The Real Point of the Left’s Uproar over Limbaugh

[Ogopogo]

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/03/05/the- ... -limbaugh/


The Real Point of the Left’s Uproar over Limbaugh

Posted by Bruce Thornton Bio ↓ on Mar 5th, 2012 Comments ↓
70
Print This Post Print This Post

# A A A

Rush Limbaugh has got the progressives pitching a fit over some remarks on his radio show about a Georgetown University law student named Sandra Fluke. Fluke had made the preposterous claim, while addressing House Democrats over President Obama’s rule forcing Catholic institutions to pay for contraception, that the cost of birth control was prohibitive for Georgetown law students. Limbaugh responded by calling Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” who is “having so much sex, she can’t afford the contraception; she wants you and me – the taxpayers – to pay her.”

Progressive dudgeon hit the stratosphere. Democrat Representative Louise Slaughter wrote a letter that decried Limbaugh’s “sexually charged, patently offensive, and obscene language” and “atrocious and hurtful words.” MSNB’s Jonathan Capehart called the comments “hateful” and “rude,” and said they were “low” even for Limbaugh. Democrat “strategist” Krystal Ball (sic) called Limbaugh “despicable,” “disgusting,” and a “loathsome individual.” The Washington Post’s Jamila Bey called the remarks “hate speech” and claimed they “crossed into the realm of sexual harassment.” The president of Georgetown said the remarks were “misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student.”

And in the midst of crisis in the Middle East and the ticking entitlement time bomb, President Obama found time personally to call Fluke and deplore Limbaugh’s “inappropriate personal attacks.” Following the loss of some advertisers, Limbaugh apologized for what he called his “attempt to be humorous.”

I’m not interested in Limbaugh’s comments or whether or not they are “appropriate.” When you enter the political kitchen, as Fluke did, you should be ready to get scorched. As always, more interesting is the reaction to the comments. And that reaction once again reveals the monstrous hypocrisy of progressives. The folks who proclaim their sensitivity, nuanced thinking, therapeutic concern for the tender sensibilities of others, and open-mindedness have always been the most vicious, bigoted, narrow-minded, crude, dogmatic, conformist people on the planet. Take everybody’s exhibit number one, the HBO blowhard Bill Maher, who’s on record calling Sarah Palin a “c—t” and inviting Jon Huntsman to “suck my d—k.” I don’t remember the President calling Palin or Hunstman to regret “that our political discourse has become debased,” as his flack Jay Carney put it. Nor is anyone demanding that Obama-supporting superpac Priorities USA Action should return the million bucks Maher gave it. Why should they? Remember when Obama called the Tea Party folks “tea-baggers,” a vulgar sexual term? “Appropriate” and “debased” are in the eye of the progressive beholder, and depend on the ideology of whoever is being attacked.

Of course, in the progressive hysteria we are also subjected to the “chilling free speech” charge, as when Fluke on the Today Show Friday said that Limbaugh’s comments were an “attempt to silence me.” She apparently doesn’t think that her threat to sue Limbaugh––the left’s favorite WMD when it comes to destroying free speech–– might be an attempt to silence him. In fact, rather than “silencing” her, Limbaugh’s comments have given an obscure law student the biggest platform on the planet, at the same time Limbaugh’s apology suggests that it is his free speech that’s been “chilled.” And are the media so dumb that they don’t see the absurdity of a guest on the Today Show claiming to its 5.6 million viewers that someone tried to “silence” her?

More important than occasioning a display of progressive hypocrisy is Fluke’s claim that law students at a prestigious private school can’t afford birth control. If Fluke could produce one of her colleagues who doesn’t have an I-phone, an I-pad, an I-pod, a high-speed internet connection, or cable television; who doesn’t spend $20 a week at Starbucks, or has to eat ramen every night, or never takes a vacation, never eats out, never goes to bars or concerts; or who has parents on welfare who can’t contribute to her education, or works part-time at a burger joint, or has any other characteristics of someone so poor she can’t budget for birth control pills, then maybe she’d have a point. But even then, condoms are available for free at numerous clinics and even at some retail stores. And God forbid we should suggest that the young lady just say no.

The cost of birth control, though, is just a smokescreen. More pernicious is the assumption that, as Fluke puts it, “This is about women’s health.” In other words, unplanned pregnancy is a disease, something that like breast cancer just sort of happens to a woman, and for which she bears no responsibility. That’s how House minority leader Nancy Pelosi sees it. Speaking of the failed Senate amendment to allow religious organizations not to fund contraception, Pelosi said that the measure was “part of the Republican agenda of disrespecting women’s health issues [by] allowing employers to cut … basic health services for women, like contraception, mammograms, prenatal and cervical-cancer screenings.”

Since pregnancy is a disease, then, someone else should pay the premium for insuring against the consequences of a woman’s risky, careless behavior. She shouldn’t even be responsible for grabbing some free condoms at the clinic and taking care of the risk herself.

Look even closer, and we see the real progressive agenda at work: increasing the power and reach of the federal government and its bureaucratic minions by discrediting and marginalizing any other source of authority over our behavior, especially institutions of moral authority such as churches. That way the government can aggrandize its power by relieving people of the responsibility for their choices through palliating their damaging consequences while making others pay for them. Tocqueville noticed 150 years ago this tendency of centralized power to expand by infantilizing the citizenry. Centralized governments, Tocqueville remarked, act as “if they thought themselves responsible for the actions and private conditions of their subjects, as if they had undertaken to guide and to instruct each of them in the various incidents of life and to secure their happiness quite independently of their own consent.” Moreover, this insidious paternalism corrupts the people, who “invoke its assistance in all their necessities,” and who “fix their eyes upon the administration as their mentor and their guide.” But all for a price: the diminishment of our freedom and autonomy, both of which require accepting the burdensome and sometimes painful responsibility for the consequences of our actions.

Our modern progressives, however, have added a new twist to this process. Removing sexual behavior from the strictures of traditional authority, and then taking responsibility for the consequences of careless sex like pregnancy, make state-subsidized sexual pleasure a seemingly cost-free distraction from the erosion of freedom and autonomy, as Aldous Huxley foresaw in Brave New World. Sexual freedom now trumps political freedom, and sexual pleasure is the honey that sweetens the bitter poison of diminished freedom. Hence the progressive’s elevation of contraception and abortion into “rights,” which puts the necessary discussion of the obvious destructive consequences of sexual promiscuity out of bounds. But these “rights” have nothing to do with “women’s health” and everything to do with the progressive government’s aim of consolidating and increasing its power at the expense of other authorities, like churches, that might have something to say about the personally and socially destructive price of those “rights.” That’s the real significance of the uproar Rush Limbaugh caused: not his crudity or insensitivity, but calling attention to the centrality of sexual libertinism to the progressive agenda of increasing government power at the expense of individual freedom.

[Ogopogo]

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/27 ... st_NOT_FIR

Why Clear channel must NOT FIRE Rush Limbaugh
Hurts to say it but...
dragonfire1981rss
Opinion • Mar 5, 2012 at 4:09 pm PST • Views: 75

As notable advertisers started abandoning Rush Limbaugh’s show in droves following the Sandra Fluke comments, speculation began that maybe, just maybe, this would be the final hurrah for Rush Limbaugh.

This time he’d gone too far. This time there would be consequences. This time, Rush Limbaugh just might be driven off the air for good.

I’m here today to tell that event must NOT HAPPEN.

If Limbaugh were fired he’d immediately become a Martyr for the right, who would hold him up as the glowing example of a “True patriot” dragged through the mud and slaughtered at the hands of the “liberal media.”

Sure, you can point to the minimal fallout after Glenn Beck lost his Fox News show, but there are important differences.

Beck had only been on the air since 2009 and never quite had the presence that Limbaugh has amongst notable right wingers. Rush has been on the air over 25 years now. In that time he’s built a large audience and a large reputation.

Unlike Beck, Limbaugh’s removal would undoubtedly provoke a strong reaction from the right wing.

Not only would they blame the Left in a broad sense, they’d also specifically blame Sandra Fluke as being the “leftist feminazi” who was responsible for the fall of their hero. If Clear channel dumped Limbaugh, I have no doubt that Sandra Fluke would start to receive threats if not outright attempts on her life.

I wish I was exaggerating. I’m not.

Oh and you’d better believe they’d blame Obama and his buddies for having something to do with it. They are already shredding the President for the phone call he made to Fluke, I can only imagine what kind of hate they’d be spewing if they got it in their heads that Obama had a hand in knocking Limbaugh off his pedestal.

The firing of Rush Limbaugh would light up the right wing powder keg more so than the firing of Glenn Beck or even the death of Andrew Breitbart ever could.

It would be bad. Very bad. An extremely high profile incident like that in a political climate as charged as this one is a recipe for complete and utter disaster.

As much as I dislike Limbaugh, I do not want to see him become even more revered on the right wing than he already is.

For that reason, I think it wise to keep him on the air.

[Ogopogo]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopOpinion

* March 5, 2012

The Fluke Distraction
The left hasn't won its war against religious liberty.

By JAMES TARANTO

There seems to be wide agreement that the Sandra Fluke kerfuffle handed the left a major political victory. We respectfully dissent.

"Conservatives and those who care about religious liberty should be dismayed by the way the left has been allowed to shield an ominous attempt to expand government power and subvert religious freedom behind a faux defense of women's rights," writes Commentary's Jonathan Tobin, reflecting the despair on the right. A Christian Science Monitor subheadline sums up the triumphalist mood on the left: "Before Rush Limbaugh spoke up, the Republicans thought they had a winning issue on contraception in health-care plans. Now, everyone is on the same side: against Rush Limbaugh."

The kerfuffle was no fluke but a left-liberal set piece. It started 2½ weeks ago, when the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held hearings on the ObamaCare contraception mandate and its implications for religious liberty. The Washington Examiner's Byron York reports that Democrats originally chose Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State over Fluke to testify for the anti-religious-liberty side.
[botwt0305] Associated Press

Fluke testifies at the mock hearing.

Then they sandbagged the Republicans. They asked, too late, for Fluke to be subbed in for Lynn, then told Lynn not to bother showing up. When the hearing took place, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (this columnist's congressman, but don't blame us) demanded: "Where are the women?" Although it was the Dems who chose Lynn over Fluke and the second panel of witnesses included two female members, liberal media dutifully propagated the "Republican sexism" charge. A week later, House Democrats held a mock hearing where Fluke testified.

Like Cindy Sheehan, Fluke was a left-wing activist cast in the role of everywoman (or as much of an "everywoman" as a student at an elite law school can be). "Fluke has a long history of feminist advocacy," reports the Daily Caller: "While [an undergraduate] at Cornell, Fluke's organized activities centered on the far-left feminist and gender equity movements. Fluke participated in rallies supporting abortion, protests against war in Iraq and efforts to recruit other womens' [sic] rights activists to campus." She even got a bachelor's degree in something called "Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies."

"Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school," Fluke said in her testimony. But last Tuesday The Weekly Standard's John McCormack debunked the claim:

Fluke's testimony was very misleading. Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown's campus. According to an employee at the pharmacy in Washington, D.C.'s Target store, the pharmacy sells birth control pills--the generic versions of Ortho Tri-Cyclen and Ortho-Cyclen--for $9 per month. "That's the price without insurance," the Target employee said.

Nine dollars a month amounts to $324 over three years of law school.

Thus this dishonest distraction was already well under way by Wednesday, when Rush Limbaugh famously joked: "What does it say about . . . Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception."

On Saturday, Limbuagh acknowledged his mistake: "My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices." No doubt it's satisfying to the left to have brought Limbaugh to heel, something that isn't easy to do. And it's true that Limbaugh's ill-chosen words magnified the Fluke distraction.

But whereas distractions are evanescent, the religious-liberty issue hasn't gone away. In fact, on Thursday the Democrat-controlled Senate passed up an opportunity to blunt the issue, rejecting by a 51-48 procedural vote, with only four senators crossing party lines, an amendment that would have allowed conscience exemptions to the ObamaCare contraception mandate. At least four vulnerable Democratic senators seeking re-election--Bill Nelson of Florida, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana and Sherrod Brown of Ohio--are now on record against religious liberty.

The triumphalist liberal view is that this is a losing issue for Republicans anyway, because Americans love contraception. In a Forbes.com column, Democratic pollster Doug Schoen asserts that "the issue of access to contraception will only further help the Democrats with moderate and independent women in swing states":

Most Americans do not see the issue of whether or not women should be able to get free access to contraceptive care not [sic] in the context of protecting the constitutional right to religious freedom, but rather as an assault on women's rights by a Republican Party that is seeking to deny women fundamental access to health care.

Indeed, poll after poll shows that virtually every American woman uses contraception, and close to 60% of Catholic women support having affiliated institutions like Catholic hospitals, provide contraception.

We're pretty sure that third "not" in the first sentence is a mistake, because the sentence makes sense only without it. Asked for data to back his assertions, Schoen referred us to results of a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, which suggest, unsurprisingly, that Americans generally approve of contraception.
Podcast

James Taranto on the Fluke distraction.

But none of the numbers Schoen cited spoke directly to the religious-liberty question. It turns out the results there are ambiguous: Asked whether they see the ObamaCare mandate as "more an issue of religious freedom" or "more an issue of women's rights," the Kaiser survey participants broke almost exactly evenly: 23% religious freedom, 24% women's rights, 26% both. Similar results obtained for Catholics (25%, 26%, 27%) and independents (22%, 23%, 28%). Those all-important independent women broke down 22%, 23% and 32%, which means they are actually slightly more likely than voters overall to view it as at least partly a matter of religious freedom.

The Wall Street Journal reports on another new survey--taken between Feb. 29 and March 3, and thus coinciding with the Fluke distraction--with similarly ambiguous findings:

The poll gave a mixed picture of [President] Obama's efforts to require most employers to cover contraception in their health-care plans. It found wide support for the U.S. government requiring employers to offer free birth control coverage, with 53% supporting the policy and 33% opposed. But support dropped sharply, to 38%, when people were asked about the requirement applying to religiously affiliated hospitals and colleges, and having the insurer pay for the cost.

Another telling result is not mentioned in the Journal news story. Each of the questions was asked two ways: with and without mention that the mandate includes "the morning after pill" (the pollsters did not use the word "abortifacient"). The 53% to 33% figure is for the version of the question without the morning-after pill; with it, support drops to 43%, with 43% opposed. Likewise, when the morning-after pill was mentioned in the question about applying the mandate to Catholic and other religious institutions, support for the mandate dropped further, to 34% from 38%.

In other words, the less you know about the ObamaCare mandate, the more likely you are to support it. Being informed of two salient facts--that it includes the morning-after pill and that it is imposed on religious institutions--is enough to sway just under 1 in 5 voters from support to opposition.

Catholics who attend church every week made up 12% of the electorate in 2008, according to exit polls. Those are the voters who are likely to be the best informed on this issue, and probably for whom it is most likely to change their vote. Peggy Noonan noted last month that in 2008 Barack Obama won the votes of 49% of churchgoing Catholics. Obama thus risks alienating a segment of the electorate he can neither take for granted nor afford to write off. You can see why the left would find it more pleasant to talk about Sandra Fluke's hurt feelings.

[Ogopogo]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -suit.html


Rush Limbaugh Isn’t the Only Media Misogynist
Mar 4, 2012 10:00 AM EST
Rush Limbaugh apologized on Saturday for calling a Georgetown Law student a slut for testifying about contraception and starting a firestorm of outrage. Kirsten Powers says the liberals who led the charge need to start holding their own side accountable.

Did you know there is a war on women?

Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.

Boycotts are reserved for people on the right like Rush Limbaugh, who finally apologized Saturday for calling a 30-year-old Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, a “slut” after she testified before congress about contraception. Limbaugh’s apology was likely extracted to stop the departure of any more advertisers, who were rightly under pressure from liberal groups outraged by the comments.

Let it be shouted from the rooftops that Rush Limbaugh should not have called Ms. Fluke a slut or, as he added later, a “prostitute” who should post her sex tapes. It’s unlikely that his apology will assuage the people on a warpath for his scalp, and after all, why should it? He spent days attacking a woman as a slut and prostitute and refused to relent. Now because he doesn’t want to lose advertisers, he apologizes. What’s in order is something more like groveling—and of course a phone call to Ms. Fluke—if you ask me.

But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?

During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.

Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.

The grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher.

Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.” When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.) In Taibbi’s profile of Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann he labeled her “batshit crazy.” (Oh, those “crazy” women with their hormones and all.)
Interactive: 150 Fearless Women
witw-1200-800-tease

Chris Matthews’s sickening misogyny was made famous in 2008, when he obsessively tore down Hillary Clinton for standing between Barack Obama and the presidency, something that Matthews could not abide. Over the years he has referred to the former first lady, senator and presidential candidate and current secretary of state as a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” and “Madame Defarge.” Matthews has also called Clinton “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her “husband messed around.” He asked a guest if “being surrounded by women” makes “a case for commander in chief—or does it make a case against it?” At some point Matthews was shamed into sort of half apologizing to Clinton, but then just picked up again with his sexist ramblings.

Matthews has wondered aloud whether Sarah Palin is even “capable of thinking” and has called Bachmann a “balloon head” and said she was “lucky we still don’t have literacy tests out there.” Democratic strategist Jehmu Greene, who is the former president of the Women’s Media Center, told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in 2011 that Matthews
“is a bully, and his favorite target is women.” So why does he still have a show? What if his favorite target was Jews? Or African-Americans?

But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don't show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”

Liberals—you know, the people who say they “fight for women”—comprise Maher’s audience, and a parade of high-profile liberals make up his guest list. Yet have any of them confronted him? Nope. That was left to Ann Coulter, who actually called Maher a misogynist to his face, an opportunity that feminist icon Gloria Steinem failed to take when she appeared on his show in 2011.

This is not to suggest that liberals—or feminists—never complain about misogyny. Many feminist blogs now document attacks on women on the left and the right, including Jezebel, Shakesville, and the Women’s Media Center (which was cofounded by Steinem). But when it comes to high-profile campaigns to hold these men accountable—such as that waged against Limbaugh—the real fury seems reserved only for conservatives, while the men on the left get a wink and a nod as long as they are carrying water for the liberal cause.

After all, if Limbaugh’s outburst is part of the “war on women,” then what is the routine misogyny of liberal media men?

It’s time for some equal-opportunity accountability. Without it, the fight against media misogyny will continue to be perceived as a proxy war for the Democratic Party, not a fight for fair treatment of women in the public square.

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

Kirsten Powers is a columnist for The Daily Beast. She is also a contributor to USA Today and a Fox News political analyst. She served in the Clinton administration from 1993 to 1998 and has worked in New York state and city politics. Her writing has been published in The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, New York Post, The New York Observer, Salon.com, Elle magazine, and American Prospect online.

[Dogpatch]

March5, 2012
Is the Word 'Slut' Still Relevant?
Selwyn Duke

A woman close to me once characterized the sea change in our society well. "Years ago you knew who the bad girls were," said she. "Now you know who the good girls are."

And the good boys get condemned for not pretending the bad girls are good.

I am, of course, speaking about the dust up involving law student Sandra Fluke and talk show host Rush Limbaugh. Fluke had said in front of Congress that financing rolls in the hay can be so expensive that it can be a burden on women in law school. So she wants you, dear taxpayer, to foot the bill for her contraception. In response to this, Limbaugh called her a "slut" during his commentary on the matter. And now he's being labeled a "sexist" and misogynistic for it (he has since apologized).

Of course, in Fluke's testimony, she didn't literally say that she was having $1000-worth of sex a year. What she said was, "Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that's practically an entire summer's salary." Now, I'll leave it to you to determine her implication, but I'll say that if a female law student is engaging in so much sexual congress that she's spending a mint on birth-control, I wouldn't reflexively assume she's a slut. I'd wonder how she was working her way through law school.

Is the word "slut" now obsolete? Have we become like a Barbary-pirate nation where the term "thief" may be out of style because its use may offend the majority?

It really is a testimonial as to how we live in that prophesied time in which good is called bad and bad is called good. Undesirable behavior is kept to a minimum through stigmatization, and to this end we have always labeled such behavior and those who habitually engage in it with derogatory terms. Now, however, it is the virtuous who are stigmatized into silence.

As for Fluke, she is certainly something else: a slick political operative and willing Democrat human prop. Contrary to earlier reports, which portrayed her as a starry-eyed 23-year-old being picked on by a big bad powerful white guy, Fluke is actually a 30-year-old former president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice. In other words, she's an experienced feminist activist -- and I suspect she relishes the attention.

Her reasoning ability, however, makes one conclude that helping her become a lawyer may not exactly be in the "public interest." She said that in criticizing her, Limbaugh was trying to stifle free speech, when he was just exercising his. When commenting on Georgetown's unwillingness to pay for her contraception, she said, "[C]onservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally...." Interesting.

Am I to understand that Georgetown offers men free contraception?

She also said in her testimony, "Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy [no free birth-control]. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn't covered, and had to walk away because she couldn't afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception." Wow, and I thought it heart-wrenching hearing about South Americans living on garbage dumps or African child soldiers forced to shoot their mothers. But a female law student being left to finance her own decadent romps? I've now lost all faith in humanity.

But you did hit all the notes there, Miss Fluke. "Embarrassed," "powerless," "choice," and lions and tigers and bears, oh boy! Hey, I feel embarrassed and powerless when I have to walk away from the boat show unable to buy a yacht and have no choice but to go without racing in the regatta.

This is more than just a wise-guy quip. Remember that copulation among unmarried people that requires birth control used to be called fornication; now they call it recreational sex. But it's called "recreational" for a reason.

It's done for recreation.

So the question is, why should taxpayers be forced to fund someone's salacious conception of recreation? Hey, pay for my golf, too, okay? That can be expensive also.

With this added perspective, we should ask what someone's advice to me would be if I said I couldn't afford my golf. Would he recommend that I lobby Congress for a subsidy? Or might he mention that hitting the links isn't exactly a survival need?

The problem is that the left has become so libertine that they treat sex as if it's not only a survival need but a constitutional right. But their eye altering does alter all, and their askew conception of rights -- and rights and wrongs -- should be contracepted. In their way of thinking, calling a woman of easy virtue a slut is out of bounds, but calling a man who dares say the entitlement empress too often has no clothes a "sexist" is fine. They consider offering men and women equal benefits to be inequality if it doesn't satisfy feminist desires. And in their way of thinking it's not a violation of rights to force a private entity to pay for someone else's birth-control at the end of a gun, but it is a violation of rights if someone doesn't pay for your contraception for you.

Meanwhile, oh-so chivalrous Barack Obama placed a phone call to feminist Fluke to offer his support -- and increase his among the fairer sex. I guess he's that certain type of man who uses loose women for personal gain.

[backhoe]

Nope. All wrong.

The point is to distract you from that 20% white joblessness, 50% black joblessness problem we have due to Duh!1's idiotic policies. Three years running in to four. America groans under the oppression.

It's all white noise.

I denounce Mah'Sef'! RAAACIST!

Feel free to do so yo' sef'...

[Ben Kenobi]

Evanescent describes the Democrat response to all this.

In other words, the less you know about the ObamaCare mandate, the more likely you are to support it. Being informed of two salient facts--that it includes the morning-after pill and that it is imposed on religious institutions--is enough to sway just under 1 in 5 voters from support to opposition.

This is the most salient point of all the articles. Obama knows he's doomed unless he can redirect enough fire at the republicans for standing up for religious liberty. The worst part is that he's not going to succeed with driving Limbaugh off the air, nor is he going to succeed with re-election unless he can do even more coverage for Romney.

Gingrich folds to Romney who folds to Obama. They've almost succeeded in doing it and tonight will be crucial. Tonight is probably the most important night since Iowa.

[RedDog]

Limbaugh’s apology was likely extracted to stop the departure of any more advertisers, who were rightly under pressure from liberal groups outraged by the comments.

That's not what I heard in the messages from a couple advertisers, not the network in Hawaii who dropped the entire show altogether. I got no sense of "pressure from liberal groups" but rather direct statements that such conduct and commentary did not represent their core values as a corporation, nor the communities in which they are part. I feel the same way and I'm under no liberal pressure to say so. To be clear though, I though the woman's comments were nutty and that she should focus on her studies and not her date count, but I'm also not calling her a slut by name or implying she's a whore on the air to millions.

The thing about the show being dropped in Hawaii is that if that goes down in a significant market - Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, it could mark the beginning of the end of Rush. You can bet there are hastily called board meetings going on all over the place.

[Kate Shaw]

I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh in several years, because I don't like people who yell.

That being said, I agree with Backhoe that this is all a lot of noise to try to focus attention away from the real issues: that America is drowning in red ink and unemployment is not dropping, foreclosures continue, and everything Obama touches turns to [bleep]. See "Chevy Volt". Trot out some moderately good looking young woman to whine about sex, and hope the guys put down their calculators and start running in circles and howling at the moon.

[backhoe]

I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh in several years, because I don't like people who yell.

That being said, I agree with Backhoe that this is all a lot of noise to try to focus attention away from the real issues: that America is drowning in red ink and unemployment is not dropping, foreclosures continue, and everything Obama touches turns to [bleep]. See "Chevy Volt". Trot out some moderately good looking young woman to whine about sex, and hope the guys put down their calculators and start running in circles and howling at the moon.

Yep- isn't it funny how the battle-cry "keep your hands off my Uterus!" has been morphed into "subsidize my sex life?"

[RedDog]

Just picked this up off Facebook:

Even for those students who can’t get Georgetown to cover their contraception, there is still hope. CNS News reports the following item:

CNSNews.com confirmed, however, that the Target store at 3100 14th St., NW, in Washington, D.C., which is 3 miles from the Georgetown Law campus, offers Tri-Sprintec, the generic form of the birth-control pill Ortho Tri-Cyclen. Target sells a month’s supply of this birth control pill for just $9 to individuals without health insurance coverage for the pills.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/georget ... after-all/

[RedDog]

Yep- isn't it funny how the battle-cry "keep your hands off my Uterus!" has been morphed into "subsidize my sex life?"

Excellent observation.

[Julian]

Sandra's dreadfully expensive contraception is available for $9.00 per month at the Target store immediately down the street from the university.

All of that aside.... why should the government pay for someone's birth control pills???? Want them? Fine, Buy them Yourself! Are they going to pay for condoms and Viagra for everyone as well??

[Julian]

Transgender Illegal Alien Detainees Will Get 'Hormone Therapy' Courtesy of ICE

(CNSNews.com) - Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the division the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responsible for enforcing the nation's immigration laws, will provide "hormone therapy" to illegal aliens it has detained who say they are transgender, according to the agency's operations manual for its detention facilities.

more: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/transge ... urtesy-ice

Meanwhile, working poor Americans can walk around with rotting teeth and suffer from tooth aches and nobody gives a damn. Need dental care? Buy your own insurance or pay for it yourself.... right? ... as long as illegals get their hormone treatments free all is well in the USA.

[Ben Kenobi]

Really? Damn.

What about us Legal immigrants.