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

Cure Socialism ^ | March 5, 2012 | Jonathon Moseley

[Moseley]

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.

Sandra Fluke exposed (almost) AN ANTI-CATHOLIC ATTACK BY LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS.

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" http://lsrj.org/

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.

Because her testimony was perjury -- lying under oath -- her fitness to be admitted to the Bar ought to be questioned. The Bar makes a big distinction between dishonesty NOT under oath (not good) and a lawyer committing an actual crime, such as perjury. A candidate for bar admission faces a much higher burden to get admitted the first time.

FAILED ARGUMENT:

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 committed perjury (lying under oath) by claiming 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.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Some brand name/non formulary BC that women use for medical issues is big $$$. $3000 over 3 years is not out of the norm.’

Thanks.
That sounds like what they are talking about. Is this because the generic $9 pills are not effective for those women or that they cause side effects for them?

Could you elaborate?

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Some brand name/non formulary BC that women use for medical issues is big $$$. $3000 over 3 years is not out of the norm.’

Thanks.
That sounds like what they are talking about. Is this because the generic $9 pills are not effective for those women or that they cause side effects for them?

Could you elaborate?

[Logical me]

Can't understand women if they do not like Rush. He has supported women continuous. It is the Democrats and their communists ilk that put women, and incidentally, the blacks as well.

[yoe]

"...the hate for Rush and the support for Fluke..."

Propaganda is a powerful tool - look what it did and still doing to Bush. Having the MSM at your beck and call doesn't hurt..............

[Lorianne]

Good article.

The REAL ISSUE issue is being LOST and Rush is the reason.

The REAL ISSUE could have been a watershed moment for the Republican candidates. Rush completely sucked the wind out the Republican campaign. Some of the candidates were trying to make the point he lost ... which could have had a very decisive outcome in the election.

But no, it is more importnat for ONE person to have some fun at another individuals expense than to MAKE AN IMPORTANT POINT and have it resonate and possibly change the outcome of PPACA (Obamacare) and at the same time hurt Obama’s chances at re-election.

Let’s face it. Rush makes more money if Obama wins.
Make of that what you will.

[Ozymandias Ghost]

“It is time to face the degenerate new reality.”
______________

LOL. Easy to face when you, “Have a home along the sun-kissed Caribbean in beautiful Honduras.” (grin)

Carry on; but, know this: We're all extremely envious ..and for a damned good reason!!! (Pls post regularly so that we peons can live vicariously.)

Out here.

-Geoff

[Lorianne]

Calling someone on making a mistake is not ‘hate’.

You’re falling into the liberal habit of calling everything you don’t agree with ‘hate-speech’. One can say Rush screwed up without hating the man.

Geez.

[Beagle8U]

You are correct, Fluke's figure likely included an abortion or two. You can't expect liberal doped up sluts, that take no responsibility for anything, to remember to use the BC all the time.

[trailhkr1]

Is this because the generic $9 pills are not effective for those women or that they cause side effects for them? Could you elaborate?

My GF was on BC for a medical issue (fibroids in her tubes???), can't remember the name of the drug as she is no longer on it. Not sure of the drug cost but she paid a $70-75 monthly copay for it as it was non formulary drug.

Yes, I would presume the generics were not effective because that is what the doc prescribed.

[Ozymandias Ghost]

Post #27; “we peons” = us peons (oops, again!)

[Lorianne]

While I agree with you about Fluke’s testimony being a set-up. It would have passed with little notice other than the issue at hand, which is attack on religious institutions, had Rush not made a mess of it.

Now that the issue has been converted to a personal attack on a woman, that is the issue from now on.

[patriotsoul]

How was it Fluke was under oath when she was just speaking to a sub committee?

[6ppc]

I'm getting sick of this. Rush screwed up and it has caused the entire debate to be derailed. The issues is religious freedom, not women's access to birth control.

I'm also sick of the way the Republican candidates have let the message drift into bashing each other (Romney obviously the worst offender) rather than bashing Obama.

At this point I've decided to pretty much ignore politics until after the Republican convention...no point in raising my blood pressure over it.

[netmilsmom]

trailhkr1
Since Jan 25, 2012

[Moseley]

Some brand name/non formulary BC that women use for medical issues is big $$$. $3000 over 3 years is not out of the norm.

But everyone needs to understand that medicine used for genuine medical issues, for a medical problem, IS NOT BIRTH CONTROL, and is paid for by insurance. It is not considered birth control, because it is not being used for birth control.

Many medications have many different effects. Minoxydil is used to control blood pressure, but if you spread it on your head it MIGHT grow hair (probably not).

If a doctor diagnoses a genuine medical problem and prescribes the same medication that coincidentally can be used as birth control, ALL HEALTH INSURANCE WILL PAY FOR IT -- and religious institutions like the Catholic Church APPROVE of the medication being used to treat a genuine medical need.

Birth control medication used for a medical problem is NOT "birth control."

Even Georgetown University's health insurance would pay for the medication upon a doctor's diagnosis of a medical problem.

Insurance considers it based on the problem being addressed, not on the medication or procedure, because many medications have multiple purposes.

For example, cosmetic surgery because you were in a car accident would be covered by insurance. But simply for vanity, it would not be covered.

[arrdon]

Some of us are playing mind-games about TV disposal in the horrendous event Zero is re-elected.

[sickoflibs]

But I dont think his points to me are unreasonable. We can argue about his conclusions in some of the other comments.

[sickoflibs]

But I dont think his points to me are unreasonable. We can argue about his conclusions in some of the other comments.

[sickoflibs]

But I dont think his points to me are unreasonable. We can argue about his conclusions in some of the other comments.