Thursday, March 22, 2012

Do you HATE Evolution with a Passion Yet? Black Student Throws a Fit in Florida Evolution Class

Here is evolution for you:
This is very sad. And it seems crazy at first.

BUT THINK ABOUT IT. It is obvious to me what is going on here. Yes, I am guessing / reading between the lines. But I think it is very clear.

The class was being taught about EVOLUTION:

A fellow classmate, Rachel Bustamante, was sitting behind Carr prior to her outburst and noticed she had been avoiding looking at the professor until 11:35 a.m. — that’s when she snapped. The classmate reported that Kajiura was discussing attraction between peacocks when Carr raised her hand to ask her question about evolution. She asked it four times, and became increasingly upset each time Kajiura’s answer failed to satisfy her.

DID YOU CATCH IT? The professor was discussing the evolutionary role of "attraction between peacocks."

In other words, how do animals / people choose a mate?

If you remember what evolution teaches, it teaches that INDIVIDUALS *MATE* BASED UPON PERCEIVED *SUPERIOR* CHARACTERISTICS for evolution.

So this Black woman Jonatha(?) Carr obviously perceives that BEING BLACK IS ASSUMED (by many) to be INFERIOR and that evolution means that men CHOOSE women based upon what is perceived to be SUPERIOR qualities.

What evolution means to Carr -- and who can blame her, logically? -- is that men are going to choose "BETTER" women than her, and she is not going to get chosen as a valuable person or desirable mate.

Hence, the discussion of how animals, like peacocks, CHOOSE A MATE based upon how they other one LOOKS.

So this Black woman is obviously perceiving that evolution means that men will choose the SUPERIOR candidate for mating and reproduction, and evolution produces "improvement" over time by men selecting SUPERIOR women -- meaning NOT HER.

Whereas Christianity teaches the value and infinite worth of E V E R Y human being in God's eyes, and that every man and woman is not only valuable just for who they are, but infinitely valuable in God's heart, evolution teaches that this Black woman is INFERIOR to other women, to be discarded and rejected in the evolutionary march toward perfection.

Buried in her thinking must be the idea that Black men (so the cliche goes, true or untrue) prefer White women over Black women. (I suspect this flows from Blacks being persecuted and wanting the affirmation of being valued by a perceied more powerful class, not because there is anything inherently superior about White women over Black women in an evolutionary sense.)

God looks over the vast diversity of human types and characteristics, and says IT IS GOOD: ALL OF IT. All of the vast differences and variety. There is no "better" or "worse" in God's eyes. There is no human being more (or less) valuable than this Black woman Carr. Everyone is equally cherished in God's heart.

Somewhere, if we can learn to follow God's plans (which unfortunately is much more difficult and mysterious than it sounds, and can be a frustrating search), God knows the PERFECT CHOICE of a man for Jonatha Carr.

NO, the man isn't perfect, any more than Miss Carr is perfect. No one is perfect. Marriage involves the strange situation of two VERY IMPERFECT human beings trying to live a life together without killing each other. Therein lies the challenge of learning to APPLY God's principles in real life. Marriage is like the "lab class" in comparison with the "class lecture." We get to put into practice during the week what God tries to teach us on Sunday.

But God says that if Miss Carr can put her trust in God's hands, there is a perfect choice of a mate for her. God doesn't move on our time table, and God can be frustrating sometimes. But in God Miss Carr lacks nothing.

However, evolution tells Miss Carr that life is a hostile, adversarial, dog-eat-dog COMPETITION in which she is necessarily going to be the LOSER because (in her mind, as she has been bombarded with negativity) being a Black woman puts her at the bottom of the list of choices.

Evolution means survival of the fittest and (she thinks) that ain't her.

Can you see now why she yells "I HATE EVOLUTION!"

The question is:



For the very same reason that Miss Carr understandably hates evolution, shouldn't we all?

Evolution is not simply an irrelevant side show for those who believe in God.


There is not a single human being alive whom God does not want. And there is not a single human being alive whom God wants any more than any other.

Yet evolution tells this young Black woman - and any one else who has ever, temporarily, felt inferior for a moment in time -- that she is destined to be discarded by life, that she is trash to be excluded and rejected by the world.

Do you hate evolution with a passion, yet?

Is Global Warming a Hoax: The Myth that Won't Die

I recently had the following debate with a proponent of global warming regulations on a blog, which is worth preserving:

Does continuing to burn coal, gas and oil, have no effect on the atmosphere?

It has no effect on global warming. It can emit actual pollutants into the air. (CO2 is not a pollutant by any sane definition.) But it has nothing to do with global warming.

If our planet were 5 degrees warmer, would that be a good thing for polar regions?

Since the polar regions are MORE THAN 5 degrees BELOW freezing, it would make absolutely no difference to the polar regions. If water freezes at 0 degrees Centigrade, and you warm the poles from -31 degrees C to -26 degrees C, is ice going to melt? Since when does ice now melt at less than the freezing point?

Please explain how the temperature at which water freezes has CHANGED?

Is the ice getting thicker in the Arctic region?

Yes, actually, it is. As nature is wont to do, it is ALWAYS CHANGING. It is getting thicker in some places and thinner in other places. It is ALWAYS CHANGING.

Have you seen the photographs of liquid ocean at the North Pole found by a photograph, I think 80 years ago? Nature is not a static thing.

Should folks ignore 90% of climate scientists from around the world?

No, 90% of TRUE climate scientists tell us that WE DON'T KNOW if human activity is affecting the global temperature. If you ignore the vocal minority, including those who are not climate scientists, you should listen to those who tell us there is no evidence for man-made global warming.

Are they a worldwide scientific conspiracy to control republicans?

Not to control Republicans, but to control T H E M O N E Y , H O N E Y, hell yes it is a POLITICAL conspiracy to abuse science to control people's lives and steal money from countries like the USA.

Is the earth’s global temperature different or the same at different locations around the earth? Why is that?

While there should theoretically be a concept of a global temperature, in reality there is no such thing as a practical matter. Temperatures vary wildly throughout the Earth and over time. NOBODY HAS THE FOGGIEST CLUE what the global temperature is, or was over time.

No one can tell you TODAY what the global temperature is, in part because only parts of the Earth are measured with weather stations. They cannot tell what the global temperature was yesterday, last month, last year, 10 years ago, or 100 years ago.

Widespread weather stations distributed throughout the Earth only began -- and have not yet been achieved -- with the rise of aviation between World War I and World War II. Prior to around 1850-1880, there was not standardized SCALE for measuring temperature and recording it in a meaningful way. Prior to World War 2, only a few scattered places on the globe were being measured -- and most of those cities.

Most weather measurements (that are regularly recorded) have been taken over time at airports, which consist of ASPHALT installations that collect heat, and which have CHANGED from propeller planes to JET ENGINES, and which have systematically been surrounded by urban sprawl. There is a known "heat effect" of construction. So as cities have surrounded the airports, the "heat effect" of buildings and roads (which absorb the sun's heat) has made temperature measurements at airports reflect the changing conditions at the weather stations -- not a fundamental change in the Earth's climate.

So those weather stations have measured a REAL rise in temperature at that location caused by the increased heat from jet engines (changed from earlier prop planes), expanded asphalt from larger runways and more buildings, and the change in the environment around the airport from undeveloped land covered with foliage to urbanization encroaching around the airport.

One measuring station was found to be directly in the path of jet blast from jets taking off on the runway.

One measuring station on the roof of a building was found to be directly next to a huge industrial air conditioner, so that heat from the air conditioner was blowing on to the temperature gauge.

What’s the current carbon dioxide measurement Moseley? Why is it changing?

CO2 is an extremely tiny component of the atmosphere. The geological data shows that increased CO2 occurs * 800 YEARS AFTER * a rise in global temperatures.

Yes, there is an inconvenient truth for you. Over the history of the Earth, when temperatures rise, CO2 rises on average 800 years *LATER* in time. Only in the la-la land of liberal world does something that happens 800 years AFTERwards count as "cause and effect."

Is the idea of man-made global warming a hoax? YES. Because proponents hide the fact that increased atmospheric CO2 occurs on average 800 years AFTER warmer temperatures in the geologic record.

The fact that global warming activists HIDE this fact from the public qualifies their efforts as a hoax and a fraud.

This is probably due to warming of the oceans, which lowers the capacity of the oceans to hold dissolved CO2, causing more to be released into the atmosphere.

Is carbon dioxide an irrelevant chemical in the atmosphere that should be ignored?

The idea that anyone knows is a complete fantasy. There is no data available that in the context of a complex system like the atmosphere atmospheric carbon dioxide has any affect on warming the Earth. It is equally likely -- it has never been TESTED -- that when CO2 absorbs heat, AND HOT GASSES *RISE* TOWARD OUTER SPACE, the CO2 radiates the heat at high altitudes, thus COOLING the Earth. Once again: If CO2 traps heat, THEN RISES TO HIGH ALTITUDES because warm air rises in relation to colder air, that the net affect is to TRANSPORT heat from the Earth's surface up to higher altitudes, where it is radiated and part of it is radiated into outer space. In other words, it may function exactly like an air conditioner, trapping heat near the Earth's surface and trasnsporting heat up to the upper atmosphere.

The problem comes from ASSUMING that what happens in a controlled simplistic situation in a laboratory translates into the complex global weather pattern of the atmosphere. Yes, CO2 absorbs heat... AND THEN WHAT? You think HOT gas just sits there and stays still and never moves? If CO2 traps heat, why do you imagine it remains anchored in a fixed place, never moving, hovering a few feet off the ground? Hot air rises.


The only thing we know for certain is that over the Earth's history, the Earth warms AND THEN LATER, about 800 years later, more CO2 is measured in the atmosphere.

Has the sun been hotter in the last ten years?

10 years is not the measure, but since 1973, because there are long time delays in the impact. And the answer is *YES* the effective energy STRIKING all of the planets has been greater. Across the spectrum of radiation and output of solar wind, the IMPACT of energy on the Earth, Mars, Pluto, the moon Triton, and Jupiter and Saturn INCREASED.

One reason for this appears to be that dramatic changes in the Sun's magnetic field affect how much interstellar dust enters the solar system. (The sun is MOVING through the galaxy -- and quite rapidly -- as it circles the galactic center. We are moving INTO clouds of gas and dust from time time as we circle the galaxy.) This seems to create more or less dust FILTERING the amount of energy hitting the planets from the sun. As the sun's magnetic field lets more dust in, there is more dust FILTERING the radiation hitting the Earth.

The Sun is a big blob of gas. The orbits of the giant planets Jupiter, Saturn, and to a lesser extent Uranus and Neptune cause the sun to WOBBLE around the solar system's center of gravity, and the sun to SLOSH around the mutual center of gravity of all of the planets taken as a whole. Like a large bowl of water, if you pivot around in a circle, the orbits of the planets causes cyclical changes inside the sun.

Those cyclical changes create variation of the sun's activity on an 11 year cycle (really two halves of a 22 year cycle), 170 year cycle, a 400 year cycle, etc.

See my detailed explanation, citing to (gasp) SCIENTISTS about all of this, at:

In January, Japan's prestigious Society of Energy and Resources gave an "astonishing rebuke" to scientists promoting the idea of man-made global warming. JSER, a government advisory board, compared global warming theories to "ancient astrology." JSER noted that the Earth stopped warming in 2001 (other say 1998), but in general the Earth has merely been recovering naturally from the "Little Ice Age" that occurred between around 1400 and 1800.

The Japanese scientists criticized over-reliance on inherently-unreliable computer models, without real-world testing of the hypothesis. JSER concluded that cycles in the sun's activities cause variation in the Earth's climate: "Through the 11 year sunspot cycle, ultraviolet rays vary considerably, the ionosphere and ozone layer
are affected."

Poland's Academy of Sciences recently published a document that rejects man-made global warming, also known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). The Polish Academy notes that over the history of the Earth, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased an average of 800 years AFTER warmer temperatures. This data decisively proves that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. Global warming comes first. Then carbon dioxide increased later. (Most likely dissolved CO2 evaporated from warming oceans.)

Is there no anthropogenic CO2, other than from breathing?

Mankind does not create anything in terms of physical material. All we can do is move it around. Nature created the CO2, and the constitutent chemicals. It is arrogant vanity to ascribe so much power and impact to humans. Yes we can chemically combine carbon and oxygen into CO2, but it was photosynthesis that previously converted CO2 into C and O2. So all we are doing is shuttling back and forth among what nature created.

What is now considered the CO2 tipping point?

The concept of a tipping point is a fantasy, stacking assumption upon assumption. Not only is it an untested guess, but the logical path is obviously flawed.

Furthermore, the more CO2 in the atmosphere THE MORE PLANT LIFE WILL BE STIMULATED, converting CO2 back into Carbon and free oxygen. CO2 in the atmosphere is like fertilizer for agriculture, forests, and algae in the water. Combined with a naturally occurring warming of the solar system, increased plant life in the warmth will eliminate the increased CO2 and convert it back into free oxygen and trapped carbon.

Is the sun turning the oceans acidic?

Well the oceans are not becoming acidic, other than in hysteria-driven computer models, but if the sun is warming the Earth, causing more dissolved CO2 to escape from the oceans, then the alkaline-acidic balance of the oceans would be affected by the evaporation of CO2 previously dissolved in the ocean's seawater.

Of course, plant life (including the vast quantities of algae in the gigantic oceans) wil then gobble up the CO2 and convert the CO2 back into oxygen.

Is methane 70 times more powerful GHG than carbon dioxide? Is free releasing methane a good thing?

Methane -- like water vapor -- is a more powerful chemical at THEORETICALLY trapping heat than carbon dioxide. But what does that have to do with anything? By your logic, it would be a very good thing to harvest all the methane we can, BURN IT, and turn it into CO2. As you know, methane does escape NATURALLY from pockets including under the sea floor. If methane traps more heat than CO2, than we should aggressively grab as much of it as we can, BURN IT FOR FUEL, and convert methane into CO2, which is less harmful.

However, hydrogen fuel cell cars, and even electric battery cars, cause more water vapor to be emitted into the atmosphere. The water vapor from fuel cell cars is a greater danger to global warming than the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

When is Birth Control NOT Birth Control? Exposing Barack Obama's Latest Scam in Health Care

Liberals are desperately trying to cling to their lie of a Republican "war on women." That lie is vanishing like the mist before their eyes. Their last gasp is to try to confuse people about the supposed need to take "birth control" for "a medical purpose."

"Birth control" medication used for a medically necessary purpose is not birth control. Such use is covered by health insurance -- even health insurance from Catholic and other religious institutions. Catholic religious doctrine approves of the use of such medication for treating a genuine medical problem, just not with interfering with God's will concerning child-bearing.

The now notorious testimony of Sandra Fluke, Georgetown University Law School Student and head of "Law Students for Reproductive Justice" at Georgetown, claimed that students cannot afford their own birth control because "as you know" it costs "OVER $3,000" for a student to get birth control during the three years of a law school education.

The $3,000 cost is the central lynchpin of the argument, because if it is impossible to get birth control for less than $3,000, within an affordable budget, then students need help paying to continue to have sex instead of studying. On the other hand, if birth control is affordable and easily available, then most Americans will expect men and women alike to pay for their own sex, thank you very much. And all the more Americans would expect a woman's male friend(s) to help with the cost before asking health insurance or the taxpayer to pay for a woman to have sex.

But that liberal lie is unraveling fast. The Weekly Standard did what I thought about doing (but didn't have time):

The Weekly Standard called a Target pharmacy near to Georgetown and found that birth control pills, without insurance, can cost only $9 per month. Note that the question is how little can you pay, not how much you can pay. The question is do students NEED to have help paying for their own sex lives? If students could pay as little as $500 over 3 years, instead of $3,000, this dramatically changes the case for a supposed "need" to have other people pay for your private sex life.

In her Congressional testimony, Sandra Fluke confessed (Emphasis added):

“A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.

So while spinning her sob story, Sandra Fluke let the cat out of the bag.

Medication used for a non-birth control purpose is not birth control.

For example, Minoxidyl is a medication that was developed to control blood pressure. However, it was discovered that if you spread Minoxidyl on your head, it might grow hair for men with thinning hair (probably won't, but it works just often enough to keep hope alive).

When controlling blood pressure, Minoxidyl is medically necessary, prescribed for a medically necessary purpose. Therefore, it is covered by health insurance. However, when used on the scalp, externally, it is sold under the brand name Rogaine and it is NOT covered by health insurance. Used to control blood pressure, Minoxidyl is medically necessary. When used for male vanity, for mere appearance, Rogaine (Minoxidyl) is not covered by health insurance.

Similarly, aspirin is one of nature's wonder drugs. It can minimize blood clots, and can minimize the risk of heart attacks. It can reduce a fever. And it can reduce your headache. That's only three of its many uses. When used to deter blood clots and heart attacks, it is clearly a drug prescribed for a medical condition, and is covered by health insurance. When used to treat the occasional headache, it would probably not be covered by most health insurance.

In the same way, the medication that produces a birth control effect also has other effects, as well.

So when the same medication is being used to treat a medical condition it is NOT birth control, it is not coded for health insurance purposes as birth control, it is paid and covered by ALL health insurance, even at Catholic institutions, and it is approved of by the Catholic Church.

Even Sandra Fluke admits that Georgetown University's health insurance policy will cover birth control medication when needed for a non-birth control reason.

But Sandra Fluke admits this "inconvenient truth" (for liberals) under her breath and then proceeds to try to explain it away and obscure it. Meanwhile, others taken in by the scam, repeat the bald and naked falsehood that women with a medical need or medical condition would not be able to get the medication covered by health insurance. That is pure unadulterated hogwash and balderdash.

Aware that her argument has a giant hole in it, Sandra Fluke tries to navigate an oil tanker through a shallow creek:

“Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs."

That just isn't true. The same Catholic bishops leading the charge against Obama's war on religion have clarified that Catholic religious doctrine APPROVES OF medication to cure disease or alleviate suffering, even when it is the exact same medication that can also be used for a contraceptive purpose. There is no religious objection to particular drugs. The religious perspective (for those denominations that object to birth control) is focused on using the medication for a contraceptive purpose. (I don't have any personal objection to birth control. My outrage is directed at liars trying to take away people's freedoms.)

But then Sandra Fluke illustrates what you can expect from a highly-paid Georgetown lawyer -- to twist reality into a pretzel of falsehood. Fluke testified:

“In 65% of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescription and whether they were lying about their symptoms."

HUH? Hell, no.

If you don't have any documentation from a doctor, maybe.

LET'S TRANSLATE THE ABOVE: If you are LYING and claiming to have a medical need, without any medical records, without any medical diagnosis from a doctor, then yeah, people are going to scratch their heads and wonder "What are you talking about?"

But if a woman has been diagnosed with a medical condition, all she needs to do is pull out her medical diagnosis from a doctor and say "HERE" and point to the doctor's diagnosis.

I don't just mean that I think Sandra Fluke is lying. I mean that Fluke's statement contains within itself the seeds of its own falsehood.


Let's listen in (hypothetically):

Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Could you explain why you are claiming a medical condition or medical need for this medication?"


Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Oh. No. Thank you very much. That's all we need."


What kind of "interrogation" is Sandra Fluke talking about? Clearly, she is referring to students who are LYING or perhaps SELF-DIAGNOSING a medical condition.

Let's listen in again (hypothetically):

Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Could you explain why you are claiming a medical condition or medical need for this medication?"

Georgetown Female Student: "I have ovarian cancer."

Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Why do you think that?"

Georgetown Female Student: "I got on the internet and diagnosed myself."

Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Have you seen a doctor about your ovarian cancer?"

Georgetown Female Student: "No"

Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Do you have any documentation of your medical condition?"

Georgetown Female Student: "No"

Insurance Claims Adjuster: "I'm sorry. But we need some kind of documentation that you have been diagnosed with this medical condition. And I strongly urge you to see a doctor immediately. If you really do have ovarian cancer, you cannot treat yourself as your own doctor."

Monday, March 5, 2012

The Hidden Scandal of Sandra Fluke: Behind Rush Limbaugh's Massive Blunder

Last week, Rush Limbaugh enthusiastically and eagerly did a swan dive from the high board into the liberal trap. If anyone should know better, it is Rush. But Rush was thinking mainly about getting publicity for himself, to garner interest in people listening to his show. So Rush Limbaugh threw restraint to the wind, and started to channel Howard Stern. Rush started on a line of tittilating sexual innuendo, and just failed to stop at the border.

Anyone with Rush Limbaugh's experience knows by now that if you use certain words, phrases, or arguments, people will totally lose track of or forget what you were trying to say. No one experienced in politics fails to understand that if you use words like slut, prostitute, pimp, or the like, or Nazi, etc., or mention Hitler in any context, nobody will listen to anything else you have to say. They will be all wrapped around a tree about the word you used, and completely distract from the point you were trying to make.

The tragedy of Rush Limbaugh's inexcusable 'rookie' blunder is that the Sandra Fluke affair is a fiasco-in-waiting for liberals, Democrat candidates, and the Obama Administration.

This is not about Sandra Fluke.


What is being missed in Fluke's testimony is that she is only the spokesperson for a project to attack Catholic Georgetown University -- for being Catholic. Notice what Fluke actually testified:

We, as Georgetown LSRJ, are here today ..."

“One told us about how ..."

“In 65% of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated .."

“For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, ..."

“One woman told us doctors ..."

“One woman told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered ..."

This was unmistakably a PROJECT to attack Catholic Georgetown University -- for being Catholic -- by "Law Students for Reproductive Justice"

Sandra Fluke and "Law Students for Reproductive Justice" deliberately set out to attack and smear Catholics and the Catholic Church. This was a deliberate assualt on the religious beliefs of the Catholic Church.

This was the latest battle in the liberals' war on religion. (However, Limbaugh managed to totally obscure the real issues.)

It was also a complete pack of lies.

Perhaps Sandra Fluke will make a very talented liar, er, sorry LAWYER, one day.

Sandra Fluke may prove skilled at convincing juries of things that just aren't true.

But here, she got caught red-handed.


The crucial lynchpin of the argument for attacking Georgetown's Catholic religious beliefs is the hypothesis that birth control is too expensive for a student to afford without health insurance paying for it. YET, THAT IS A FLAT-OUT, TOTAL LIE.

Sandra Fluke argued that "AS YOU KNOW" birth control costs a student "OVER $3,000" over the three years of law school.

Note: Some have tried to cover for Fluke by changing this to "UP TO." No. She said "OVER $3,000."

To expose this perjury, we need look no farther than Planned Parenthood's own website.

Of course Sandra Fluke did not identify which type of birth control she had in mind. But it doesn't matter:

COSTS: (1) Birth Control pills, every single day (with placebos often in the plan for 2 or 3 days): $15 per month, says Planned Parenthood. $540 over 3 years. (2) the PATCH: $15 per month says Planned Parenthood. $540 over 3 years. (3) IUD: Good for 12 years, $500 to $1000 up-front, says PP. (4) condoms: 40 cents each in economy packages.

Top name brand, Trojan, condoms cost $13.99 in a 36 count economy pack. That's 40 cents a condom. So the only way that a Georgetown student could be spending $3,000 over three years is to have sex 7,500 times over three years. That's 6.84 times a day, every single day, without any days off, for three years.

Could one spend MORE than $15 per month, which Planned Parenthood says is a likely price? Who cares? The discussion is about a student on a limited budget. So we are talking about how little she might spend, not how much she could go on the up side.

It is Sandra Fluke’s claim that a student *MUST* spend “OVER $3,000″ during 3 years. She is claiming that it is NECESSARY (unavoidable) for a woman at Georgetown Law School to spend “OVER $3,000″ a year for birth control.

So, sure -- you could pay more than $15 per month. But we are talking about students who are short on money. So obviously we are talking about students paying the minimum, because they are on a limited budget. The argument is that these students cannot afford birth control, so we have to look at the minimum price, not the premium price you could pay if you don't care about the cost.

But if Georgetown’s students — who are supposed to be studying some of the time — had sex 3 times a week, taking 2 weeks out being with their families for holidays and taking 2 weeks out for exam weeks, that would be 432 times over three years.

COST FOR CONDOMS: $172.80 plus tax over three years. (432 times 40 cents each.)

With contraceptives, there is NO PROBLEM. They are cheap. Easily available. Nothing to worry about. Anyone who wants contraceptives can get them, often FREE.

To buy condoms 5 days a week, every single week without a break, costs only $104 a year if you buy top-brand quality (Trojans) in 36 count economy packs.

But the liberals have a more fatal problem here:

If you are going to lie, never lie about things that the hearer can SEE to be a LIE.

For the next 8 months, women will be buying their birth control pills every single month, if that is their chosen approach. They can SEE that the liberals are lying.

For the next 8 months, voters will walk through the aisles of grocery stores and then can SEE how little condoms cost. They can see that birth control is all over the place. In every grocery store in America, you can see them right there.

So the lie by the Democrats is obvious for all to see. The looming fiasco for liberals is that anyone can see the facts for themselves that the liberals are lying about.

Democrats and free agent liberals are doubling down on THE LIBERAL WAR ON WOMEN:

LIBERALS ARE PUBLICLY ARGUING THAT (liberals instinctively believe) WOMEN VOTERS ARE DUMB. That is, liberals hope and imagine that women voters aren't smart enough to see through the liberal scams and hogwash.

Republicans are betting that women voters are smart. Liberals are desperately hoping they're not. Obama's re-election strategy is to bet everything on the hope that voters are easily-fooled, gullible, and naive. Republican election hopes rest on believing the best about the American people.

So the only way the liberal scam can work is if women voters are really, really dumb.

Republicans treat women as intelligent. Democrats don't.

Friday, March 2, 2012

Sarah Palin Mocks HBO

SarahPAC mocks HBO's campaign video for Barack Obama "Game Change" -- NOTICE HOW (unlike some of my friends) SARAH PALIN IS NOT SITTING BACK AND WAITING AROUND TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS. SHE IS AGGRESSIVELY TAKING THE LEAD AND FRAMING THE DEBATE. I wish some people would learn that lesson

Andrew Breitbart, RIP -- Stern Warning to Conservatives On the Eve of his Death at CPAC February 12, 2012

John Popoff posted the following on Facebook


Andrew Breitbart, speaking at CPAC on February 12, 2012:

I don’t care who our candidate is and I haven’t since the beginning of this. I haven’t! Ask not what the candidate can do for you, ask what you can do for the candidate! When I walk through CPAC or I travel the United States to meet people in the Tea Party who care – black, white, gay, and straight – anyone that’s willing to stand next to me to fight the progressive left, I will be in that bunker.

And if you’re not in that bunker because you’re not satisfied with a certain candidate, more than shame on you! You’re on the other side!

~ Andrew Breitbart, Conservative Warrior and Game-Changer (1969-2012)

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Understanding the RINO vs. Conservative Divide in Republican Campaigns

A frequent (if enigmatic) poster on Delaware political blogs, mynym, writes:
It is ironic when Republicans take a static view of the very portion of the electorate most likely to vacillate. It’s actually not good to fit try to fit yourself in their image because there’s not much there.

Ironically, they may be more likely to respond to strong leadership simply because it is strong even when it’s not like them. After all, they don’t necessarily like themselves. And yet here politicians are trying to appeal to them when the best way to appeal to them is probably as simple as: “Just be yourself.”

mynym takes a giant step forward in analyzing the divide between the conservative wing and the establishment wing of the GOP. Notice that the REAL ISSUE is not really about issues -- but about campaign tactics. Using failed campaign tactics, the establishment types are AFRAID, and don't know why they are losing elections. They are afraid of conservative issues that are proven winners, but are criticized by the mainstream media, because establishment Republicans don't know why they can't win elections.

So they blame conservative issues and social issues -- which usually increase Republican vote totals -- instead of learning from their mistakes and growing and improving their craft.

mynym identifies part of this divide: Moderate voters who, by definition, (a) don't care quite as much about politics or the future of the country and (b) can't make up their minds and (c) are less informed about politics, become the tail that wags the dog for establishment Republicans.

Instead of PERSUADING undecided voters, with sound reasons, establishment gurus propose to figure out what the undecided middle wants -- WHEN THEY DON'T KNOW THEMSELVES -- and present a candidate that reflects what the undecided voters want. But those voters don't know themselves what they want. You have to PERSUADE, EXPLAIN, EDUCATE.

Worse, the establishment types are the self-appointed gurus who have LOST TOUCH with reality, real people, and real life, by congratulating themselves with their "sophisticated" (lacking common sense) political techniques. I know some of these people personally. To walk in to certain conservative organizations I need to bring an oxygen mask.

Romans 1:22 (NASB) "22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,"

These people run the GOP. WHY? Because they have spent so much time dutifully learning what does not work and teaching other failed ideas. While conservatives are out in the real world living real lives, and understanding real people, the self-appointed leaders of the GOP drink wine and eat cheese in anti-septic think tanks, but couldn't run a winning election to save their lives.