Last week could be regarded as the worst week yet for this administration.

Benghazi whistleblowers tell the truth about the 2:00 am phone call no one answered. ABC News finally decided to wake up and act like journalists when Jonathan Karl reported on the 12 different versions of the talking points that evolved to cover up the true cause of the attack, terrorism. This results in Jay Carney, White House spokesperson, being caught in a lie when he said the talking points were just slightly edited due to a single “inaccurate” word.

To add insult to injury, the parents of the SEAL Team 6 members who were killed in a helicopter crash in 2011 reveal in a press conference several points about the Commander in Chief’s leadership.

Read the rest here at On the Culture.

Contrary to the “spin” that the U.S. Consulate assault was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam YouTube video, the truth is that American officials knew “from the get-go” that it was a premeditated terrorist attack by al-Qaida-linked terrorists. In fact, failures to heed Stevens’ calls for increased security due to heightened terrorist threats and decisions to have Special Forces “stand down” rather than respond to the attack proved lethal for four brutally murdered Americans.

Read the rest of the post here.

After a spate of traumatic tragedies that impact the gun and immigration debates, feverish politicians are rushing to innovate complex legislation without thoroughly and publicly examining the underlying problems and before “we the people” consent to their solutions. Lawmakers should Think Again, considering that only 4 percent of Americans currently “mention guns or immigration as the most important problems facing the nation,” according to Gallup. Americans’ top concerns are the economy, jobs and dissatisfaction with the way government works.

If irony is the hygiene of the mind, much about the Boston Marathon massacre is clarifying, though boggling. Intent on massacring Bostonians on Patriots Day, the immigrant brothers Tsarnaev received state welfare benefits funded by the taxpayers they killed and maimed. Then they murdered a police officer en route to hijacking a car with a “Coexist” bumper sticker. Perhaps inspired by “Coexist” sentimentality, the fugitive sociopaths allowed the car’s owner to live “because he wasn’t American,” assuring their capture and non-coexistence in the American community they shunned.

Continue reading here

Having gained widespread media attention for his recent National Prayer Breakfast speech in which he critiqued political correctness, Carson apologized for his off-the-cuff, maladroit and incorrect political critique of same-sex marriage, reiterating his belief that gays must be assured equal civil and legal rights without changing the definition of marriage.

Were Johns Hopkins students more sage, they’d Think Again before dissing this distinguished man of character, accomplishment and philanthropy for sharing Bill and Hillary Clinton’s marriage definition — until “evolving” last month — though not their political dexterity. Before exiting the ivory tower, students could learn from Jimi Hendrix, who believed, “Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens,” and Benjamin Franklin, who taught, “If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking.”

Apparently they don’t think much at Johns Hopkins, where the Student Government Association denied the pro-life group Voices for Life recognition as an approved organization. Without alternative voices on campus, how does the university assure the diversity it champions? Might ardent though free-thinking supporters of women’s reproductive rights want to know that a representative of Planned Parenthood (half of whose budget is taxpayer-funded) recently testified before the Florida Legislature that the decision of what to do with a baby who survives a failed abortion be left up to the patient and her doctor, begging the question: Who’s the patient?

Read the rest of the post here.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act, better known as Obamacare, is like a jar of peanut butter.

Here’s my thinking:

Right now, there is a jar of peanut butter (which is the medical profession, including private care, Medicare and Medicaid). It can make 20 peanut butter sandwiches with a nice spread of peanut butter on the bread.

When Obamacare kicks in, that same jar of peanut butter will now have to spread across 100 peanut butter sandwiches. Everyone still gets a taste, but the layer of peanut butter is much thinner. More people added to the roles with the same amount of services. As the bill was promoted to Americans as a way to allow millions more people access to affordable care, a new challenge presents itself. Same amount of health care facilities and professionals with many more people able to seek care.

Unfortunately, the speculation is that the jar of peanut butter is going to get smaller. Due to the regulations that penalize hospitals for re-admittance of former patients, new taxes on medical devices, as well as the strict rules and added demands the increase in patients will have on doctors, the once 28 oz jar of peanut butter may shrink to a 16 oz jar.

That means an even thinner layer of peanut butter on our sandwiches.

Which begs the question: Will we eventually get to the point that some people don’t get any peanut butter on their sandwich because they are too _______ (fill in the blank: sick, old, disabled, etc)?

And we haven’t even talked about the price of that jar of peanut butter. That remains widely-debated. Many say the cost will go down for individuals. More say the cost could even double for families. We shall see.

What do think of this analogy? Please comment below.

House Bill 13-1081, proposed by Democratic lawmakers, would add language to Colorado state law defining standards for human sexuality education, and create a program of grants for school districts that want to implement such programs. The program would be run the Department of Public Health and Environment, and the grants would be funded by non-tax sources.

The problem with the government defining the sex education standards is they do not conform to what parents believe should be taught to their kids. The bill defines comprehensive human sexuality education as “medically accurate information about all methods to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and infections, including HIV and AIDS, hepatitis C, and the link between human papillomavirus and cancer. Methods must include information about the correct and consistent use of abstinence, contraception, condoms, and other barrier methods.”

What’s the difference between the content and messages of “comprehensive” sex-ed curricula, as proposed in House Bill 13-1081, and an authentic abstinence sex-ed curricula? The goal of the comprehensive sex-ed curricula is to reduce the immediate risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and pregnancy to teens. The predominant focus is on reducing risk by encouraging young people to use contraception. By contrast, the goal of an authentic abstinence program is to encourage adolescents to delay the onset of sexual activity and to help them gain a more mature understanding of sexuality.

Advocacy groups such as the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) and Advocates for Youth consistently claim that the public overwhelmingly supports comprehensive sex education. This claim is based on polls that show the public wants students to be taught about both sexual abstinence and contraception. While it is true that most parents want students to be taught both subjects, this attitude does not translate into support for the actual content of comprehensive sex-ed curricula.

Reviewing the content of a comprehensive sexual education program is shocking. Delaying sexual activity is simply not a significant concern in these programs. In fact, some comprehensive sex-ed programs encourage contraceptive use, teach teens how to obtain contraception, and instruct them on how to convince sex partners to use contraception. Most comprehensive sex-ed curricula have teachers demonstrate condom use by unrolling condoms on fingers or bananas. Children are taught what household substances are acceptable to use as lubricants. Human sexuality is presented primarily as a physical phenomenon (such as nutrition) and the predominant focus is on avoiding the physical problems of pregnancy and STD infection. With very rare exceptions, the curricula neither discourage nor criticize teen sexual activity, as long as “protection” is used. Is this what you want your children learning in the classroom?

I believe we need to draw the line on how and what the government dictates is taught to our children regarding sex education. Shouldn’t our schools be achieving acceptable levels of math and reading performance before we spend our grant monies teaching kids that they never need parental permission to obtain condoms?