Monday, March 5, 2012

The Hidden Scandal of Sandra Fluke: Behind Rush Limbaugh's Massive Blunder

Last week, Rush Limbaugh enthusiastically and eagerly did a swan dive from the high board into the liberal trap. If anyone should know better, it is Rush. But Rush was thinking mainly about getting publicity for himself, to garner interest in people listening to his show. So Rush Limbaugh threw restraint to the wind, and started to channel Howard Stern. Rush started on a line of tittilating sexual innuendo, and just failed to stop at the border.

Anyone with Rush Limbaugh's experience knows by now that if you use certain words, phrases, or arguments, people will totally lose track of or forget what you were trying to say. No one experienced in politics fails to understand that if you use words like slut, prostitute, pimp, or the like, or Nazi, etc., or mention Hitler in any context, nobody will listen to anything else you have to say. They will be all wrapped around a tree about the word you used, and completely distract from the point you were trying to make.

The tragedy of Rush Limbaugh's inexcusable 'rookie' blunder is that the Sandra Fluke affair is a fiasco-in-waiting for liberals, Democrat candidates, and the Obama Administration.

This is not about Sandra Fluke.


What is being missed in Fluke's testimony is that she is only the spokesperson for a project to attack Catholic Georgetown University -- for being Catholic. Notice what Fluke actually testified:

We, as Georgetown LSRJ, are here today ..."

“One told us about how ..."

“In 65% of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated .."

“For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, ..."

“One woman told us doctors ..."

“One woman told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered ..."

This was unmistakably a PROJECT to attack Catholic Georgetown University -- for being Catholic -- by "Law Students for Reproductive Justice"

Sandra Fluke and "Law Students for Reproductive Justice" deliberately set out to attack and smear Catholics and the Catholic Church. This was a deliberate assualt on the religious beliefs of the Catholic Church.

This was the latest battle in the liberals' war on religion. (However, Limbaugh managed to totally obscure the real issues.)

It was also a complete pack of lies.

Perhaps Sandra Fluke will make a very talented liar, er, sorry LAWYER, one day.

Sandra Fluke may prove skilled at convincing juries of things that just aren't true.

But here, she got caught red-handed.


The crucial lynchpin of the argument for attacking Georgetown's Catholic religious beliefs is the hypothesis that birth control is too expensive for a student to afford without health insurance paying for it. YET, THAT IS A FLAT-OUT, TOTAL LIE.

Sandra Fluke argued that "AS YOU KNOW" birth control costs a student "OVER $3,000" over the three years of law school.

Note: Some have tried to cover for Fluke by changing this to "UP TO." No. She said "OVER $3,000."

To expose this perjury, we need look no farther than Planned Parenthood's own website.

Of course Sandra Fluke did not identify which type of birth control she had in mind. But it doesn't matter:

COSTS: (1) Birth Control pills, every single day (with placebos often in the plan for 2 or 3 days): $15 per month, says Planned Parenthood. $540 over 3 years. (2) the PATCH: $15 per month says Planned Parenthood. $540 over 3 years. (3) IUD: Good for 12 years, $500 to $1000 up-front, says PP. (4) condoms: 40 cents each in economy packages.

Top name brand, Trojan, condoms cost $13.99 in a 36 count economy pack. That's 40 cents a condom. So the only way that a Georgetown student could be spending $3,000 over three years is to have sex 7,500 times over three years. That's 6.84 times a day, every single day, without any days off, for three years.

Could one spend MORE than $15 per month, which Planned Parenthood says is a likely price? Who cares? The discussion is about a student on a limited budget. So we are talking about how little she might spend, not how much she could go on the up side.

It is Sandra Fluke’s claim that a student *MUST* spend “OVER $3,000″ during 3 years. She is claiming that it is NECESSARY (unavoidable) for a woman at Georgetown Law School to spend “OVER $3,000″ a year for birth control.

So, sure -- you could pay more than $15 per month. But we are talking about students who are short on money. So obviously we are talking about students paying the minimum, because they are on a limited budget. The argument is that these students cannot afford birth control, so we have to look at the minimum price, not the premium price you could pay if you don't care about the cost.

But if Georgetown’s students — who are supposed to be studying some of the time — had sex 3 times a week, taking 2 weeks out being with their families for holidays and taking 2 weeks out for exam weeks, that would be 432 times over three years.

COST FOR CONDOMS: $172.80 plus tax over three years. (432 times 40 cents each.)

With contraceptives, there is NO PROBLEM. They are cheap. Easily available. Nothing to worry about. Anyone who wants contraceptives can get them, often FREE.

To buy condoms 5 days a week, every single week without a break, costs only $104 a year if you buy top-brand quality (Trojans) in 36 count economy packs.

But the liberals have a more fatal problem here:

If you are going to lie, never lie about things that the hearer can SEE to be a LIE.

For the next 8 months, women will be buying their birth control pills every single month, if that is their chosen approach. They can SEE that the liberals are lying.

For the next 8 months, voters will walk through the aisles of grocery stores and then can SEE how little condoms cost. They can see that birth control is all over the place. In every grocery store in America, you can see them right there.

So the lie by the Democrats is obvious for all to see. The looming fiasco for liberals is that anyone can see the facts for themselves that the liberals are lying about.

Democrats and free agent liberals are doubling down on THE LIBERAL WAR ON WOMEN:

LIBERALS ARE PUBLICLY ARGUING THAT (liberals instinctively believe) WOMEN VOTERS ARE DUMB. That is, liberals hope and imagine that women voters aren't smart enough to see through the liberal scams and hogwash.

Republicans are betting that women voters are smart. Liberals are desperately hoping they're not. Obama's re-election strategy is to bet everything on the hope that voters are easily-fooled, gullible, and naive. Republican election hopes rest on believing the best about the American people.

So the only way the liberal scam can work is if women voters are really, really dumb.

Republicans treat women as intelligent. Democrats don't.

No comments:

Post a Comment

We value an open exchange of ideas, even from those who disagree. However, please remember that even minor children can come across websites on the internet. Please use respectful language suitable for auidences of all ages.