I  went to a “Teacher of the Year” banquet recently for the school district in  which I live.  There were 23 schools in this district, so it took a long time to introduce all of the 23
teacher-of-the-year candidates from each school.  During the introduction of each
candidate, a lot of nice things were said about each of them, most of which were testimonials from their students.  The testimonials predictably gushed about their teacher’s role in helping
them in a personal way.  Now, don’t get me wrong, I think this is commendable.  I am not against teachers being good role models and mentoring students on how to cope with life.  But
isn’t the primary and essential purpose of a school to drill the kids on academics?  And while the student testimonials were meant to be complimentary, I’ll bet that none of the educators
in that room realized what an indictment it was of their school system.  The most common theme heard was something like, “She makes us feel so special,” or “He makes class time fun,” or “We can tell that she loves each one of us.”  Not once during the painfully long two hours did I hear what I would have expected to hear about a Teacher-of-the-Year, i.e. maybe something about student academic achievement!  Things like, “His students scored way higher than the district average on standardized tests,” or “Her students’ grade averages improved dramatically over the previous year.”  Not once did I  hear anything remotely like that.  Are you surprised that teachers consider a kid’s feelings more important than what they learn?  Were you naïve enough to really think that imparting knowledge was the foremost goal of our school system?   All the evidence says it isn’t.  Given that, it follows that the primary goal of our educational system is not to impart factual information, but to give kids a big educational hug so that we can all just live happily ever after in the educators’ view of a utopian society.  Have we gotten too touchy-feely with the current generation of students because schools put less emphasis on academics and more on personal development of the child’s character?  A well-known mantra among educators is that students won’t remember what you taught them, but will always remember how you made them feel while you were teaching it.  With the increasing emphasis on personal interaction, is it any wonder we’re seeing more student-teacher affairs?  It was unheard of when I went to school.  I clearly remember the most influential and inspiring teacher I ever had.  We never had a close personal relationship, but he still inspired my thirst for knowledge – a thirst that remains to this day.  I never looked to him to make me a better person, because that was my parents’ job, not his.  Today, it seems the academics have taken a back seat to social engineering.
 
This is why an increasingly large part of each student’s day is being consumed by politically correct indoctrination, and not true academics.  If schools were indeed devoted to rigorous academic training preparing students for careers, instead of providing a fantasy mini-society where they can engage in all sorts of juvenile behavior without consequences, there wouldn’t be time for kids to be brainwashed with feel-good programs, multiculturalism, sexual orientation training, or pseudoscience classes.  Schools need to be devoted to academics, period.  Employers will tell you that most of the current crop of high school graduates do not even have the minimum skills necessary to enter the work force, which is why many employers have taken it upon themselves to train them on their own.  As further proof of the dwindling role of academics, just observe how often your child’s school has “field trips” loosely disguised as learning opportunities. Yes, I realize that they can learn about marine life at Sea World, but ask any teacher or student making that field trip if that’s the portion of the trip that they were honestly anticipating. An honest teacher or student will tell you that they’re happy that it’s a day off school.  Now you know why we graduate students who feel good about themselves, but finish next to last on standardized tests among industrialized nations.


 
 
 
 
  

News Item:  California Projects Budget Deficit of 16 Billion – Much Greater Than
Expected

 Does Governor Moonbeam and his clueless California Democrat legislature understand where the money comes from?  Or is it just that they can’t get past their core Socialist philosophy to find their way out of this mess?  I mean, they’ve taxed Californians to death for decades, and they’ve still got an enormous budget shortfall.  So what’s the answer?  Raise taxes, of course!  I’m reminded of when Obama remarked that even though he knew that government revenues historically fell when taxes were raised on upper incomes, that taxes should be raised anyway as a matter of fairness.  I’m beginning to wonder whether there’s a single Democrat left in this country that really understands where the money comes from.  So in case any of them are reading this, here is a condensed version of Economics 101.  

Revelation #1  – The government has no money of its own. All of the money it spends is money that it has taken by force from someone who has worked to produce something of value (goods or services) that someone else was willing to purchase.  With today’s tax rates, the more someone produces, the more the government takes from them.  When the government decides it wants to take even more by raising taxes, the inevitable and predictable result will be that the individuals and companies that are being taxed will find ways to avoid having their hard earned money confiscated and given to someone else.  They do this by either leaving the state, or finding legal and illegal loopholes that allow them to keep more of their cash, i.e. they’re going to adjust the playing field to their own idea of fairness.  That’s why raising taxes always results in the government getting less revenue.  When taxes are lowered, the exact opposite happens, and revenues increase.  And at some point, if they can’t avoid the taxes, the producers in our society will stop producing because there’s no point in doing so if you can sit at home and make just as much.  

Revelation #2– Even though the government prints paper money, that paper simply represents a promise by the Federal Reserve to honor it as a means of legal tender.  It has no intrinsic value of its own such as it would have if you could exchange it for a piece of gold or some real estate that the government owns.  It is backed up by nothing but trust, period.  And it is only worth something as legal tender if your grocer or car mechanic will accept it in exchange for some goods or services.  And if the government continues to print money to cover the debt we owe, the dollar’s value will decrease to the point that no one will accept it because it’s so inflated.  At that point, we will resort to exchanging things of value again like we did in the days of bartering.  Please note:  the only way that a state or nation can generate wealth is by judicious use of raw materials in the manufacture of products that bring money into that state or nation.  Our socialist leaders have done everything they can to over-regulate and kill this golden goose during the past generation to the point where we’ve lost most of our manufacturing capability.  This is why we desperately need new leadership that recognizes that this needs to be reversed, or we are all in big trouble.

Even though the above revelations are indisputable, the socialists that run California and the U.S. simply can’t resist playing Robin Hood.  These communist captains of the sea would rather that everyone go down with the ship together (fairness), than allow the first class passengers (evil rich and middle class) to fuel and maintain the ship so we can all enjoy the journey.

Barack Obama has come out in favor of gay marriage (Again! He was in favor of it in Illinois before he was against it when he ran for president).  He was “outed” when his vice-president and his education secretary recently took the same stance, forcing his hand.  So the question being asked again is:  What’s wrong with gay marriage, and why should we oppose it? First, some background.

There are myriads of living arrangements today, from traditional marriage to cohabitation to domestic partnerships, all involving various combinations of male and female.  There is an existing federal Defense of Marriage Act, which Obama refuses to defend as he is legally obligated to do.  And citizens in 30 states have approved  referendums which protect traditional marriage in their state constitutions.  So why is marriage between one man and one woman so important that it needs to be preserved?  I can recall one radio talk show host who regularly berates those who are opposed to gay marriage, challenging them to show how legalizing gay marriage would personally affect their lives.  He reflects the attitude that many people have today, that this issue is a matter between consenting adults and it  doesn’t affect those who feel differently.  
 
It is a good idea when confronted with any question whose answer is not immediately apparent, to first define the terms of the question.  It is appropriate to consult the Bible
to define marriage because it is the earliest known reference on the subject, however there are good reasons why gay marriage should be rejected regardless of  one’s religious beliefs. Marriage is much more than a physical union of a man and woman.  A study of the original language of the Genesis account of the creation reveals that the woman was created as a “helper who was the opposite of the man,” i.e. a perfect compliment to him. From the beginning, this was a spiritual and emotional bond, and also a necessary union for the reproduction and upbringing of children.  At no time during the six thousand plus years of recorded human history since then, did homosexuals seriously propose that a human right existed for them to be allowed to marry, even though they have been around since at least the days of Sodom four thousand years ago.  And laws against sodomy had not been enforced for many years before the Supreme Court struck them down officially in 2003.  So, since gays
have been allowed to go about their lifestyle for decades now without interference from anyone, why the push lately to legalize gay marriage.  It is because they want official
sanction for their lifestyle –the same reason they force their “diversity” propaganda on our school children in the name of anti-bullying.  Of course, there are many politicians who are more than willing to oblige them in their quest to officially recognize their marriages. 
 
We should vigorously resist this trend for several reasons.  The first is that we are a nation of laws, and all of them reflect our values.  We would be rejecting traditions that have worked well for thousands of years in civilized cultures by officially endorsing lifestyles that have brought degradation and destruction of that society wherever they have been practiced. Even today, despite what the media wants us to believe, most nations on earth do not tolerate homosexuality, let alone gay marriage.  Secondly, the law is a teacher, and sanctioning what used to be called perversion, will remove the stigma that used to accompany such behavior.  When society no longer officially considers an act taboo, it unofficially encourages experimentation and expansion of such behavior by others.  There are dozens of examples of this, from drug use to gambling to teen pregnancies, which have all exploded once laws were relaxed and/or the stigma was removed. And whether they admit it or not, many of those promoting liberalization of marriage laws, also favor eliminating restrictions on transgender “rights”(sports gender distinctions, unisex bathrooms, etc.), homosexual adoptions, and lowering the sexual age of consent from 18 to 14.  Legalizing gay marriage is a slippery slope indeed.  Third, those who promote such policies are not content to just live their lifestyle in peace.  Wherever they are in power, such as in California, the United Nations, and in public schools, they have proven to be much more intolerant than they accuse the rest of us as being.  They have used the heavy hand of government to pass laws intended to not just indoctrinate, but actively recruit our children into the gay lifestyle.

 For those who understand the Truth of the Bible, there are additional reasons to oppose gay marriage. God says that “righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.   (Proverbs 14:34)  Sin, which includes both heterosexual and homosexual promiscuity, will bring God’s judgment.  There is a difference, however, between individuals sinning, for which they will have to account to God, and a nation sinning by giving official sanction to what God calls an abomination.  God will surely judge a nation that makes an abomination official government policy, and we all have a stake in that.  Those who have abused God's precious purpose for marriage and the family, whether they are gay or straight, need to repent and seek God and cry out to Him to save our nation.

Mr.Obama shares much with the Occupy movement, including their basic economic  philosophy.  To them, America's economic system is like a game of Monopoly where the rich steal (accumulate) all of the resources and money, eventually forcing the rest of the players into bankruptcy, thus winning the game. In their  view, America's wealth has been unfairly monopolized by a greedy few, and it must be redistributed to the masses as a matter of fundamental fairness. In fact, an obvious part of Obama's 2012 campaign strategy is to capitalize (no pun intended) upon the uniformed voter's belief in this falsehood.  There are several things factually wrong with this philosophy, and it is patently dishonest as well.

First and foremost, the game of Monopoly is played with a finite amount of money.  Therefore, one must accumulate wealth at the expense of others by charging rent, and this is the only way to make money. The only discretionary spending is the decision to buy or not buy real estate as an investment.  Typically, the more you invest, the more you can charge for rent, and more often than not you will defeat an opponent that chooses to not buy and simply hoard their money. If players borrow against their real estate holdings in order to finance other purchases, or pay debts, their opponent will more likely end up with all of their money as well.  Second, the only person in this game who pays income tax is the one who's unlucky enough to draw the wrong "chance" card, and even then the tax is only 10%. 

Although there are some aspects of the game that are similar to our own real-life economy, much of it bears no realtionship to it. First of all, the American economy contains an infinite amount of wealth, and if properly stimulated, the size of the pot of wealth will grow immensely, benefitting all players. How does our economy grow? With private investment in ideas that benefit all of the players in the game.  It's as simple as that, but you will rarely hear that explanation on TV, and never from a Democrat.  People like Henry Ford (Ford), Steve Jobs (Apple), Bill Gates (Microsoft), and Sam Walton (Wal-Mart) had ideas that turned into products that millions voluntarily purchased in order to make their lives better. These entrepeneurs did not get rich by stealing money from others - people voted with their dollars to make these companies successful because the companies filled a need better than anyone else. And in the process, these companies created millions of jobs, and made many other investors wealthy as well. And even though many other entrepeneurial ideas did not result huge conglomerates, virtually every idea that stimulated economic activity, particularly those that attracted overseas money, made the pot of wealth larger, resulting in economic growth. 

At least that's the way it should work, and the reason it's not working right now is equally simple. Common sense would dictate that everything possible should be done by our government to encourage, or at least stay out of the way of the most successful economic model in the history of mankind, one that has produced the highest standard of living ever.  Exactly the opposite is happening.  The government is killing the wealth machine that has benefitted so many for so many decades, because those in charge don't understand how wealth is generated.  It doesn't come from government, because government has no money of its own that it doesn't confiscate from individuals and businesses by force. The more money government takes, the less is available for job creation, spending, and investments. Right now we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and the top 1% of earners (listen up Occupiers) pay 28% of all individual income taxes and 59% of all corporate income taxes. I'd say that they pay their fair share, and besides they do useful things like give people jobs.  The government could not exist without them, yet they and their businesses are beset by a crippling array of government regulations from a myriad of federal agencies. These rules cost an estimated $1.75 trillion, which is about twice the amount of individual income taxes collected last year, and is a huge hidden tax that you pay every time you shop for groceries or a cell phone or any other commodity.

 The bottom line is that the Obama administration, and their friends in the Occupy movement, do not have a clue about the damage their philosophy does to the economy and job creation. Their "spread the wealth" and "fairness" mantra may sound good in some fantasy utopian world, but it doesn't work in the world in Which Americans find themselves.


 
 

A 9 year old Colorado boy was suspended the other day for defending himself against a group of boys who had been bullying him.  According the school's "zero tolerance" policy, both kids must be automatically suspended if there is an altercation.  The school released a statement that said, "District 11 schools employ many anti-bullying teaching techniques … and none of   these methods include violence or retaliation."  If this strikes you as incredibly naive, misguided, and simplistic, then your are posessed with a great deal of common sense.  I might add that this kind of policy is pretty much standard at public schools across the nation, and has been for quite some time.  If your children have attended publc schools, you probably know all this.

The problem with these anti-bullying policies is that they don't recognize what happens in the real world of student interactions.  When set upon by bullies, how is a 9 year old supposed to use non-violent anti-bullying techniques?  Negotiate with them?  Reason with them?  Show them their actions are not wise in the long term with regard to student-student relationships? And don't forget, kids, find a teacher and tell them (assuming there's one with eyes in the back of their head, and cares).  I mean parents and kids already are forced to accept school propaganda that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle - all in the name of preventing bullying of gays.  This, of course, is pure hogwash and is just an excuse to shove their social engineering down our throats.  But honestly, expecting kids to react to bullying without defending themselves is the ultimate exercise in naivete'.  This is not the way things work in the real world!  Of course, why should we expect anything less from the leftists who run our school system.  They believe in the truly utopian dream of a world without violence, where the air and water are pristine, and all nations live in happy harmony with nature, because the population has been kept under control, as well as equally poor.  If we're nice to everyone else, they will be nice to us, since there is no such thing as evil in the world, only misunderstandings.  Sounds like our current foreign policy, and how's that working out?

The truth is that there is good and evil in this world and that evil must be exposed and defeated, or it will return with a vengeance.  School teachers and adminstrators simply don't want to take the time to find out who was at fault in an altercation.  And besides, they really do believe that nonsense about violence never being acceptable, even if it's to defend yourself from certain injury or death.  I can relate many real world stories where my friends and I, as well as our children, were bullied until we stood up for ourselves and put an end to it.  It's time that school policies reflect the real world and not the utopian one they try to cram down our throats at the expense of our kids. 

A Christian school teacher is fired in Texas for being pregnant our of wedlock, and apparently is going to sue because of it.  Why?  Discrimination based on pregnancy and gender, according to her.  Of course she did sign a contract with the school that contained a morals clause which supposedly required her to be a role model.  Her attorney says the school violated state and federal law - laws that apply to public schools, not private.  This is not the first time this has happened.  If there is one thing that characterizes this generation, it is the unwillingness to abide by fixed standards of right and wrong.  This appears to be the root of the problem.  It' s called situational morality, and it's one reason why our schools are out of control.  Students refuse to abide by the code of conduct and insist that their actions are justified, no matter how egregious.  This teacher appears to be infected with the same attitude.  She apparently doesn't want to be held to the standard of conduct to which she agreed when she sought employment at a Christian school.  According to her, there are different "interpretations" about what constitutes a good role model.  Funny, I don't think that the contract she signed said that it was up to her to determine that standard, but that it was the school's standard which governed.  Let's not change the rules in the middle of the game to suit our own morality.  We already have way too much bad law in the United States because of this mindset. 

What makes Christianity different from all other religions of the world?  After all, every religion essentially has a means of absolving sin and/or human frailty coupled with an  empowering philosophy that promises to elevate the soul towards perfection in this life or the next.  And all religions have not only followers, but zealots that have been noteworthy because
of their passionate deeds during their lifetime, and in some cases, their martyrdom.  So what is it that makes Christianity unique, and in the minds of its adherents, genuine?  The answer is the Resurrection.  It is the only religion that claims to have a Messiah that rose from the dead. 
This is the event that we celebrate this week, and frankly, without the Resurrection, the remainder of Christianity, despite the altruism it has conferred upon every society since Jesus walked the earth, is meaningless.  

Since the dawn of time, mankind has asked, “What is the meaning of life?”  Because if this life is all there is, then even the Bible says that we should eat and drink for tomorrow we die (I Corinthians 15:32). That’s how crucial the resurrection is to Christianity or any religion.  If  there is no life after this one, then the ordinary human response would be to live a completely selfish life, and nobody could be critical of that motive.  The criticism would prove fruitless because those who question anyone’s values have no authority to do so if they are as mortal as those they examine. If there is no eternal destiny, and if this life is not a proving ground for what comes next, then the five senses are the only god that exists.  If Jesus died and remained in the grave, He was an ordinary man and not worthy of worship. In fact, no one has the
authority to claim otherwise unless they can show credible and convincing proof that there is life after death.  On the other hand, if Jesus proved His claims of deity by conquering the grave, then He warrants our attention, but our worship as well.  So is belief in the resurrection merely an act of faith, or a historical reality?  Those who have examined the evidence have concluded the latter beyond any doubt. Hundreds have tried to prove otherwise, and ended up being believers.  It is not my purpose to examine the evidence here, because there is enough to fill a large book.  But the evidence is there nonetheless, and it will be ignored at the peril of those who choose to do so.  But for those who seek the meaning of life, it is there to be found.  God has promised to be found by those who seek Him. Jesus said, “I am the way, the Truth, and the life.” (John 14:6)  There is no life without Him, and there will be no after-life without Him.  He not only said it, He demonstrated it 2000 years ago on the very first Easter morning.  And because of that historical fact, for those who seek Him, life has had meaning ever since.

Hypocrite!  When ordinary people are caught in hypocrisy, their reaction is usually ranges from shame to embarrassment to self-deprecating laughter.  But one thing most people never do in this situation is double-down and become even more hypocritical with no shame hatsoever.  Normal people either cease this kind of behavior once it is exposed, or at least try to hide it better.   Well, leftists are not normal people.   Charter members of this club include virtually all of the Democrat party and their lapdogs (the news media), many Republicans, the academic elite, the United Nations, the globalists, the environmentalists, Hollywood, and even the liberal clergy.

I continue to be amazed at the shamelessness and arrogance of   these people.  They’ve been  exposed so many times, yet they never admit they’re wrong or two-faced.  They will excoriate honest,  hard-working, taxpaying, God-fearing people in the most vile, disgusting language, yet are so quick to be offended and demand apologies at the slightest  hint of criticism from those on the right.  They believe in free speech as long as it is speech with which they agree. If they don’t agree, they will employ every legal and illegal means to shut you up.  They are always offended at any obviously truthful statement, because they can’t challenge the  statement on its merits. Therefore, the utterance must be deemed offensive in some way, whether it was intended or not, so that they can regain the moral high ground.  Offensive speech is labeled bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or hate speech if it is made against any woman, minority, illegal immigrant, sexual deviant, or any member of a non-Christian religion.  On the other hand, virtually anything can be said about a Christian, business owner, white man, gun owner, or Republican, and it will be celebrated as a gutsy display of free speech against the oppressive power structure.  They deify diversity and tolerance, yet they exclude and vilify anyone who doesn’t hold their worldview.  
 
They constantly bemoan the corruptive influence of big money and special interests, but never saw a George Soros dollar they didn’t like.  They loved the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that limited political contributions for everyone but the unions and news media – their two biggest allies.  And they rant about the fair and balanced coverage Fox News affords its three million viewers, while actively conspiring with the mainstream media to influence their 30 million viewers.  They claim to represent the average worker, but do everything they can to steal their money and give it to those that don’t work.  They claim they  want equality for all, but delight in giving preferential treatment to minority groups.  They love open government,  transparency, and privacy, and hate war until they are in power, and then they turn us into a police surveillance state.  They don’t like government interfering with their guilty pleasures, but are OK with state control of every other aspect of our lives.  And remember, they deserve your support because everything they do is for the children, so therefore they can be trusted.  You, however, cannot be trusted to feed or discipline your child, choose the school or curriculum they will be taught, or which TV programs or movies they can see.  You have no right to own a gun for self-defense, but the elite liberals need armed bodyguards to protect them from the unwashed.  They love to lecture us about our carbon footprint from the comfort of their mansions and limousines.  They claim to be champions of women’s rights, yet most of the famous womanizers within memory were Democrat politicians, responsible for the very policies that have hurt women the most – pornography, no-fault divorce, the welfare state, sexual promiscuity, unwed motherhood, and abortion.   They demand that judges not be  ideologues, but would never vote to appoint a pro-life jurist. They quote Scripture to justify their legislation and to get votes, but conveniently forget the Bible when its passages contradict other policies they promote, or the lifestyle they live.  Liberals preach compassion, but statistically are the stingiest givers, preferring instead to use your money, not theirs, to buy votes from the poor. They don’t want to be held responsible or accountable by anyone for their actions, but they sure want to control everything that you do. They constantly complain about what a miserable country this is, but don’t look for them to be moving abroad anywhere  soon.
 
Yes, it’s called hypocrisy. But those who practice it most are the slowest to notice it in themselves.

I'm convinced that at the root of all environmental extremism is atheism. When you don’t believe in God, you don’t believe there is an intelligent design in the   universe, and therefore everything you see around you has no purpose. It then logically follows that if the universe was not created by a Supreme Being with  purposeful will and intent, then we must be just one big incredibly fortunate   series of cosmic accidents. And if that is the case, then any moment, we could  be delicately balanced on the precipice of another catastrophe. This is why many   environmentalists are so incredibly uncompromising, because they’re convinced that extreme measures are needed NOW in order to save the planet. Their allies, who are the elite international power brokers, could care less about the   environmental cause, and are just using these “true believers” as useful idiots   to accomplish their goal of global dominance.

This all started back in the  sixties with the DDT hoax, which was banned by international treaty without a  shred of scientific evidence that it was harmful.  The ban has, in fact, cost millions of lives because there wasn’t a good  alternative to fight mosquito-borne malaria.  Feeding off that success, the  enviro-leftists managed to get certain chloro-flourocarbons banned from use in  air conditioners and deodorant sprays because of their alleged role in  ozone-layer depletion.  And the scientific evidence?  Trust us, they said, we’ve got to do something now to save the planet.   Tell me if you see a common theme here.  Continuing into the seventies were the  new ice age (global cooling), followed by acid rain, followed in the eighties by   the biggest fraud of them all – global warming. In each case, the “best” science assured  us that we were on the verge of annihilation, if we didn’t enact national and  international controls immediately.  In the case of acid rain and global warming, the tree huggers mostly got  their way, costing consumers billions of dollars in higher energy prices affecting the cost of everything from electricity to food.  Understand that, to this day, there is no real science to support any of  this, but don’t expect the enviro-fascists to ever admit they were wrong.  And don’t expect the politicians –even  the ones who know the truth - to have the courage to roll back the unnecessary regulations that resulted, so that our children and grandchildren won’t have to pay for these non-problems.

Again, inherent in all of  the junk science that spawned these fake crises, is a belief that no Higher  Power is in charge and that we must  take it upon ourselves to regulate the planet or we are all doomed.  Frankly, these pseudo-scientists need to spend more time doing research in the most advanced and authoritative piece of literature ever written – the  Bible.  If they did, they might  find that they should have spent more time getting to know the Creator, than worrying about His creation.

The Sandra Fluke affair (no pun intended), shows  just how corrupt and degraded the Democrat Party/ News Media alliance has become.  Ms. Fluke, as you may  remember is the 30 year old Georgetown law student/activist who testified before a staged, made-to-look-like-a-congressional-hearing about the lack of  contraceptive coverage in the health plan of her Jesuit university.   She made the absurd claim that it costs co-eds $3000 for birth control  during law school, as an attempt to defend Emperor Obama’s demand that Catholic institutions cover it (and abortions), contrary to their own religious beliefs.

 Although reams of information has been written  about this incident, no one seems to get what it was all about.  This was nothing more than an orchestrated opening salvo in the Obama  re-election campaign, with the full cooperation of a fawning press corps.  It is no coincidence that the news, a  couple of weeks after the Fluke charade, is about the Obama campaign targeting  women voters. This was never about  poor college students who were unable to afford contraceptives, nor was it even  about religious freedom, or even whether taxpayers should fund the sex lives of  law students.  This was, plain and  simple, about making Republicans look anti-women, which is why all the Democrat  talking points since then have used the phrase “Republicans want to ban contraceptives.”  Democrats know that without the female  vote they can’t win any election, let alone one in which they desperately need  to change the subject to anything but the economy.

But what’s even more shameful, is the way the media enthusiastically cooperates with this Democrat smoke-and-mirrors fraud.  As noted earlier, this wasn’t even a real congressional hearing – Ms.  Fluke had been denied permission to testify before Congress earlier.  This was simply a staged event to look like a Congressional hearing, and  yet the press dutifully complied with the Democrat leadership in giving her  testimony wall-to-wall coverage.  Understand that literally thousands of people testify before Congress  each year, and of those, only a handful (usually high ranking government or  industry executives) are given anything more than a five second sound bite.  Can you imagine the press covering an  obviously partisan Republican witness at a hearing staged just to make a  point?  The only way Ms. Fluke, who  has been a long-time activist for all kinds of leftist causes, and therefore  falsely portrayed as an “ordinary” law student, could pull off this stunt and  get this much publicity, was with the full cooperation of a corrupt news  media.  The media obviously knew the story line ahead of time, yet they not only covered it, but gave it priority  coverage.  Corruption is an  accurate description of those who call themselves professional journalists, but  do nothing but dishonor not only their profession, but their Constitutional  mandate under the First Amendment.  They’ve long ago abandoned any sense of journalism, and consider   themselves part of the elite thinkers and policy makers in this country.  They are no longer content to report  the news and follow the story wherever it may lead, but instead actively drive  the national discussion in the direction of their own agenda.   And their agenda for this story (Obama’s re-election) was made all the  juicier by Rush Limbaugh stumbling into their trap.  And even though these self-appointed elitists don’t have a virtual  monopoly on the news anymore, they do have a lock on those who vote merely on  perception and don’t think for themselves or dig any deeper for the truth. These are the kinds of people the Obama/media alliance hopes will constitute a majority come November.