “weaken[s] basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.” Border Patrol, for example, is preventing these pitiable illegal, non-citizen immigrants from the U.S. Constitutional rights they deserve.

Point 8 and communist goal 26 “present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity and ‘normal, natural, healthy.’”

Point 9 really fits in with the communist goals as a whole, but communist goal 33 aligns nicely: “Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus”—in this case, the capitalist system.

Finally, point 10: Seize the banks and jail Wall Street criminals. Communist goal 19 wants to utilize “student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.” Gee, sounds a lot like Occupy Wall Street. Weird.

With that in mind, I leave you to ponder the magnitude of this issue and what it means. The fact that this propaganda is being displayed in colleges speaks to how far the movement will go to achieve its ends, and just how clandestine its means can be. Furthermore, it speaks to an intentional and common euphemism of communism with utopian ideals such as “socialism and liberation” to get society on board. One thing is certain: these points and goals are slowly being achieved under the radar. The question is whether or not the American people will take the time to notice and do something about it before the great American ideals I, along with many others, hold dear vanish and are replaced with something despotic and horrid.


No comment yet.
Scooped by Sack Heads Radio!

Sack Heads Radio Show: End the membership of the United States in the United Nations

Sack Heads Radio Show: End the membership of the United States in the United Nations | The Sack Heads Radio Show |

End the membership of the United States in the United Nations

The United Nations Organization (“UNO”) or simply United Nations (“UN”) is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and the achieving of world peace.

The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions.

The United States of America has been a member-state of the United Nations since its inception as a supranational entity in 1945.

Over time, the UN has become an increasingly powerful form world government. As a result, they have begun to attack the constitution of the United States of America, a nation founded on Personal Freedom and God Given Rights.

From the passage of UN Resolution 2758 that recognized the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) as "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations”, and still remains a point of contention on the political status of Taiwan today, to Agenda 21[1], and the recent proposal of an Arms Trade Treaty[2], the UN continuously puts forward various “Resolutions” and “International Law” that are averse to the interests of the United States and its allies.

And, they do so while failing to accomplish their stated mission as mentioned above. Consider the following:

According to the UN itself, Sudan's government is directly responsible for "displacement, starvation, and killing of civilians, looting and burning of villages, abductions and rape."

Libya and Syria have been known sponsors of international terrorism for over three decades, yet no act has been made to counter this terrorism.

Sierra Leone has been denounced by the UN for committing "abuses of human rights…with impunity, atrocities against civilians, including executions, mutilations, abductions, arbitrary detention, forced labor, looting, and killings of journalists.”

Yet the UN continues to grant membership to these nations, and others who have committed similar atrocities

The U.N. continuously censures Israel. The UN's discrimination against Israel is not simply a minor infraction to those concerned with equal rights of the Jewish people and the Jewish state. Instead, the world body's obsession with censuring Israel at every turn directly affects all citizens of the world, for it constitutes a severe violation of the equality principles guaranteed by the UN Charter and underlying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The U.N. has not stopped North Korea's attempts at creating a nuclear arsenal, nor has it prevented India and Pakistan from testing their own nuclear weapons.

Additionally, Iran's Holocaust-denying President is well on his way to developing fissionable material, despite sanctions, and regardless of their referral to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.

With these facts in mind, it is no longer in United States best interests to support such an ineffective organization.

The United States is justified in escaping UN restrictions. Since the U.S. has the largest military in the world, in addition to the most economic might, its material strength justifies its autonomy. Withdrawing from the U.N. could allow America to exercise its influence outside the realm of the U.N.'s unnecessary constraint.

U.S. withdrawal also promotes principle of unilateralism. As you’ll recall, it was George Washington himself who warned that the United States should "steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world," U.S. withdrawal will only solidify this principle.

We at the “SackHeads Radio Show” believe the United Nations, has failed at almost every level. They have morphed into nothing bureaucrats from other countries whose goal is nothing more than to attack our values and criminalize our freedom on an international level.

Allowing the UN to continue their ascent towards "World Law" threatens the sovereignty of the United States and others.

Buy signing this petition; you are calling for the immediate consideration and passage of H.R. 1146, also known as the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009 which is currently stalled in committee in the current Congress.

This legislation not only calls for the immediate withdraw of the United States from the United Nations Organization, but the termination of all funding and the immediate repeal of The United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act

This petition will be forwarded to congress upon completion. Stand up for YOUR
Freedom now!

No comment yet.
Scooped by Sack Heads Radio!

The Two Party System - by "Sack Head" Mikaela

The Two Party System - by "Sack Head" Mikaela | The Sack Heads Radio Show |

With the race looking as it is, it seems more and more inevitable that I shall be casting a vote for Mitt Romney come November. Because I feel an unimpeded allegiance to the flawless president that I know he will be? Alas, no; it is because that is the choice I am left with, and I am left with this choice because of the two party system. One need only think back to Al Gore in 2000—not much of a viable alternative exists.
Before entering into an impassioned rant, let me disclaim: I do appreciate certain liberties the two-party system grants me that I would not receive under a one-party system, or dictatorship. I quite enjoy being able to voice my opinions, as I am doing now. That being said, simply because it is preferable to some other systems, does not mean it has no flaws.

It is this two-party system which perpetuates ad hominem attacks, the hampering of free exchange of ideas, an uninformed public voting strictly along party lines—essentially, not only narrowed choices, but narrowed thinking.

On all sides of the political spectrum, thirst for change has manifested itself. It’s been apparent especially in the past few years, with a little known candidate Barack Obama incessantly promising fundamental “change” in the nation and the seemingly sudden rebirth of the Tea Party movement— both of which were the result of grasssroots, anti-establishment movements.

It’s obvious: the status quo is flawed, broken, failing to solve many of today’s most pressing issues, from healthcare to foreign policy despite the deceiving short-term fixes it seems to offer.

All the time we see Republican and Democratic candidates alike alleging certain principles and making myriad campaign promises, only to become slaves to compromise and special interest groups upon entering office. Furthermore, the American voting populace continues to choose congressional and presidential candidates along party lines because no viable alternative exists in their eyes, and it seems increasingly difficult to advocate an alteration of the status quo as it becomes more and more an idiosyncrasy of our country.

But why is this ossified two-party system so American? What makes it indispensable?

Our Founding Fathers foresaw the dangers of such a system. John Adams said, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

Perhaps the most famous adversary of political parties, George Washington, presented some surprisingly accurate predictions about the outcome of political parties, or “factions” as Alexander Hamilton labeled them.

He explained that they inevitably “serve always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration,” and “sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.”

But bringing it back once more to today: it seems that regardless of possible alternatives both new and old, the two-party system has been adopted as an American ideal.

As Santa Rosa High School’s AP Government textbook says, “Once established, human institutions are likely to become self-perpetuating. So it has been with the two-party system.... Most Americans accept the idea of a two party system simply because there has always been one.” Apparently such explanation suffices for the American people.

Sadly enough, it seems there is no bright light at the end of the tunnel to solve the issue, and many, like myself, will continue to be forced to vote for less than ideal candidates. Well, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

With that, a toast to party lines: Mitt Romney 2012.


No comment yet.