Liberals always twist and distort the story to serve their socialistic purposes. They usually do this in an election year for two purposes: to attract a class of voters and to distract the majority of voters from Obama’s failed policies.
If the media concentrates on somewhat trivial issues like the Komen Foundation versus Planned Parenthood and the Sandra Fluke versus Rush Limbaugh story, the Democrats will attract the sympathetic women voters. Secondly, by covering these stories, the media and democrats in collusion will distract the voters from real important issues facing this country; the economy, jobs, defense, gas prices etc.
Both conflicts offer illustrations how the team of the liberal media and the Democrat party use a cause to stir up trouble to receive sympathetic voters. They report a story that suggests a hint of controversary, bait a response, which conservatives obliged in both cases and then twist the story to support their causes.
In the Komen versus Planned Parenthood debate, many dissenters were upset to learn Komen was donating some of the charitable contributions they received and re-donated them to Planned Parenthood. The dissent is not because conservatives are against breast cancer research, it was because donors learned that some of their contributions were being “re-donated” to another organization that made them upset, regardless of the organization. The conservative dissenters were not against breast cancer research like the media projected, they were against charitable donations being re-donated to another cause!
Many charities use a high percentage of donated dollar retention rates to attract more contributions. An organization will state 95% of the contribution will be applied to the cause, and the remaining 5% will be for administration costs is an attempt to attract more donations, which is acceptable. Donors like to see the majority of their capital being used specifically for the purpose; and in this case, for breast cancer.
Donors do not like to be told that, and then learn that some of their contributions were re-donated like with Komen. Had the donors known their contributions were going to be re-donated, they might not have donated to the original organization in the first place. This deceitful hidden action only infuriated the Konen Foundation donors more and realizing the recipient only added insult. If people donate to the NAACP and later learn that some of their contribution were “re-donated” to the Ku Klux Klan, how would that make all the NAACP donors feel?
As everyone witnessed, Planned Parenthood has no trouble raising money, so why does it need contributions from Komen? If Planned Parenthood is that viable an organization, they should not have trouble raising money, and certainly should not have done it surreptitiously through Komen.
Instead, the media and the democrats blasted conservatives stating we were against women’s rights, against breast cancer research etc. They labeled us insensitive and uncaring. No, we just don’t like to have our donations applied to another organization we don’t support. If we support it, we would donate to it. We just don’t like the wool pulled over our eyes.
As for Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law School student who reportedly has had so much sex, she needs her Health Care to pay for her contraceptives, is the second attempt the Democrats are using to force Government run Health Care.
As for Rush’s comments, he described her accurately. Before you scream at me, there are words to describe people who are as promiscuous as she, and she fits the bill and should understand the reason behind the description. I mean, don’t mothers tell their college bound daughters not to be one. Isn’t the moniker Rush used similar to the description college men label women who are somewhat loose with their morals?
I ask, why would Ms. Fluke bring her story public if not for ulterior motives? How do you think her parents feel? If she can afford Georgetown Law, she should be able to afford contraceptives. I can support her argument to regulate her cycle, but would like a doctor’s prescription for that.
So what do the media and democrats do? They blast Rush Limbaugh for correctly describing her, creating sympathy with the women voters to push their health care agenda to force institutions and organizations to provide contraceptive coverage which are against their religious tenets. Is it any coincidence this started in downtown Washington Dc at a Catholic University?! Why didn’t the subject arise at a ststae university in Kanasa? Wouldn’t have the same impact. This is also an attempt for the Democrats to gather support for Obamacare when the case for its legality comes before the Supreme Court.
If this motive is non-existent, where were the outcries when Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham the same name? What about when Bill Maher used a more derogative term to call Sarah Palin? Oh, right, no agenda to push, other than to ridicule a republican.
The government should not be allowed to tell a religious organization what insurance to provide or not provide. It is unconstitutional. If a religious institution doe not want to provide contraceptive coverage, so be it. If you work for that organization, buy it yourself, it is a life choice.
So, people out there, just remember conservatives are for breast cancer research, we accept contraceptives, we just don’t like it when the liberal media democrat machine distorts the facts behind the story and twists our arguments to serve their purposes!