President Obama Is A Hypocrite And Should Be Ashamed For Taking $1 Million From Bill Maher

President Obama Is A Hypocrite And Should Be Ashamed For Taking $1 Million From Bill Maher

(Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

Ira Pickett  |  March 25, 2012

When Bill Maher recently announced that he was ‘parting’ with $1 million to make a donation to help re-elect President Obama, I thought to myself that I’d never need to write a follow-up story about it.  Surely there would be no way that President Barack Obama, a married man,  father of 2 lovely young daughters and the President Of The United States would keep and use money from such a vile, misogynistic pig.   Particularly with the well documented history of berating women that Bill Maher has, there is no way that this President,  or ANY President for that matter, would accept a campaign donation from him, right? Wrong.  

Regardless of whether you consider yourself  liberal, independent, conservative, or a some type of combination of each, if you are an American, you should be absolutely outraged that our top elected official, commander-in-chief and President Of The United States is willing to say the right things, but as it appears, is unwilling to do the right thing. 

SAYING THE RIGHT THINGS

President Obama recently took the time to thrust himself into the national conversation regarding Rush Limbaugh’s over the top comments about Sandra Fluke, by condemning the discourse, and then personally calling Sandra Fluke to show his support for her.  He mentioned that, as a parent, he wouldn’t want his daughters being ‘attacked’ for their beliefs, views or for standing up for what they thought was right. Even going back to 2008, I recall Obama’s famous request to the media and political pundits to leave the children and families of the candidates ‘off limits’ during the Presidential campaign.  On the surface, in these statements it appears that Obama recognizes that he needs to say the right things, either because he has been told to or because he recognizes that it is what the average American expects to hear from a  top elected official.  On the flip side, however, it’s clear that he is unwilling to stand up for what is right when campaign contributions are involved.

DOING THE WRONG THINGS

So if President Obama really believes that Rush Limbaugh should not have used inappropriate words to describe Sandra Fluke, and that the media and others should not personally attack the children and families of political figures or others, then why does President Obama feel that it is ok to accept $1 million in campaign funding from a man who has built his career on insulting women and children?  How does Barack as a father explain to his daughters that what Rush Limbaugh has said is ‘wrong’ but the horrible words that Bill Maher regularly uses to describe women are ‘ok’?  

Obviously President Obama, the Democratic party and their political advisors do not care if you and I know that he is knowingly taking and using money from Bill Maher to attempt to get re-elected.  He clearly believes that either we as voters are not smart enough to understand or live with such disregard for values and integrity that we simply don’t care.  Well, I for one DO care,  and I am disgusted with his hypocritical behavior and I am ashamed for him as a father for the message that it sends to his children and all of the children of America.

By not rejecting the $1 million contribution Maher made to Obama’s Super PAC, Obama outwardly endorsed hate speech directed toward anyone with whom they do not agree and set a disappointing precedent for generations to come.

If you aren’t familiar with Bill Maher, you might want to take a look at this video.  Before clicking PLAY however, you may want to first make sure your children aren’t within listening distance.

Follow Ira Picket on twitter @irapickett.

 

Is Invisible Children And Kony 2012 Using Children To Rip You Off?

Is Invisible Children And Kony 2012 Using Children To Rip You Off?

(Photo credit PETER BUSOMOKE/AFP/Getty Images)

Ira Pickett  |  March 10, 2012

As reported on CBSNews.com  today, the new viral video “Kony 2012” has been seen by over 54 million viewers on YouTube, creating a buzz on TV, Radio, social networks, at the water cooler and in the classrooms all across Florida and America.  Reportedly, the San Diego non-profit organization raked in nearly $14 million in donations last year with roughly a third of that coming from it’s “Schools 4 Schools” program and general donations. 

According to various reports, many public school classrooms across the nation this week became theaters for the “Kony 2012” video when their teachers or administrators promoted the video or played it for their students.  In one short week the 30 minute short film about a Ugandan warlord accused of horrible crimes such as kidnapping up to 30,000 children over the last 26 years and turning girls into sex slaves and young boys into child soldiers – has been watched by over 54 million times.  At first glance, it would seem that this video serves a great purpose and that the money raised would be well spent to help protect children and bring the criminals to justice. But, unfortunately the story doesn’t end there.

GET INVOLVED, BUY OUR PRODUCTS, GIVE US YOUR MONEY, SHARE THIS VIDEO.

If you have ever sat thru a sales presentation at a local hotel by one of the large multi-level network marketing organizations,  you might think that “Invisible Children” has stolen the play-book on how to recruit participants, sell products and generate money from those that do it the best.  Of course, Invisible Children is not trying to get you to become your own household product wholesale work -at-home company, but they are trying to cause you to pull out your wallet.  Watching the video, you feel tremendous compassion for the children of Uganda and the plight and terror that they experience.  You see a wonderful presentation of how Invisible Children impacts these children and their communities.  And then when you arrive at the final minute of the video you are told exactly how YOU can get involved to make a difference:

1. Sign the pledge to show your support

2. Get the bracelet and the action kit

3. Sign up and donate a few dollars a month

Sounds fair enough, right?

THE DISGUSTING FACTS.

Of the near $14 million that Invisible Children  took in last year, only $3.3 million actually went to programs  in Central Africa.

So where did the rest of the money go?  Well, $2.3 million went to marketing; $1.4 million on management and general expenses; $700,000 on media; and $850,000 on “awareness products”.  The remaining $4.8 million is shown on their P&L as “income”. These figures come straight from their own 2011  financial report . 

EXCUSE ME?

Furthermore, Zach Barrows of Invisible Children told CBS News, “We’ve never pretended all the money goes to the ground, because we don’t believe that’s the best use. The best use is spreading the word and then doing the highest-impact programs possible on the ground.” 

So what we have here, is yet another non-profit organization that raises millions of dollars by twisting our emotions and goodwill and then only spends less than 25% of the take on programs that directly impact those that they are supposedly raising the money for. 

What’s even worse is that millions of children across America were used as carrier pigeons, having been  introduced to the propaganda in their school classrooms and then bringing the message home to encourage their families to donate.  I mean, what rational mom or dad wouldn’t want to help little boys and girls in Africa that are being forced into prostitution or other forms of slavery? 

Imagine being one of the parents who just found out today that  only $12 of the $50 that their family was duped into donating  was actually going to impact the children directly, and the remainder was being used for marketing, management salaries and profit for the organization. 

This is absolutely another example of what is wrong when a liberal attitude takes hold in our government and our communities.  Private corporations are villianized because of their stated goal to make profit for their employee’s and shareholders, and yet at the same time organizations like Invisible Children hide behind the guise of charitable activity and pay out millions of dollars in salaries, management fees, and marketing expenses while millions of well-intentioned Americans remain completely unaware as they hand over their hard-earned money. 

How did we get to the point in America where charitable organizations such as Invisible Children are nothing more than slick marketing companies using every ounce of technology to dupe us out of our last dollar, and less than 25 cents of it actually goes to help the intended? 

Honestly, I’d personally rather give my money to Wal-Mart or Bank Of America who donate billions of dollars annually for feed the hungry, help the hurting and improve our schools and communities within the structure of their FOR PROFIT corporations.  At least I know what I’m getting up front.

Want more Ira Pickett? Now you can listen to Ira Pickett audio on YouTube and follow him on Twitter @IraPickett.

Why Rush Limbaugh Was Right About Sandra Fluke

Why Rush Limbaugh Was Right About Sandra Fluke

Sandra Fluke wants you to pay for her birth control?

Ira Pickett  |  March 3, 2012

As the most trusted media personality in the nation (2008, Zogby International poll),  Florida’s most powerful conservative voice,  Rush Limbaugh again became a liberal lightning rod this week after his commentary on Sandra Fluke’s testimony at the Hearing on women’s reproductive health and contraception before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee (Feb. 23, 2012) set off a media firestorm and emotional outrage from democrats including the democrat-in-chief, President Obama. Did Limbaugh’s comments go too far? Perhaps, however he pointed out what the rest of the media failed to mention. Sandra Fluke’s testimony was completely absurd.

Fluke, a law student at Georgetown University Law School (a PRIVATE Jesuit Institution), told a well scripted tale of “dire circumstances“, and “suffering, emotionally, financially and medically” because of a lack of birth control coverage in the insurance plans of female students.  She stated that the cost of birth control can be “over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary.” Additionally, she asserted that “40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.” Later in her testimony, Fluke goes on to describe that “Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore…” and of another friend of her’s who “After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.” 

While most of the media is focusing on the controversial comments of Rush Limbaugh’s response to Flukes testimony, what is more troubling is that Sandra Fluke actually believed that what she was saying was true.  It appears that she believes that despite the fact that she is receiving a scholarship to attend the prestigious Georgetown Law School, she is entitled to even more from the government and YOU as a taxpayer.  As though receiving a $40,000+ per year scholarship is not enough, having to pay for her own birth control is simply too much to ask for Sandra Fluke and her like-minded peers. 

The absurdity of her testimony is highlighted by her over-dramitizating the burden that having to pay for birth control causes in young women’s lives. By Fluke stating that birth control costs $3,000 during law school (apparently assuming a 3-year term), she fails to mention that the figure actually works out to only approximately $80 per month using the assumption that the birth control being discussed is a medical prescription. For those using other forms of birth control, however, such as condoms, the cost is far less than a tall cup of coffee twice a week at your favorite corner java house (a typical box of 12 condoms sells for less than $15).  Sticking to the $80-a-month assumption that Fluke describes as a ‘burden’, however, is a slap in the face to the rest of America when that figure is only $20 a week for someone who is attending a private law school whose tuition, fees, room and board combined are higher than the average American’s annual household income.  

So, then why did Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee invite a student from one of the most prestigious law schools in the nation to testify about the hardships she and her peers face for having to pay for birth control, when they could have just as easily invited a working-class lower income woman who lives in subsidized housing in a failing midwest city who TRULY cannot afford prescription costs? 

The answer is simple and transparent.  Sandra Flukes testimony illustrates the extreme nature of the liberal lefts desire for a socialist state; an imaginary utopia where the government provides and cares for its people from birth to death.  A state where housing, child care, education, food, health care, transportation and all facets of life are provided and regulated by the government which is controlled by a small, elite group of overly educated thinkers who have no regard for personal freedom, liberty or the Constitution of the United States.  Fluke believes that she is entitled to everything, but responsible for nothing.  She believes that someone ‘else’ should be responsible for paying her way, regardless of the cost or burden to others.

A frightening theme of Sandra Fluke’s testimony can be seen in an entire generation of Americans that have seemingly forgotten what their parents, grand parents and great-grandparents fought so hard to defend 70 years ago when communism and fascism reared its ugly head on the other side of the earth, and threatened the very way of life and freedoms that we enjoy today. 

My grandfather who defended our freedom in Normandy would be rolling over in his grave if he heard the testimony of Sandra Fluke this week, and this new brand of expectations created by the generation preceding her and demanded by her and her peers.  Surely he would ask, as I am today, how did this great nation get to the point where paying for ones own birth control is no longer the responsibility of the individual, but instead that of everyone else?

Oh – and by the way, did I forget to mention that Sandra Fluke is actually 30 years old and has been a social activist for years?  For more information about who Sandra Fluke really is, read this article from The Blaze.

Ira Pickett’s opinion and commentary column “Definitely Not Decaf” can also be read  at CBSTampa.com.

Follow Ira on Twitter @irapickett