The totalitarian-minded education establishment and its extreme left-wing allies are starting to freak out as conservatives abandon futile efforts to “reform” government schools in favor of a mass-exodus strategy. Even powerful union bosses are starting to panic.

The trend has been building quietly for years. But it has accelerated rapidly in recent months as a trickle of families fleeing the system became a tidal wave amid face-mask edicts, vaccine mandates, Critical Race Theory, Marxist indoctrination, extreme “sex education,” and other controversies.

The first major shoe to drop in response came on September 30, when the fringe left-wing magazine New Republic released a major article claiming Republicans were now out to destroy the public-school system instead of “reform” it.

“Republicans Don’t Want to Reform Public Education. They Want to End It,” blared the headline in the far-left magazine, famous for lying about and even praising the mass-murdering Soviet dictatorship. “Florida’s recent struggles over masks in schools augur a terrifying shift in the right’s approach to education policy.”

According to the article, conservatives are increasingly abandoning the idea of “reforming” public schools. Instead, the article argues, the new approach is to get as many children as possible out of the system and into private schools or homeschooling.

The article begins by examining a speech by Florida Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran at Hillsdale College. Corcoran noted, correctly, that education will be the key to winning other issues, too. But Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, the article claims, is at the helm of pursuing the strategy to destroy government education.

“Trading in the decades-old, substantially bipartisan education reform agenda, a formula that was born in Florida, he is mustering a naked attack on the very existence of public schools,” the magazine claimed, arguing that this shift is taking place in the broader Republican Party in general as well.

And bigwigs of the trillion-dollar-per-year “education” regime are getting nervous. For instance, American Federation of Teachers (AFT) boss Randi Weingarten, who is quoted in the New Republic article, blurted out her concerns on Twitter.

“This isn’t just about masks or about Governor DeSantis’ political aspirations,” she said as state-level union bosses parroted her comments as well. “It’s about the complete destabilization of public education so that parents will choose private schools.”

And it is true: Conservative leaders nationwide are increasingly advocating an exit from government schools altogether. Just this weekend, conservative heavyweight Candace Owens urged parents to remove their children from government schools on Fox News.

“Pull your children out of public schools,” Owens told the cable network on Sunday. “The time is now, remove your children from these indoctrination camps, they’re not learning to be smart,  they’re not focused on hard academics, they are being brainwashed and and systematically controlled and what they want to produce, by the way, are failures.”

Before that, Evangelical leader Franklin Graham, conservative pundit Dennis Prager, talk-radio titan Rush Limbaugh, and many others also called for parents to remove their children in recent years.

Some have been sounding the alarm for decades. Exodus Mandate Director Lt. Col. Ray Moore (Ret.), the godfather of the exodus movement, was thrilled by the shift in the conversation. “After decades of futile efforts to reform government schools, conservatives and Christians are permanently opting out,” Moore told us by phone.

“The dam is about to break,” added Moore, who is also chairman of Public School Exit (where this writer serves as executive director) and the Christian Education Initiative (CEI). “When this happens, on a large scale, Christians and conservatives will become good neighbors again, by providing Christian education services for our nation. This is the great hope for renewal of our families, churches and our nation.”

Conservatives and Christians now have the momentum — the wind is in their sails when it comes to rescuing millions of children from the dumbing down, sexualization, and indoctrination in government schools. The exodus is already happening, and it will accelerate in the years ahead.

As the forces of liberty advance, the next challenge will be to keep the same “education” establishment from destroying homeschooling and private school by providing tax funding with strings attached or other subversive methods. The future of America depends on the outcome of this fight.

This article was originally published by FreedomProject Media.

Children and families under siege in Illinois are getting a lifeline! A national organization working to rescue children from the increasingly radical indoctrination and sexualization in public schools recently announced a new partnership with the non-profit Illinois Family Institute (IFI) to help get as many kids out of the system as possible.

The nationwide group, known as Public School Exit (PSE), was formed last year by a team of concerned Christian leaders, attorneys, pastors, educators, and advocates. The goal: Facilitate an exodus of as many children into the safe sanctuary of homeschools and good private schools.

In pursuing that mission, PSE is joining forces with IFI — the state’s premier pro-family organization — to deal with the urgent situation in Illinois. From mandating LGBTQIA indoctrination in government schools to forcing teachers to accept and promote highly controversial “progressive” ideology in the classroom, the state is at the forefront of the escalating educational abuse in America.

“Illinois is one of the worst states in the nation when it comes to imposing anti-American, anti-Christian extremism on captive children in public schools,” said PSE President Dran Reese, a homeschool mom with many years of experience in ministry. “However, even conservative states are moving in that direction, so we hope the lessons we learn in Illinois will help in our nationwide efforts as well.”

As part of the partnership between PSE and IFI, which was formalized in early March with an agreement between the two, the well-respected Illinois organization will utilize PSE materials, its powerful line-up of experts in the field, and its own vast network to encourage pastors and parents to get children out of the deteriorating public schools.

“It’s high time for Christian parents and grandparents to recognize the fact that government schools are undermining and supplanting Judeo-Christian faith,” said IFI Executive Director David E. Smith. “The nonsense and profane values they are teaching students are the antithesis of what the Bible teaches us. Parents and grandparents cannot afford to allow these secular ideologies and destructive philosophies to mislead our children from what is good, honest and virtuous.”

Consider that the government’s own data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) prove conclusively that the overwhelming majority of children in Illinois are not even proficient in core subjects. Meanwhile, the moral values being imposed on children in public schools would shock most parents, IFI and PSE leaders said.

“Taxpayer-funded schools have all but rejected academics as their principal responsibility,” added Smith. “Instead, at the behest of Big LGBTQ Inc, BLM and Planned Parenthood, their focus has shifted toward indoctrinating our children. And children are being taught to hate America.”

Government school systems, Smith continued, are broken. “It’s time for parents and grandparents to take action to protect their children’s spiritual, mental and physical wellbeing,” he said. “It’s time to get our kids out of government schools.”

PSE and IFI leaders point to the Bible, which clearly instructs parents to teach their children Biblical truths “diligently” throughout the day, every day. (Deut. 6:4-9). Parents are also instructed to “train up a child in the way he should go.” “We dare not allow left-wing agents of deception do that training in our government schools,” noted Smith, celebrating the partnership with a well-established national organization to deal with the crisis.

On the church front, IFI and PSE will work together to help pastors and churches understand the problem. Then, they will work together with pastors and churches to help set up Christian schools, homeschool co-operatives led by parents, micro-schools, scholarship programs, independent learning academies, or other options to help protect the children in their congregations. PSE’s list of renown church and education leaders are standing by ready to assist.

“The Bible speaks very clearly to all these issues, and Christians across the nation are starting to realize that something must be done,” explained PSE Chairman Lt. Col. E. Ray Moore (Ret.), a longtime ministry leader who has been promoting a Christian “Exodus” from public schools for decades. “We are so grateful to be able to work with IFI — known as one of the top pro-family groups in America — on this critically important mission. The timing could not be better.”

PSE’s world-class team of advisors includes leading attorneys, educators, pastors, celebrities, and experts who — combined — have all the expertise needed to get the job done, and to do it well. With help from the boots on the ground, depending on the needs of particular communities or churches, PSE and IFI will assemble the necessary expertise to ensure that every parent in a congregation or community has options.

The team even includes, among other stars, Diane Douglas, who served as Arizona’s superintendent of Public Instruction until 2019, when she recognized that the government schools were now rotten to the core and were not safe for children. Now she is working to get victims out as quickly as possible. “Parents must act to protect their children, because public schools are not going to do it,” she explained.

The tide is rapidly shifting on this issue, too. Just in the last year, the number of homeschooling families has doubled from 5 percent to 10 percent of families with school-age children as people flee from government schools in unprecedented numbers. Some school districts have seen more than a 10 percent decline in enrollment as families seek other options.

Top voices are joining in as well. Before he passed away this year, talk-show titan Rush Limbaugh repeatedly urged parents to get their children out of public schools. Responding to LGBT mandates in New Jersey schools, evangelical leader Rev. Franklin Graham urged parents to withdraw from the system, too.

Even former President Donald J. Trump repeatedly urged parents to protect their children from what he described as “failing government schools,” noting that indoctrination in public education was responsible for the “mayhem” in America’s streets last summer.

Christian actress and leading homeschool advocate Sam Sorbo, a fervent campaigner on the issue and a member of PSE’s advisory board, celebrated the new partnership, too. “More and more people are waking up to the tragic state of what we currently call education, but what is, essentially, only schooling. Training. Conditioning,” Sorbo said in a statement about the news. “We welcome partnering with all enlightened organizations!”

Similar arrangements with other state-level pro-family organizations are already being explored. Many millions of families have already made the choice to pursue better education alternatives for their children. And in Illinois, that movement is about to be supercharged.

Special Events: Consider attending one of the eight events being held in different areas of Illinois beginning on June 28th. A complimentary meal will be served. Reservations are required. You can email Kathy HERE or call the IFI office at 708-781-9328. Reservations are due by tomorrow, so don’t hesitate!

More information:

Reasons to Exit Illinois Government Schools

Illinois School Proficiency FAILURE

Did You Know?

How to Rescue Our Children

“Comprehensive” Sex Education

For Parents, Grandparents and Church Leaders

Overcoming Objections

The President of the United States and America’s most popular talk-show host both blasted the public-school system for indoctrinating U.S. children with anti-American propaganda. The mayhem and destruction being seen in the streets right now, they explained, is a direct result of this subversive indoctrination masquerading as education.

Both leaders agreed: The deadly lies being taught to children in government schools across America must end if the nation is to be salvaged. And Trump, at least, seemed confident that the days of “far-left fascism” running rampant in America’s schools an culture were numbered. Limbaugh also said the brainwashing would have to be reversed.

By speaking out, the dynamic duo — two of the most influential men not just in America, but in the world — just gave a major boost to the American public’s understanding about the root of so many of the nation’s problems. As doctors understand well, having an accurate diagnosis is key to finding a cure.

However, even though both men have called for Americans to save their own children from government schools (or at least “failing government schools,” as Trump put it earlier this year), neither leader spent much time on actual mechanics for a solution. Still, just talking about it at the national level is a crucial start to eventually getting a solution.

Speaking at Mount Rushmore on July 3 in honor of America’s Independence Day, Trump put it this way: “The violent mayhem we have seen in the streets of cities that are run by liberal Democrats, in every case, is the predictable result of years of extreme indoctrination and bias in education, journalism, and other cultural institutions.”

He was right, of course, as FreedomProject Media has been documenting for years. Trump also delved into the nature of that brainwashing. “Against every law of society and nature, our children are taught in school to hate their own country, and to believe that the men and women who built it were not heroes, but that they were villains,” he said, adding that the goal was to destroy America.

Responding to the fact that there are still a significant number of Americans who believe the fake-media narrative, talk-radio titan Limbaugh, who reaches an estimated 15 million listeners per day, was even bolder. He said on air after Trump’s speech that the reason for the ignorance and anti-American hatred was simple: Government-school indoctrination by radical leftists.

“We’ve lost teachers. We have lost public education, not to mention academe. We have lost higher education,” Limbaugh said. “We have a bunch of left-wing activists disguised as teachers who have literally been, for almost two generations now, poisoning with hatred and vile racism the innocent, young-skulls-full-of-mush students who show up in their classrooms — and that’s what we’re gonna have to reverse ultimately.”

Limbaugh spoke out again on July 8, saying the nation’s problems could be traced back to the indoctrination of children (and future journalists) in government schools. And last year, he declared that one of the answers to the crisis was homeschooling and removing children from public schools. Numerous other top leaders have made similar pleas.

In his 2020 State of the Union speech, Trump called for saving children from what he described as “failing government schools.” And on the campaign trail in 2016, he blasted the “indoctrination” of America’s youth by “progressive” bureaucrats at the U.S. Department of Education. This is major progress in exposing the crucial problem facing America.

When some of the most powerful men in the world speak the truth clearly and passionately about the threat of government-school indoctrination to children and the nation, millions of people listen. A mass exodus from the public schools has begun. Already, the North Carolina state website to register for homeschooling has crashed due to exploding demand amid coronavirus.

Perhaps it is not too late to save America after all.

This article originally posted at FreedomProject.com

Written by Taylor Lewis

Holy intersectional infighting, Batman!

Fans of the dime-a-dozen televised superhero dramas may be in for some unfortunate news.  The actress tapped to play Batwoman in the latest installment of The CW’s seriate “Arrowverse” has been determined not to be gay enough for the role.  That is, the actress is gay, but she doesn’t prefer women enough – or enough to silence her critics, at least.

Last year the Federal Communications Commission overturned the Obama-era policy (referred to as “net neutraliy”) that “had placed Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon under the strictest-ever regulatory oversight.”

The “net neutrality” debate has gone for several years but is now back in the news as a state rather than a federal issue. Last year, the attorneys general from over twenty states, including Illinois, sued to overturn the FCC’s action. Now legislation has been introduced in Springfield to apply “net neutrality” principles to Internet service providers that operate in Illinois.

The Illinois Family Institute occasionally addresses things that seem to be outside the realm of what would be considered “pro-family” issues. A closer look reveals that, as I’ve said often, all the issues are the same. Giving just one example of my point, the policy debate is typically between those who want more government and those who want less.

Three years ago, social issues commentator Stella Morabito wrote an article titled “15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality: Don’t fall for the ‘marriage equality’ sales pitch. It’s a deception.” In it, she wrote (and notice her reference to “net neutrality”):

Most persist in the blind faith that a federal ban on the standard definition of marriage will have no negative effect on family autonomy and privacy. That’s a pipe dream.

The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.

She goes on in her article to discuss the problem of “unintended consequences” that result when too many “Americans are in a fog” about the details backing up Leftist policy proposals.

I confess to not having investigated the issue of “net neutrality” until I was asked to write about it for IFI. Like a lot of people, I rely on writers and policy experts I’m familiar with and trust to provide short cuts for me to figure out which is the right course of action. Unfortunately, sometimes I disagree with my favorite writers, so that reliance is not foolproof.

In this case, however, I do side with “my trusted advisers.”

What’s in a Name?

Note Stella Morabito’s title mentioned above: “‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality.”

That reminds me of the “Affordable Care Act”? Like millions of others, my own health care policy soon became unaffordable after that monstrosity was enacted.

Leftists know how to deceive, so when something is called “net neutrality,” watch out. As one Chicago Democrat said, “A free and open internet is important to promoting a democratic society.” We have good reasons to suspect that “free and open,” means expensive and closed.

What it net neutrality? To its supporters, it is big government looking out for us little guys. Its opponents see it as a power grab by bureaucrats and lobbyists. Supporters believe it is our friendly and helpful government coming to the rescue of helpless people against large meanie corporations. Opponents say is it more government meddling that makes things worse.

Since the FCC acted, the cry from Leftists nationwide is “The fight for net neutrality is just beginning!” At the other end of the political spectrum, Heartland Institute president Tim Huelskamp, Ph.D. and former Kansas Congressman, said: “The FCC’s vote today [over-turning Obama’s regulation] is a vote for freedom from big government control of the internet.”

In the same article, Heartland policy expert Seton Motley agreed:

“The Trump administration is rightly and reasonably restoring that pre-2015 status — you know, the one that in 20 years transformed the internet from ‘What’s that?’ into one-sixth of our $18 trillion economy. There was nothing wrong with that internet. In fact, there was trillions and trillions of dollars’ worth of right with it.”

Seton then took the gloves off:

“Net neutrality is more of a religious concept than an economic one. Old-fashioned, heavy-handed utility regulation is what these zealots are really asking for. Their followers, like lemmings, support them based on ignorance, foolishness, and, as we have seen in some cases, malevolence. [Federal Communications Commission] Chairman Ajit Pai and the other FCC commissioners who joined him deserve our thanks for standing up to this mob and putting the interests of the country, as well as sound economic principles, first.”

Yes, I side with them.

That’s the big picture. For those who want to learn more specifics about the impact of having or not having “net neutrality,” below are several recommended articles and some excerpts from them. Included in the following is an explanation of why the words “net neutrality” are used, some technical information, and a review of similar regulatory actions by the government that impeded genuine technological progress.

* * * * *

Recommended Articles

How Ditching Net Neutrality Will Give Consumers More And Better Options

Do you really want ‘all or nothing’ to be your only choice in Internet plans? That’s what you get with so-called ‘net neutrality.’

From the article:

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, who supports overturning so-called net neutrality, told Reason in an interview: “It’s telling that the first investigations that the prior FCC initiated under these so-called Net Neutrality rules were involving free data offerings…To me it’s just absurd to say that the government should stand in the way of consumers who want to get, and companies that want to provide, free data.”

Letting Business Evolve Freely Makes Stuff Better Faster

The FCC under the Obama administration seemed to assume that “the more things change, the more we should force them to stay the same.” But the new and improved gadgetry we’ve grown accustomed to over the past couple decades has accompanied business models almost as innovative as the technology itself. We have “freemium” models for software, a dozen monetization strategies for websites, ride-hailing apps with experimental pricing algorithms, subscription-based video streaming services, and tons more creative ways to connect users and providers.

Other points made in the article:

• “Business is constantly evolving along with our technology to serve our varied interests. So why would we treat Internet service providers (ISPs) any differently than providers of other goods and services?”
• “Why stifle innovation by shoving them into the categorical box of “utility,” snapping the lid shut, and then sitting on it?”
• The FCC chairman said that “80 percent of fixed wireless providers have ‘held back on investing’ in infrastructure because of these [net neutrality] rules. While new tech may increase speeds and sites will continue to evolve, government has effectively frozen in place the way Internet is packaged and paid for. That can only serve the interests of the well-established players.

So, wait, big corporations like this governmental meddling? Yes.

• “It’s been harder for small ISPs to invest and expand under net neutrality the past two years. This set of policies hasn’t done anything to break up the pseudo-monopolies of Comcast and other Big Evil Corporations.”
• Under our current system, the giant telecom companies might be able to dominate the industry with terrible customer service, mediocre speeds, high prices, and opaque contracts forever.

Here is Daniel John Sobieski writing at American Thinker (another one of my “advisers”):

Net neutrality’s dubious value is made obvious by the misleading way Democrats and many news outlets reported the decision. “F.C.C. plans net neutrality repeal in a victory for telecoms,” wrote the New York Times. Missing from the headline or lede was that the decision was a loss for Netflix, Amazon, Google, and other corporate giants that provide content.

Liberals oppose the free flow of information they can’t control and in the name of providing equal access to all they sought to regulate the access of everybody. They, in effect, sought to put toll booths and speed bumps on the information superhighway.

. . .

President Obama feared the free flow of information as a threat to his power grabs and attempt to fundamentally transform the United States. Just as cable news eliminated the old guard network’s role as gatekeepers of what we saw and heard, the Internet freed information consumers to seek the truth and speak their minds in an unfettered environment.

Under net neutrality, the FCC took for itself the power to regulate how Internet providers manage their networks and how they serve their customers. The FCC would decide how and what information could flow through the Internet, all in the name of providing access to the alleged victims of corporate greed.

The Internet, perhaps as much as the first printing press, has freed the minds of men from the tyranny of those gatekeepers who know that if you can control what people say and know, you can control the people themselves. And that is what President Obama feared. In a May 2010 commencement speech to graduates at Hampton University in Virginia, President Obama complained that too much information is actually a threat to democracy.

The article includes what Obama had to say — you should read it and image what the reaction would’ve been if President Donald Trump had said that.

Again, here is Sobieski:

Net neutrality was not designed to liberate but to suppress. It is the Fairness Doctrine of the Internet that like Obama’s war on Fox News and conservative talk radio is designed to marginalize and silence those who disagree with those in power.

Here again is Robert Tracinski:

AT&T’s Monopoly Offers A Cautionary Tale For Net Neutrality

The history of AT&T shows how the Internet as we know it was born out of rejecting the policies that are the backbone of ‘net neutrality.’

Last week’s announcement that the Federal Communications Commission will soon vote to roll back “net neutrality” regulations has produced a lot of hysterical overreaction, with headlines proclaiming, “FCC Is Revving Up to Destroy the Internet as We Know It.”

This obviously counts on the audience’s ignorance of history. The Internet started in 1969 (depending on what you count as the Internet), and the Internet “as we know it,” i.e., what we used to call the World Wide Web, has been around for 22 years. For most of that time, the idea that the FCC has anything at all to do with the Internet would have been considered ridiculous (as it still should be). So I don’t think reversing a regulation that was only imposed two years ago is going to DESTROY the Internet.

I recommend all these articles. The next one gives a terrific history lesson, and dramatic real-life examples of how government regulation can impede innovation and (dare we use the word progressives claim ownership of…) “progress.”

Here the article’s close:

“It’s a tragedy,” [technology entrepreneur Bill] Frezza says, “to see people using the same arguments that were used back in 1913 to try to re-regulate the Internet.” If we don’t learn from telecom history, we will be doomed to repeat it.

The following article by Harry Khachatrain contains more details on the technological complexities — I can’t say I followed it all, but key facts were easy to understand:

Everything You Need To Know About Why Net Neutrality Is A Terrible Idea

The topic of net neutrality is one of the hottest debated issues of the modern day, and for good reason. We all use the internet and thus have a natural tendency to weigh in on issues regarding its regulation.

The internet, however, is a complex hierarchical structure riddled with reams of vagaries. Without first understanding them, people shouldn’t attempt to propose legislation.

Unfortunately, from Congressmen to commentators to comedians, this is exactly what we’ve been seeing regarding net neutrality.

Khachatrain asks, “why does Google itself support Net Neutrality?”:

Google is a huge proponent of Net Neutrality. Their website is outfitted with an uppity “We Stand Together. Support a #FreeAndOpen Internet” slogan.

However, Google is privy to the fact that smaller companies, competitors, and start-ups bereft of the resources and capital available to build a global network infrastructure and peer with providers, must instead become customers of higher tier service providers to reach end users.

And what better way to stifle competition in the market, than have these smaller companies subject to a bevy of regulations you’re free of.

Enforcing “net neutrality” does the exact opposite of what its proponents claim. It results in an internet where a handful of large corporations have access to peering agreements with large transit providers (what some people refer to as “the fast lane”), and the rest are subject to far fewer options in terms of services, and even upon growing and gaining market share, will be denied the opportunity to shop around for different ISP plans that suit them best.

For even more! — here are a few more articles:

Goodbye Net Neutrality; Hello Competition

We should take our deregulation where we can get it.

Here is one key paragraph:

What was sold as economic fairness and a wonderful favor to consumers was actually a sop to industrial giants who were seeking untrammeled access to your wallet and an end to competitive threats to market power.

Under the heading “Neutrality was Deceptive,” he writes:

But when you look closely at the effects, the reality was exactly the opposite. Net neutrality closed down market competition by generally putting government and its corporate backers in charge of deciding who can and cannot play in the market. It erected barriers to entry for upstart firms while hugely subsidizing the largest and most well-heeled content providers.

So what are the costs to the rest of us? It meant no price reductions in internet service. It could mean the opposite. Your bills went up and there was very little competition. It also meant a slowing down in the pace of technological development due to the reduction in competition that followed the imposition of this rule. In other words, it was like all government regulation: most of the costs were unseen, and the benefits were concentrated in the hands of the ruling class.

Here is Maureen Collins also writing at The Federalist, where she also included some important tech-facts, as well as Internet regulatory history):

Why ‘Net Neutrality’ Is Nothing More Than Corporate Power Grab

Giving the federal government control of the Internet wouldn’t bring greater freedom—it would enable bureaucrats and lobbyists to run the show.

Recently, you may have heard the scary news that the Trump administration is trying to destroy the internet. Last week, tech companies like Twitter and Facebook had a “week of action” to promote “Network Neutrality,” an initiative of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which the new Trump-appointed commissioner Ajit Pai is threatening to roll back.

However, like many things these days, this supposed threat is fake news. The name “net neutrality” may sound appealing, commonsensical, or even modern—but the truth is that the FCC has been pushing this initiative for the past decade, despite several Constitutional challenges. When you strip down the internet jargon and flashy activist promotions, net neutrality is nothing more than a New Deal-era power grab. It’s outdated, unfair, and ultimately puts the government in charge of policing web content.

Here is Robert Tracinski writing at The Federalist:

The Hypocritical Dishonesty Of The Net Neutrality Campaign

Underneath Mozilla’s blatantly hypocritical posturing about ‘censorship’ and freedom of speech, net neutrality is really just about a money grab.

The Federal Communications Commission’s attempt to turn Internet service providers into regulated utilities, which the Trump administration has just reversed, was never about stopping them from controlling content. It’s actually about money. It’s about who pays for all of that bandwidth we’re using. To be more specific, it’s about trying to make certain unpopular companies (like Comcast) pay for it, so that other, more popular companies (like Netflix) don’t have to.

Two more items worth mentioning. First, the new Trump-era FCC chairman was seriously harassed and even had death threats.

Finally, Rush Limbaugh talked about net neutrality back in November of last year — here is a part of what he had to say in opposition to it:

The government does not mean cheaper. The government has never meant cheaper. The government doesn’t mean equal. The government doesn’t mean fair. It never has. What the government means, in this context, is reduced services and less competence. It is competition that makes prices lower. It’s competition that enables innovation, better services. And this is a classic example of liberals succeeding in making people believe that corporations and industry are the enemy of people, that they are out to harm people, that they’re out to financially screw people…

And the government is the great fixer, government is the tamer of these wild financial beasts who want to deprive you of your Netflix and your Hulu and whatever else you watch. It’s classic how they have succeeded in making people believe that only the government can fix problems and make things fair. When you look at anything the government has its hands in, it isn’t efficient, it isn’t cheap, and it doesn’t work!

Worldview Conference May 5th

Worldview has never been so important than it is today!  The contemporary culture is shaping the next generation’s understanding of faith far more than their faith is shaping their understanding of culture. The annual IFI Worldview Conference is a phenomenal opportunity to reverse that trend. This year we are featuring well-know apologist John Stonestreet on Saturday, May 5th at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

The Leftist mainstream press has been on its heels for months now for its biased and erroneous reporting. The more it’s criticized for biased reporting, the more biased it becomes while declaring itself unbiased. Next time Leftist journalists take (or fake) umbrage over President Donald Trump’s criticism of the mainstream press, pretending they think his criticism of bias is an attack on the foundation of our republic, or when a “progressive” talking head goes all middle-school snotty on a guest for his or her criticism of press bias, remember their responses–if you can–to these comments from Barack Obama and his water-carriers who routinely accused Fox News of being a de facto fake news network and shill for the Republican Party:

Obama:

“We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated…. [Y]ou had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition—it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.”

“If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.”

“I’ve got one television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration.”

Implying that negative views of him result from the misrepresentation of him on FOX News, Obama said, “They’re responding to a fictional character named Barack Obama who they see on Fox News or who they hear about through Rush Limbaugh.”

“I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls.[T]he way I’m portrayed 24/7 is as a freak!” 

Obama refers to fictional character Uncle Jim to imply that FOX News is inaccurate: “Uncle Jim, who’s been watching Fox News, thinks somehow I raised taxes.” 

“Look if I watched Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me either. You’ve got this screen, this fun-house mirror through which people are receiving information.” 

Again accusing FOX News of disseminating false stories: “…Fed by Fox News, they hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7, and it begins to seep in.”

“There’s a reason fewer Republicans are running around against Obamacare—because while good, affordable health care might still be a fanged threat to the freedom of the American people on Fox News, it turns out it’s working pretty well in the real world.”

“And if all you’re doing is watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh and reading some of the blogs that are churning out a lot of misinformation on a regular basis, then it’s very hard for you to think that you’re going to vote for somebody who you’ve been told is taking the country in the wrong direction.” 

Obama’s team:

Obama communications director Anita Dunn: “We’re going to treat them the way we would an opponent. As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

Anita Dunn also said that FOX News operates “almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.”

White House senior advisor David Axelrod on This Week with George Stephanopoulos in 2009: “It’s really not news—it’s pushing a point of view. And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way.”

In an interview with ABC News in 2009, White House spokesman Josh Earnest described FOX News as “an ideological outlet,” saying, “We figured Fox would rather show So You Think You Can Dance than broadcast an honest discussion about health insurance reform.”

In CNN’s State of the Union, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel shared Obama’s view of  FOX News: “I suppose the way to look at it and the way…the president looks at it…It’s not a news organization so much as it has a perspective.”

Recently, Sebastion Gorka, military analyst and deputy assistant to Trump, was interviewed by CNN’s smug, disdainful Jake Tapper who was reduced to a mine-is-better-than-yours playground taunt in this exchange:

Gorka: The last 16 years, to be honest—disastrous. The policies that were born in the beltway by people who have never worn a uniform, the people who were in the White House like Ben Rhodes… helped to create the firestorm that is the Middle East, that is ISIS today. So, we are open to new ideas because the last 16 years have failed American national interests and the American taxpayer.

Tapper: There were plenty of people who wore a uniform who advised President Obama and advised President Bush.

Gorka: Not people as influential as Ben Rhodes who had a master’s degree in fictional writing. That is disastrous.

Tapper: Well, I’m sure [Rhodes] would put his graduate degree against yours any day of the week.

Yes, a news anchor actually said that.

In an interview with Anderson Cooper, Gorka called CNN on the carpet for the absence of substantive “reportage.” When Gorka asserted that CNN’s coverage of the White House was corrupted by the desire to increase ratings, a contemptuous Cooper responded, “Okay, I’m just going to ignore the insults because I don’t think it really gets us anywhere.” Apparently, an obtuse Cooper didn’t notice that in his retort he actually did respond to the “insults.”

After the interview, Cooper ridiculed Gorka, referring to him as the “Hungarian Don Rickles.” This from the anchor who in May said to a Trump defender, “If [Trump] took a dump on his desk, you would defend him.”

Cooper better never criticize Trump for lack of decorum.

MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle embarrassed herself as well. In answer to her question about where Trump would be during the August congressional recess, Gorka said, “[I]n the last 25 weeks, you’ve seen [Trump’s] leadership, from the Southern border, to NATO, to Warsaw, to the economy, to the stock market. We’re crushing it, and he can do that from anywhere.” For no apparent reason other than childishness, Ruhle responded, “Alright, well, the White House doesn’t ‘crush’ a stock market, but I do appreciate your time.”

Maybe I’ve forgotten, but I can’t recall hearing Special Report’s Bret Baier ever responding to a  guest like the adolescent Tapper, Cooper, or Ruhle did.

Some will argue that many of Trump’s tweets are inappropriate, distracting, or worse. Some will argue that Gorka’s comments were unnecessarily provocative (that said, it doesn’t take much to provoke self-righteous, brittle, thin-skinned “progressives”). Neither of those issues is my concern here. My concern here is with the hypocrisy, arrogance, and bias that now corrupt the Fourth Estate. Many on both sides of the political aisle believe a free and fair press remains a critical cultural institution. Many, however, also believe the absence of objectivity, neutrality, or impartiality in most mainstream press outlets (as in many other cultural institutions, especially academia) pose a danger to the republic, and that should concern all Americans.

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

“War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.”

This was the slogan of George Orwell’s fictional English Socialist Party (INGSOC) of Oceania, from his timeless dystopian novel “1984.”

Orwell depicted a mind-control technique employed by INGSOC called “doublethink,” which “describes the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.”

If the malleable masses could be made to believe self-contradictory, patently absurd and empirically impossible concepts as true, went Orwell’s thesis, they could then be made to believe, or do, anything.

We have entered an age that George Orwell might never have imagined. Today’s “American Socialist Party” (the secular left) has applied the doublethink mind-control technique on a grand scale.

Its slogan?

“Male is Female; Female is Male; Evil is good.”

Indeed, not only do secular leftists like Barack Obama stubbornly maintain that objective morality be treated as relative – that evil is good and good evil; they now demand that the immutable laws of physics and biology be similarly repealed.

There are things true and things untrue. It is true, for instance, that water is composed of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen (H20). No amount of wishful thinking, angry foot-stomping, or even a tyrannical presidential edict issued to America’s public school chemistry classes can change this unchangeable reality.

It is likewise true that a person born with XX chromosomes is, and shall always be, female, while a person born with distinct X and Y chromosomes is forever male. Again, no amount of self-delusion, gnashing of teeth, cross-dressing, genital mutilation surgery, or utterly bizarre presidential doublethink dictates can alter this unalterable fact.

While we would call a person who subjectively insists that water is comprised of pure hydrogen either ignorant or insane, we incongruously call the person who similarly insists that a man can somehow “transition” to a woman, “progressive.”

Even so, it is neither ignorance nor insanity that drives the progressive goal of a creating a “genderless” society. It is something far more sinister.

It is temporal control.

And it is spiritual defiance.

Progressive efforts to “legalize” genderless “marriage” by way of extra-constitutional judicial fiat do not make it legitimate marriage any more than “legalizing” abortion makes it not murder. Likewise, calling a sexually confused man a “trans-woman” makes him no more a woman than cutting the stem off a banana makes it a cantaloupe.

Yet, this “Emperor’s New Clothes” agenda moves ahead at breakneck speed. The necks to be broken, of course, are possessed by those who embrace the biblical sexual ethic and the morality of modesty.

There are multiple layers within progressivism’s pseudo-utopian, truly dystopian philosophy. The left’s lust for redistributionist statism is well-known. Less understood is the progressive rush toward cultural Marxism. With the fast-burgeoning and well-organized push to open girls’ bathrooms and showers to sexually confused men, the menace of cultural Marxism has reached unprecedented levels.

Cultural Marxism entails, among other things, that secularist aspect of left-wing statist ideology that seeks, within society, to supplant traditional values, norms and mores with postmodern moral relativism. It endeavors to destroy innocence, sexualize children, desensitize them to sexual perversion of every stripe and, quite literally, expose as many young girls as possible to adult male genitalia.

Cultural Marxists aim to scrub America of her Judeo-Christian, constitutional-republican founding principles and take, instead, a secular-statist Sharpie to our beloved U.S. Constitution.

Historian and U.S. military affairs expert William S. Lind describes cultural Marxism as:

“a branch of Western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as ‘multiculturalism’ or, less formally, Political Correctness. From its beginning, the promoters of cultural Marxism have known they could be more effective if they concealed the Marxist nature of their work, hence the use of terms such as ‘multiculturalism.’”

Pastor, attorney and former Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Scott Lively is globally admired by liberty-loving traditionalists. Conversely, he’s universally reviled by cultural Marxists. He drills down a bit deeper:

“Cultural Marxism is a variation of the Marxist strategy to build a utopian socialist order on the ashes of Christian civilization, but through subversion of the moral culture, especially the elimination of the natural family, rather than solely through destruction of capitalism.”

True though this may be, the ideological seeds of contemporary cultural Marxism nonetheless sprout from deep within the dead soil of historical communism. It is not economic redistributionism alone through which progressives seek to both “fundamentally transform America” and otherwise conquer the world, but rather, and perhaps primarily, it is through victory over the pejoratively tagged “social issues” (i.e., sin-centric “gay marriage,” “gender identity” and “neutrality,” perverting human sexuality, morality and the natural family structure, child sacrifice via abortion on demand, abolishing religious liberty and so on).

Regrettably, today’s “low-information voters,” as Rush Limbaugh calls them – to include the useful idiots within the GOP’s “moderate” and libertarian wings – are simply too lazy, shortsighted or both to learn the facts. “Surrender on the ‘social issues’!” demands the GOP’s cultural Marxist-enabling kamikazes.

Still, as the American Family Association’s tremendously successful boycott of Target, which has cost that gender-bending company billions of dollars and millions of customers, coupled with the dozen or more states that have rejected Obama’s open bathrooms and showers edict reveals: We Americans who happen to be tethered to scientific and moral reality will never, ever surrender.

In the temporal realm, secular leftists’ chaotic crusade to destroy marriage, the family and create a “Brave New World” of despotic androgyny is a revolt designed to bring down Western civilization – an oppressive patriarchy, as they view it, which stems from the archaic precepts of Judeo-Christian morality.

In the spiritual realm, the gender agenda represents fist-shaking rebellion against the very Creator who, “at the beginning … ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’” (see Matthew 19:4-5).

It remains to be seen how the temporal battle will play out.

The spiritual battle is a foregone conclusion.

What one subject could possibly bring together radio host Rush Limbaugh, drag queen Ru Paul, and Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia?

It is the “T” word in the LGBTQ acronym, “transgender,” now hailed by Time Magazine as the new civil rights frontier.

And for Rush and Ru, it is the “tranny” word in particular that brings them together.

Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction.

Before broaching this topic, however, it’s important to remember that many people do suffer terribly because of gender identity issues, sometimes to the point of suicide, and as I’ve said many times before, whatever we can do to help these people find true wholeness, we should do it.

That being said, I do not believe that ultimate, true wholeness is found in crossdressing or in putting prepubescent kids on hormone blockers or in resorting to sex-change surgery plus hormones for life.

And because I hold to these views, I am officially transphobic. (If you’re not familiar with terms like transphobe, transphobic, and transphobia, then you’d better get used to them in a hurry.)

I also do not believe that trans is the new black any more than I believe that gay is the new black, which officially makes me not just a transphobe but a bigoted transphobe.

Such is the climate of the day.

Time’s May 29, 2014 cover story was entitled “The Transgender Tipping Point,” and the article began by explaining that, “Nearly a year after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, another social movement is poised to challenge deeply held cultural beliefs.”

It was this article that Rush was referring to on his May 29th show, stating that it was the folks at Time “who discuss the Scalia Supreme Court ruling and what he meant, and they say he was right. Now doors are wide open.”

This would not be the first time that Scalia’s warnings have proven true.

Already in 2003, in his dissenting opinion to Lawrence v. Texas, where 6 Supreme Court justices found a constitutional “right” to sodomy, Justice Scalia stated that, “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest . . . are … called into question by today’s decision.”

Precisely so.

Things have gotten to the point that today, in some states, transgender rights overrule everyone else’s rights. They even overrule common sense.

Getting back to Rush, he was referencing Time’s story when a caller who identified himself as Tina (he would obviously want to be referred to as “she”) took exception to his comments, not realizing that he was citing Time’s sentiments rather than his own.

As the conversation ensued and Tina explained that it was offensive to use the word “tranny,” Rush sarcastically played along, a fact which escaped Huffington Post columnist Catherine Taibi, who wrote that, “Rush Limbaugh got a long overdue lesson on Thursday when a transgender caller, Tina, smacked down his use of the word ‘tranny.’

“While attempting to defend himself against the caller’s claim that he is anti-transgender rights, Limbaugh assured her that he has ‘been for trannies for a long time.’”

Did Taibi not understand what Rush was doing? He even stated after the break, “I made a note to ask [Tina] a question ’cause she was still talking and I covered the note up with a piece of paper. It’s a salient question. ‘How do you react when you hear people talk about trans fats?’ But I never got a chance to ask. So hopefully I will have an opportunity to ask that and clarify whether or not that’s offensive. ‘Cause we don’t want to use it if it is.”

Did Taibi really miss this?

What makes this more interesting still is that Tina, the caller, told Rush that Ru Paul had taken a position on the term tranny. As noted in Daniel D’Addario’s May 27th article on Salon.com, “Over the weekend, RuPaul accused those offended by his use of [the term Shemale] as well as ‘tranny’ of operating in bad faith and policing his behavior in an attempt to become the oppressor . . . .”

Paul even tweeted out the message, “Forget an outside threat, the ‘Gay Movement’ will eat itself from the inside out,” with reference to Orwell’s Animal Farm.

So, transgender is the new civil rights frontier, Time Magazine acknowledges the accuracy of Justice Scalia’s warnings, Rush Limbaugh plays along with a transgender-identified caller and makes a sarcastic note to himself to inquire about the term “trans fats” being offensive, the Huffington Post thinks Rush is being serious, and Ru Paul predicts that the “Gay Movement” will destroy itself.

Welcome to America, 2014.

Who can predict what’s coming next? Perhaps it will be that not only Scalia’s warnings but those also of Ru Paul will prove true?

WARNING: Not for younger readers

Let’s hope that audience members at the Dan Savage speaking engagement this coming Sunday, April 29, 2012 at Elmhurst College demonstrate the good sense and courage that several high school students recently demonstrated.

Dan Savage, the vulgar, vitriol-spewing, homosexual sex columnist was for some bizarre reason invited to be the Friday keynote speaker at a national convention for high school journalism students held in Seattle, Washington last week.

Savage, being Savage, employed his usual anti-religious, obscene rhetoric, and when some offended high school students walked out, the middle-aged Savage called them “pansies.”

In the convention’s program, Savage is described as a “popular, sex advice columnist” who offers “frank, funny advice on sex and relationships” and “creates a safe space for all audiences to discuss ‘taboo’ topics.” Two things to note: 1. The event planners knew exactly what they were getting in hiring Savage for an event for high school students. 2. In academia, a “safe space” means a place where volitional homosexuality must be affirmed as moral. The presence of any dissenting ideas renders a space “unsafe.”

After Savage’s presentation, faculty adviser for students from Overland Park, Kansas, Jim Mccrossen, told his students that “‘it is important to be challenged in what you believe because you never become stronger in anything if you are not challenged.'” When I worked at Deerfield High School, English teacher Jeff Berger-White made this same claim in our local press when defending his decision to teach the obscene, homosexuality-affirming play Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes by homosexual playwright Tony Kushner:

‘There are going to be times during their years in high school, if we (teachers) are doing are (sic) jobs well, when most students should feel intellectually, emotionally, and even morally challenged.’ 

Some questions emerge from these teachers’ claims: First, is it really the job of public high school teachers to challenge students emotionally and morally? Second, if it is, how often do teachers in public schools provide resources or activities that challenge “progressive” views of homosexuality? How often do they have students read essays by scholars who dissent from the views of Dan Savage or Tony Kushner? How many students have read an essay by Princeton law professor Robert George or Providence College English professor Anthony Esolen or Amherst professor Hadley Arkes? How many students have read any essays at all by a conservative scholar on topics related to homosexuality?

Dan Savage’s signature project, the effort for which he is most well-known, is the “It Gets Better” Campaign in which actors, politicians, and ordinary people affirm homosexuality while telling hurting kids who experience same-sex attraction that life will get better. This has the superficial gloss of a positive message but is based on foundational assumptions that are ultimately socially irresponsible, intellectually bankrupt, and an affront to human dignity — the very opposite of the values Elmhurst College claims to hold.

Here are some of the values and visions that Elmhurst College affirms:

Mission

Elmhurst College inspires its students…to prepare for …ethical work in a multicultural, global society. … [W]e foster learning, broaden knowledge, and enrich culture through…scholarship.

Vision for the Future

Elmhurst College …asks our students to become… academically grounded, intellectually engaged, and socially responsible citizens, who understand and respect the diversity of the world’s cultures and peoples.

Core Values

Intellectual Excellence
We value intellectual freedom, curiosity, and engagement; [and] rigorous debate.

Community
We are committed to… mutual respect among all persons…and fairness and integrity in all that we do.

Stewardship
We are committed stewards of the human, fiscal, and physical resources entrusted to us.

Faith, Meaning, and Values
We value the development of the human spirit in its many forms and the exploration of life’s ultimate questions through dialogue and service. We value religious freedom and its expressions on campus. Grounded in our own commitments and traditions as well as those of the United Church of Christ, we cherish values that create lives of intellectual excellence, strong community, social responsibility, and committed stewardship.

Let’s see if Dan Savage reflects the mission of Elmhurst College to prepare students for “ethical work”; or its vision to have students become “academically grounded” and socially responsible citizens who “respect the diversity of the world’s peoples”; or the college’s core values regarding “mutual respect,” “integrity,” “intellectual excellence,” and “social responsibility.”

Here are some quotes from Savage (with links to videos, lest anyone think I’m cherry-picking quotes or pulling them out of context):

He describes conservative Christians like “Tony Perkins” as “right-wing, fundamentalist, bat sh*t, a**h*le, dou**ebag Christians,” and as the “Evangelical Taliban Christian Family Association.” He also tells “progressive” Christians to start “screaming in Tony Perkins’ face.”  I wonder if such rhetoric creates a “safe space” for people who hold orthodox, historical theological beliefs?

Even with asterisks, I can’t repeat what Savage says at his speaking engagements. If you choose to watch the ones we’ve provided links to, bear in mind that Savage has an adopted son who was between 10-12 years old when Savage was saying things publicly that no father should say even privately (WARNING—GRAPHIC,  OBSCENE LANGUAGE):  HERE, HERE,  HERE, HERE and HERE.  (UPDATE:  We discovered last night that a number of Savage’s YouTube videos were removed after this article was published.)

What is ironic is that after Rush Limbaugh used offensive language to describe a feminist activist, the Obama Administration took him to task, but even Dan Savage’s well-documented history of referring to conservative Christians as “bat sh*t, a**h*le, d**chebags” and advocating the most perverse sexual practices in the most foul language doesn’t stop President Obama from inviting him to the White House.

Elmhurst College claims to value “rigorous debate,” the “exploration of life’s ultimate questions through dialogue,” intellectual engagement, and diversity. If so, will the college be inviting speakers who espouse different views of the nature and morality of homosexuality than Savage and who do so in a different manner, that is to say, without obscene language that degrades rather than develops the human spirit.

Savage’s invitation seems to be part of a larger effort on the part of Elmhurst College to promote arguable assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexuality. Some months ago, Elmhurst College made the national news for being the first college in the nation to ask on its college application whether applicants identify as homosexual, bisexual, or transgender. The administration defended this question by asserting an offensive and absurd comparison of race to conditions constituted by subjective desire and volitional sexual acts.

In so doing, Elmhurst College administrators reveal their own ignorance. And by promoting contemporary ideas about “LGBT identity,” they reveal their theological heresy — not that theological orthodoxy is important to Elmhurst College, which bears virtually no imprint of its theological heritage. But boy oh boy does it proudly show the mark of sexual unorthodoxy to which even pedagogical soundness must bow in obeisance.

Elmhurst College’s Hammerschmidt Memorial Chapel, which once echoed with the thoughtful, civil voices of Elie Weisel and Martin Luther King Jr., will now be polluted by the odious rhetoric of Dan Savage. 

Saul Alinsky is alive and well in the political maneuverings of the secular left. The problem is; we all have the play book now.

As most know, Rush Limbaugh has been under fire of late for comments he made about 30 year-old “reproductive justice” radical Sandra Fluke. Ms. Fluke recently gained national attention while testifying before Congress. There, she demanded that Georgetown Law, a Jesuit University, underwrite her stated fornication practices by paying for her and other students’ birth control and, ostensibly, abortions. Fornication and abortion, of course, are considered “mortal sins” in Christianity. Catholic doctrine further bars the church from providing contraception.

Rush said of Fluke: “[T]hey’re talking about, like this left-wing sl-t, what’s her name? Sandra Fluke?”

Not really. Actually that bile came from the revolving pie-hole of MSNBC’s Ed Schultz in reference to conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham. Ms. Fluke recently went on Schultz’s program to criticize Limbaugh for indirectly suggesting that, in light of her admitted sexually immoral lifestyle, she was a “sl-t” (an offensive and inappropriate slang for which he has apologized).

During the interview Ms. Fluke somehow failed to mention Schultz’s identical insult of Ingraham. (An inadvertent oversight, I’m sure.)   

And speaking of double standards: the media has made much fanfare about a staged phone call from President Obama to Ms. Fluke to “ask how she was holding up.” (No call yet to the similarly aggrieved Laura Ingraham.)

Additionally, Obama has refused to return – or even answer questions about – a one million-dollar donation from serial misogynist Bill Maher who, among other things, has called Sarah Palin far worse.

Mainstream media-types have no interest in this double standard because they share it. They’re duty-bound to ignore the palpable hypocrisy. To do otherwise would undermine the absurd “GOP-has-declared-war-on-women” narrative. (By ‘women,’ of course, they mean liberal women – outnumbered by Rush-supporting conservative gals two-to-one).     

Indeed, Limbaugh has become the left’s flashpoint in this twofold election year ploy to both sour women against the GOP and distract from Obama’s impending debt bomb, skyrocketing gasoline prices and the threat of a nuclear Iran.

David Burge of the Iowa Hawk blog summed it up nicely in a tweet: “How can you monsters talk about a $15 trillion debt at a time like this, when a brave coed has hurt lady-feelings?”

Yes, how can we focus on trillions in Obama debt, $6.00 gasoline and Islamo-fascists with nukes while a Georgetown “coed” is being denied free medication from Christians for her “Saturday night fever”?

Well, I have it on good authority that today Rush is chewing a big fat Padron Toro and laughing himself silly. Every time McCarthyite liberals take a swing at El Rushbo, they get their hemp-clad heinies handed to them. It’s like watching Andre the Giant toss midgets.

On Wednesday, Rush announced on his show that the “progressive” machine’s latest effort to bring him down via a sponsorship boycott was failing fantastically. Following the DNC-manufactured Fluke dust-up, Rush revealed that he has suffered zero revenue loss (even making gains); that he has a wait list of new advertisers lining up, and that some of his former sponsors – who hastily bowed to leftist pressure and dropped him – are now “practically begging to come back.”   

This comes as little surprise. One such sponsor, Carbonite, saw its stock plummet by twelve percent overnight after announcing it was pulling its spots. This is what happens when a company puts partisan politics over profit.

Limbaugh – rated number one in talk radio – has tens-of-millions of loyal, activist listeners who love to spend tons of cash on the products Rush plugs. (Wonder how long before Carbonite CEO and MoveOn.org supporter David Friend “steps down” to “spend more time with his family”?)    

Still, liberal attempts to sidetrack aside, the cultural issues embedded within this Fluke flap are worthy of discussion. Only a dying culture lionizes a woman who publicly impugns – with pride – her own honor and virtue. Yet, to the left, she’s a hero.

It’s genuinely sad that, as a society, we are no longer appalled that a young, single woman – though very nice, I’m sure – would go on national television nonetheless, to proudly and publicly boast that, to her, while sex is cheap and casual, dealing with the potential consequences is so expensive that those of us who disagree must subsidize her bad behavior.

Can someone please explain to me how and why a woman’s “right” to be promiscuous is my financial responsibility? If you refuse to buy your own “preventative medicine,” why not hit up the fellas? Last I heard it takes two to do the fornication Fandango.

This is by design. Secular-“progressives” have been working to deconstruct traditional sexual morality for generations. The goal is to impose – under penalty of law – their own moral relativist, sexual anarchist worldview. (Hence, the unconstitutional ObamaCare mandate requiring that Christian groups cast aside millennia-old church doctrine, and get with the postmodern program.)  

But, beyond this assault on religious freedom and the moral implications surrounding the debate, Ms. Fluke has additionally set the true women’s movement back decades. Her public groveling for free contraception and abortifacients reinforces the sexist stereotype that single women can’t survive without welfare. Women’s empowerment? More like patriarchal government dependency.

Still, like so much in its propagandist bag of tricks, the left’s entire “denied access to contraception” premise is built upon a lie. Liberals would have you believe that, for decades, women seeking birth control – already cheap and often free – have been systemically tackled in front of Walgreens by a bevy of white, Republican Catholic Priests.

Name one woman who has been “denied access” to birth control – ever. Show me one Republican politico who wants to “ban contraception.”

There are none.

Birth control at Walgreens? A few dollars. Taking personal responsibility for your own lifestyle choices and consequences? Priceless.

That’s all Rush was saying.