Posts Tagged ‘Sandra Fluke’

The Hobby Lobby Decision: The First Amendment Holds. Religious Freedom Stands.

July 1, 2014

American ChristianityYesterday was quite a day.

The Supreme Court, in a in a 5-4 ruling, found that “closely held” businesses do not have to provide contraception to their employees, if the ownership of said company opposes birth control on the grounds that it conflicts with the Religious Beliefs.

In other words, if you want to behave like Sandra Fluke, and if I am a business owner of a “closely held” business, I cannot be forced by the Obama Administration to provide your “protection”, either before or after that “special moment”.

Rush Limbaugh, per usual made an excellent point on his nationally-syndicated radio program, yesterday:

…the thinking everywhere on the left, is either Obama’s gonna pay for it from his stash like they think exists in Detroit, or the insurance company will be forced to pay for it. But they won’t pay for it, they’ll just bill it back to Hobby Lobby. (interruption) No, the principle stands, that’s the point. When all this is said and done, the Supreme Court still ruled that the federal government cannot make a “closely held” corporation violate its own personal religious beliefs. I’m gonna have to double-check this, but I really do think that in that sense we’ve not had a ruling this direct in that regard before, whatever the issue was. I think I saw that somewhere this morning in the mounds of show prep that I was going through.

Look, it means here that Obama cannot unilaterally dictate how religion is to be practiced via laws or regulations or executive orders. It means that the First Amendment is not a casual plaything for cavalier statists whether in the executive branch or whether in Congress. There also was another ruling on the union’s and whether or not parents and nannies taking care of their own loved ones at home can be forced to pay union dues, and that was rejected, too. The headline says: “Sweeping Loss for Unions.” Oh, horrible, the Supreme Court just dealt a devastating blow to public unions. But this one really is kind of narrow. But the principle still stands.

What is really important, yet really small in this case, is that even after the Hobby Lobby decision, women can still go to Target or Walmart and buy a month’s worth of conception for nine dollars. What’s kind of being overlooked here in all this — and we did look at it in great detail on the previous occasion on this program — is that somehow we’ve gotten to the point where women should not have to pay for their own birth control. Somebody else is gonna pay for it, no matter how much they want, no matter how often they want it, no matter for what reason, somebody else is going to pay for it. That’s the root of all this. The employer should pay it, the insurance company will pay it, but in no way in 2014 America are women going to being pay for it, even though you can go to Target or Walmart and get a month’s supply for nine bucks.

So the ruling does not apply to, say, an Exxon or a General Motors. That’s not a “closely held” corporation. But the Christian owners of Hobby Lobby cannot be forced to fund the contraception mandate. Their liberty was defended here, no matter how narrow the left wants to say the ruling was, no matter what the practical application is, when it’s all over the First Amendment was enforced, or maybe reinforced today.

On March 8, 1983, President Ronald Wilson Reagan gave a speech to the National Association of Evangelicals, which came to be know as the “Evil Empire Speech”. Here is an excerpt:

Well, I’m pleased to be here today with you who are keeping America great by keeping her good. Only through your work and prayers and those of millions of others can we hope to survive this perilous century and keep alive this experiment in liberty, this last, best hope of man.

I want you to know that this administration is motivated by a political philosophy that sees the greatness of America in you, her people, and in your families, churches, neighborhoods, communities–the institutions that foster and nourish values like concern for others and respect for the rule of law under God.

 Now, I don’t have to tell you that this puts us in opposition to, or at least out of step with, a–a prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism, discarding the tried and time-tested values upon which our very civilization is based. No matter how well intentioned, their value system is radically different from that of most Americans. And while they proclaim that they’re freeing us from superstitions of the past, they’ve taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation. Sometimes their voices are louder than ours, but they are not yet a majority. [Applause]

An example of that vocal superiority is evident in a controversy now going on in Washington. And since I’m involved, I’ve been waiting to hear from the parents of young America. How far are they willing to go in giving to government their prerogatives as parents?

Let me state the case as briefly and simply as I can. An organization of citizens, sincerely motivated, deeply concerned about the increase in illegitimate births and abortions involving girls well below the age of consent, some time ago established a nationwide network of clinics to offer help to these girls and, hopefully, alleviate this situation. Now, again, let me say, I do not fault their intent. However, in their well-intentioned effort, these clinics decided to provide advice and birth control drugs and devices to underage girls without the knowledge of their parents.

For some years now, the federal government has helped with funds to subsidize these clinics. In providing for this, the Congress decreed that every effort would be made to maximize parental participation. Nevertheless, the drugs and devices are prescribed without getting parental consent or giving notification after they’ve done so. Girls termed “sexually active”–and that has replaced the word “promiscuous”–are given this help in order to prevent illegitimate worth/birth (quickly corrects himself) eh or abortion.

Well, we have ordered clinics receiving federal funds to notify the parents such help has been given. [Applause] One of the nation’s leading newspapers has created the term “squeal rule” in editorializing against us for doing this, and we’re being criticized for violating the privacy of young people. A judge has recently granted an injunction against an enforcement of our rule. I’ve watched TV panel shows discuss this issue, seen columnists pontificating on our error, but no one seems to mention morality as playing a part in the subject of sex. [Applause]

Is all of Judeo-Christian tradition wrong? Are we to believe that something so sacred can be looked upon as a purely physical thing with no potential for emotional and psychological harm? And isn’t it the parents’ right to give counsel and advice to keep their children from making mistakes that may affect their entire lives? [Slight crescendo of voice and emphasis--Long Applause]

Many of us in government would like to know what parents think about this intrusion in their family by government. We’re going to fight in the courts. The right of parents and the rights of family take precedence over those of Washington-based bureaucrats and social engineers. [Applause]

But the fight against parental notification is really only one example of many attempts to water down traditional values and even abrogate the original terms of American democracy. Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. [Applause] When our founding fathers passed the First Amendment, they sought to protect churches from government interference. They never intended to construct a wall of hostility between government and the concept of religious belief itself.

Yesterday afternoon, the current POTUS, Barack Hussein Obama, did not address the Supreme Court’s ruling. Instead, he gave a petulant speech blaming the Republicans in Congress  for failing to deal with the Mexican Munchkin Migration, a horrible, sovereignty-threatening situation on our Southern Border, which he himself encouraged. The Petulant President threatened to issue Executive Orders to “deal with the problem”, a solution which is actually outside the reach of his Presidential Powers.

Now, I’m not naive. As Rush alluded to, I fully expect Obama to administratively arrange for our tax dollars to pay for birth control pills and abortiafacients for employees of these companies who choose not to provide them, due to their religious principles.

Which brings me to the following observation:

The President of the United States of America in 1983 was against the United States Government promoting immorality.

The President of the United States of America in 2014 is promoting immoral behavior and individual irresponsibility…and is expecting taxpayers to pay for it.

HOW IS THIS “PROGRESS”?

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

DNC 2012: “Indians”, Muslims, and Fluke…Oh, My!

August 24, 2012

Per the Democratic National Committee, here is their official list of Speakers, as of August 22nd:

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin

Former Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Tammy Duckworth

Sandra Fluke, Georgetown University Student

Denise Juneau, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Montana

Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America

Caroline Kennedy

Lilly Ledbetter

Eva Longoria, Obama Campaign Co-Chair

U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, together with the women of the U.S. Senate

Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund

Previously announced speakers include: San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, who will be the first Latino keynote speaker at a Democratic National Convention, President Bill Clinton, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, Former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, U.S. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, Former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland and Elizabeth Warren.

The DNCC will unveil additional convention program details and speakers in the coming days. The first two days of the 2012 Democratic National Convention, Tuesday, September 4 and Wednesday, September 5, will be held at Time Warner Cable Arena. President Obama will accept the Democratic nomination for President on Thursday, September 6 at Bank of America Stadium.

Quite a stellar line-up, huh?

Let’s dwell on some of the acts in this circus.

Elizabeth Warren – On May 23rd, George Will wrote:

Blond, blue-eyed Elizabeth Warren, the Senate candidate in Massachusetts and Harvard professor who cites “family lore” that she is 1/32nd Cherokee, was inducted into Oklahoma’s Hall of Fame last year. Her biography on OklahomaHeritage.com says that she “can track both sides of her family in Oklahoma long before statehood” (1907) and “she proudly tells everyone she encounters that she is ‘an Okie to my toes.’ ” It does not mention any Cherokee great-great-great-grandmother. A DVD of the induction ceremony shows that neither Warren nor anyone else mentioned this.

The next week, politico.com reported…

Some 150 people purporting to be “concerned” members and descendants of three Cherokee tribes have put up a new website called “Cherokees Demand Truth From Elizabeth Warren.”

The group is demanding that the Massachusetts Senate candidate come clean about her heritage – a topic that has dominated media coverage of Warren’s bid again incumbent Republican Sen. Scott Brown ever since it was revealed that the Harvard law professor was previously listed as having ethnic minority status.

“You claim to be Cherokee. You forget, it isn’t who you claim, but instead, who claims you. We don’t claim you!” a banner splashed across the top of the group’s website reads. The group argues that Warren has made “false claims of Cherokee ancestry,” and that it is bothered by those who “fraudulently” claim Cherokee heritage.

White woman speak with forked tongue.

Last night, in a post titled, Jumah at the DNC: No Pork Ribs Allowed, I found the following information:

…the “Grand Imam” for Jumah at the DNC is none other than Siraj Wahhaj. Wahhaj is one of the most sought-after speakers on the Muslim circuit, and has addressed audiences all over the country; in 1991, he even became the first Muslim to give an invocation to the U.S. Congress. After 9/11, his renown as a moderate Muslim grew when he declared: “I now feel responsible to preach, actually to go on a jihad against extremism.” But as with so many other Muslim leaders in the U.S., Siraj Wahhaj is not as moderate as he may appear at first glance.

Wahhaj was several years ago designated a “potential unindicted co-conspirator” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He himself has denounced this designation as essentially meaningless, but he didn’t earn it by doing nothing. In the early 1990s he squired the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, all around New York City and New Jersey, sponsoring talks by him in area mosques. The Blind Sheikh, of course, is now serving a life sentence for his role in the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, as well as in jihad plots to blow up the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels.

Hey, America…”Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?”

Finally, let’s talk about the far-from-innocent Sandra Fluke.

In a post titled, Just a Fluke?, I blogged

So, to recap, it turns out that the “sweet little co-ed” has turned out to be a 30 year old “Women’s Right’s” (i.e., Abortion) Activist, who entered Georgetown, a Catholic University, with a dual purpose:  to achieve notoriety and advance her political ideology.

She achieved that notoriety by appearing before Congress demanding that Americans pay for the $3,000 a year she puts out…err…spends on Birth Control.

Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it…

Per Gallup, 19% of Americans are Liberal. An even smaller percentage of Americans subscribe to the teachings of the Far Left.

Judging from the dubious line-up and circus-like atmosphere of this year’s DNC, it would seem that the Democrats, the former “Party of the People”, are pitching an awfully small tent.

Sandra Fluke, Anita Dunn, and Chairman Mao

March 11, 2012

The second week into the Sandra Fluke/Rush Limbaugh dust-up, things are beginning to tumble like a house of cards, regarding this Democratically-engineered controversy.

Bill O’ Reilly reported the following on foxnews.com on March 8th:

As we reported last night, “The Factor” believes that the Sandra Fluke contraception controversy was manufactured to divert attention away from the Obama administration’s disastrous decision to force Catholic non-profit organizations to provide insurance coverage for birth control and the morning after pill. That might very well be unconstitutional.

Anyway, we’re having trouble tracking down just who is sending Sandra around to the media. It’s very strange. So far, the 30-year-old activist has appeared on eight national news programs where she was not challenged at all. Last week, we called Sandra on her cell phone and invited her on “The Factor.” She didn’t call back, very unusual. There was no other public contact for the woman, just her cell phone.

A man named Mike has booked her on a few programs, but we can’t even get his last name. And Mike doesn’t provide call-back numbers to those with whom he speaks. So Mike, who are you? And why the subterfuge?

Now, late today we found out that Ms. Fluke is now being repped by the progressive PR agency SKDKnickerbocker where Anita Dunn, the former Obama communications director is the managing editor… a-ha.

So, this whole deal comes back to the White House, at least indirectly. So, let’s run down what we know. Sandra Fluke is a former head of the group “Georgetown University Law Students for Reproductive Justice.” On February 9th, a group called “The Feminist Majority Foundation” arranged for Sandra to appear at press conference criticizing the Catholic bishops for objecting to President Obama’s contraception mandate.

After that, Congressman Elijah Cummings, the former Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, invited Sandra to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee. But she was turned down by the chair, Congressman Darrell Issa, because she had no expertise in the church/state subject matter.

Nevertheless, Ms. Fluke went to the hearing and afterward complained to ABC News that she had been denied. A week later, Nancy Pelosi staged a mock hearing starring Sandra. After which Rush Limbaugh made derogatory comments elevating her to left-wing martyrdom.

So it seems there is a powerful presence behind Sandra Fluke. And as the polls show the controversy has benefited the President of the United States, who is on the ropes with the church deal. This is all the more amazing because the controversy Sandra is embracing is completely bogus as I explained on “The View” today.

So, what kind of clientele does Ms. Dunn’s law firm handle?

On October 15, 2009, Michelle Malkin reported the following information:

Hat tip: Ace and HA.

***

More: Squier, Knapp, and Dunn — Dunn’s p.r. firm — has clients including:

*SEIU-National

*SEIU-Local 1199

*Ceres-Far Left environmentalists “for sustainable prosperity”

*American Rights at Work-Big Labor outfit chaired by David Bonior

And more from reader Dan:

1. Her firm did the ads for Rod Blagojevich in Illinois in 2002 and 2006. In other words, they used lies to help elect the most corrupt governor in Illinois.

2. She or her partner Squier have widely been speculated to be one of the figures mentioned in Blagojevich indictment as a Washington consultant on a conference call mentioned by Patrick Fitzgerald.

3. Dunn’s husband was also the personal lawyer of Barack Obama related to the Blagojevich matter. Remember, he was questioned by the feds.

And, Ms. Dunn’s personal ideology?  Well…

On October 21, 2009, John Fund, writing for the Wall Street Journal, posted the following:

Anita Dunn, the White House’s communications director who has declared war on Fox News, came under scrutiny herself last week when it was discovered she had told an audience that Mao Tse Tung was one of her favorite political philosophers and quoted Mao on how to “fight your war.” In her speech last June, after she joined the Obama White House, Ms. Dunn said the “two people I turn to most” were Mother Teresa and Mao Tse-Tung. She barely discussed the late nun, but waxed at length about the lessons Mao had taught her.

To call Mao a “political philosopher” is a stretch. As Roger Kimball of the New Criterion reminds us, the great Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski properly labeled the Chinese revolutionary “one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, manipulator of large masses of human beings in the twentieth century.”

Indeed, the Mao revelation prompted William Ratliff, an expert on China with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, to call her statement “outrageous and pathetic” given that Mao’s role in the deaths of some 50 million people “makes it impossible for any serious person” to view him as a great philosopher.

Ms. Dunn is now trying to pin her quote on a dead adviser to President George H.W. Bush. “The Mao quote is one I picked up from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater from something I read in the late 1980s, so I hope I don’t get my progressive friends mad at me,” Ms. Dunn told CNN.

She went on to explain that Fox host Glenn Beck’s criticism was off-base because “the use of the phrase ‘favorite political philosophers’ was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat — at least with a certain Fox commentator whose sense of irony may be missing.”

Ms. Dunn’s lame explanation might have some traction if the videotape of her speech at the time displayed the slightest trace of irony. But it doesn’t. The videos show her speaking in complete earnestness.

So, where is the poor, deprived Sandra Fluke now?

She and her boyfriend, the son of long-time Democrat William Mutterperl, who is a heavy contributor to Democrat candidates, are currently living la vida loca, on Spring Break (at 30 years old) in California.

So, how is it that Fluke can afford a trip across the country, from Georgetown University to California, but she can’t afford to buy her own birth control pills?

Shoot.  I’ll be lucky if I get to drive across the river to West Memphis, Arkansas.

What a racket.

Rush Limbaugh and the Liberal Blitzkrieg

March 6, 2012

In their unfettered zeal to get rid of one of the most effective barriers to the re-election of their false messiah and the continued existence of the political status quo, Liberals in both political parties and the Main Stream Media have launched a Liberal Blitzkrieg against Rush Limbaugh over his comments concerning Professional Activist Sandra Fluke.

What’s a Blitzkrieg, you ask?

Per historylearningsite.co.uk:

Blitzkrieg means “lightning war”. Blitzkrieg was first used by the Germans in World War Two and was a tactic based on speed and surprise and needed a military force to be based around light tank units supported by planes and infantry (foot soldiers). The tactic was developed in Germany by an army officer called Hans Guderian. He had written a military pamphlet called “Achtung Panzer” which got into the hands of Hitler. As a tactic it was used to devastating effect in the first years of World War Two and resulted in the British and French armies being pushed back in just a few weeks to the beaches of Dunkirk and the Russian army being devastated in the attack on Russia in June 1941.

Rush Limbaugh addressed the situation and why he issued an apology last weekend to Ms. Fluke as he opened his show yesterday:

I want to explain why I apologized to Sandra Fluke in the statement that was released on Saturday. I’ve read all the theories from all sides, and, frankly, they are all wrong. I don’t expect — and I know you don’t, either — morality or intellectual honesty from the left. They’ve demonstrated over and over a willingness to say or do anything to advance their agenda. It’s what they do. It’s what we fight against here every day. But this is the mistake I made. In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them.

Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke. That was my error. I became like them, and I feel very badly about that. I’ve always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program. Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for. They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her. I do not think she is either of those two words. I did not think last week that she is either of those two words.

The apology to her over the weekend was sincere. It was simply for using inappropriate words in a way I never do, and in so doing, I became like the people we oppose. I ended up descending to their level. It’s important not to be like them, ever, particularly in fighting them. The old saw, you never descend to the level of your opponent or they win. That was my error last week. But the apology was heartfelt. The apology was sincere. And, as you will hear as I go on here, it was not about anything else. No ulterior motive. No speaking in code. No double entendre or intention. Pure, simple, heartfelt. That’s why I apologized to Sandra Fluke on Saturday, ’cause all the theories, all the experts are wrong.

What’s gone on since and what really is going on here is what we all know to be true. Our president, Barack Obama, has a socialist agenda when it comes to health care, when it comes to birth control, when it comes to virtually every aspect of his agenda. In this case, Barack Obama wants the government, his government, making moral decisions about what treatments, prescriptions, pills you pay for through your insurance premiums. He isn’t willing to let you or the market make that decision for yourself.

Rush also had something to say concerning the advertisers who have acquiesced to the Liberal Blitzkrieg: 

The left, folks — the media — are giddy that some advertisers have said they’re leaving the program. And I’m sorry to see ‘em go. They have profited handsomely from you. These advertisers who have split the scene have done very well due to their access to you, my audience, from this program. To offer their products and services to you through this venue is the best opportunity that they have ever had to advertise their wares. Now they’ve chosen to deny themselves that access, and that’s a business decision, and it’s theirs alone to make.

They’ve decided they don’t want you or your business anymore.

So be it.

For me, this program is always about you. You talk to anybody that knows me who asks me about this program, and I always say, “It’s all for the audience,” because if you’re not there, all the rest of this is academic. This show is about you. It’s not about the advertisers. I knew the political inclinations of these people. They didn’t care when they were profiting — and I didn’t, either. Everybody’s able to put these things aside for the sake of mutual beneficial business activity. No radio broadcast will succeed by putting business ahead of the needs of its loyal audience, and that audience is you. My success has come from you. My focus has always been, and always will be, on you.

…As I was saying, ladies and gentlemen, this show has always been about you. It has always been about meeting and surpassing your expectations as an audience on any level that I can imagine, on any level for which I have empathy. If this program were about the advertising… (laughing) you don’t know the kind of commercials you’d be treated to. I reject millions of dollars of advertising a year, much to the chagrin of my hardworking sales staff. Millions, folks, including, I might add, General Motors. What would you have thought, if, after the government took over General Motors, I started advertising General Motors? I made the decision not to accept that because you, the audience, come first. Because no successful program puts the audience second or third.

See, I understand my successes come from you. During the year, many of you regale me with how much the program has meant to you personally, your family, over the years. Every Thanksgiving and Christmas I take time out to tell you that no matter what this program’s meant to you, it can’t compare to what you have meant to me and my family. In fact, I have no adequate way to express my gratitude to you. Just doesn’t exist. It’s how great my gratitude for all of you is. Without you, advertisers would have no need to participate in this program. So what we’re gonna do is replace those that leave, those that no longer want access to you, those advertisers who no longer want your business, fine. We’ll replace them. It’s simple, really.

Advertising’s a business decision. It’s not a social one. Only the leftists try to use extortion, pressure, threats to silence opposing voices. We don’t do that. Never, ever, do any of us on our side of the aisle try to suppress the speech or the voices of those with whom we disagree, and we never will. So, as you’ve always done, you make your own business decisions about the products and services you buy. But don’t be like the opposition. That was my mistake last week. Don’t make it yours.

Rush will survive this.  Conservatives, such as myself, will not desert him, nor our political ideology.

I have noticed that since this story broke on the Conservative websites, the Vichy Republicans, otherwise known as Moderates, have aligned themselves with the Liberal Blitzkrieg…and the overwhelming majority of them seem to be Romney supporters.

Coincidence?  I think not.

Rush Apologizes to an Activist

March 4, 2012

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh issued the following statement on his website, rushlimbaugh.com:

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

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.

Let’s stop for a moment and consider just whom it is that Rush has issued this apology to:

Mr. Sandra Fluke, who is attending Georgetown Law School, is a 30 year old Women’s Rights (i.e., Abortion) Activist, who was originally described by the Main Stream Media as a “23 year old co-ed”.

She revealed that she was actually 30 years old in a Today Show interview on Friday morning with host Matt Lauer.

What she did not say was that she is a past President of the Georgetown Law School Chapter of Law Sudents for Reproductive Justice.

In a statement titled LSRJ Proudly Stands With Sandra Flukethe organization voices its support for her:

We are proud of our member and past president of Georgetown LSRJ, Sandra Fluke, for her courage and commitment in the face of cruelty. Fluke is the Georgetown law student whose contraceptive access advocacy has been called into question with language that falls, as Fluke said in her press statement, “far beyond the acceptable bounds of civil discourse.” Such personal attacks are intended to shame women out of advocacy and into silence, but Fluke refuses to back down, ”No woman deserves to be disrespected in this manner. This language is an attack on all women, and has been used throughout history to silence our voices.”

Here’s an interesting factoid, per LSRJ: 

In 2010, LSRJ launched a funded legal fellowship program for current 3Ls and recent law school graduates interested in working to advance reproductive justice through policy advocacy. Following a tremendous response from students and advocates in the field, LSRJ successfully selected and placed six Reproductive Justice (RJ) Fellows with six organizations in Washington, D.C. for the 2010-11 fellowship year.

The RJFP is intended to enhance capacity at reproductive justice organizations working to influence law and policy and to build a pipeline for future reproductive justice lawyers. The RJ Fellows are each paid $50,000 plus benefits and placed with placement organizations in Washington, D.C. for a year-long program (running August to August) that includes mentoring, professional development, training, and networking opportunities.

Ms. Fluke’s activism doesn’t stop there.  Her profile on the Georgetown Public Interest Law Scholars 2012 Graduates Page shows that:

Sandra Fluke’s professional background in domestic violence and human trafficking began with Sanctuary for Families in New York City. There, she launched the agency’s pilot Program Evaluation Initiative. While at Sanctuary, she co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which after a twenty-year stalemate, successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including LGBTQ victims and teens. Sandra was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President’s Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions that successfully advocated for policy improvements impacting victims of domestic violence.

As the 2010 recipient of the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles Fran Kandel Public Interest Grant, she researched, wrote, and produced an instructional film on how to apply for a domestic violence restraining order in pro per. She has also interned with the Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking; Polaris Project; Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County; Break the Cycle; the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project; NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund; Crime Victim and Sexual Assault Services; and the Human Services Coalition of Tompkins County.

Through Georgetown’s clinic programs, Sandra has proposed legislation based on fact-finding in Kenya regarding child trafficking for domestic work, and has represented victims of domestic violence in protection order cases. Sandra is the Development Editor of the Journal of Gender and the Law, and served as the President of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, and the Vice President of the Women’s Legal Alliance. In her first year, she also co-founded a campus committee addressing human trafficking. Cornell University awarded her a B. S. in Policy Analysis & Management, as well as Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies in 2003.

Whether an apology from Rush may or may not appease the “Moderate” Republicans and the Liberal Democrats, remains to be seen.

The fact of the matter is, Ms. Fluke is not some innocent co-ed.  She is a 30 year old professional student/activist, who was probably planted at Georgetown Law School to do exactly what she did.

She most certainly has an agenda.

Just a Fluke?

March 3, 2012

President Barack Hussein Obama has stuck his nose into a political firestorm of his own device.

Reuters.com has the story:

President Barack Obama called a law student on Friday to express his support after she was branded a “slut” by controversial right-wing talk-show host Rush Limbaugh for her outspoken support of Obama’s new policy on contraception coverage.

Sandra Fluke, a 30-year old student and women’s rights activist at Georgetown University in Washington, has been caught in the middle of a contentious election-year fight between Obama and Republicans over the policy, which requires health insurance plans to cover contraception.

Religious-affiliated organizations, the Roman Catholic Church and social conservatives have protested Obama’s new policy as an infringement on religious liberty. An effort by Republicans in the Senate to overturn it failed this week.

House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, distanced his party from Limbaugh’s comments. A spokesman for Boehner called them “inappropriate” in a statement that also criticized Democrats for using the issue to raise funds before the November 6 election.

Fluke has spoken out against the Republican effort to scrap the birth control policy and advocated making contraception available to all women, drawing fire from Limbaugh and some other conservative commentators.

In an interview, Fluke told Reuters she was initially hurt, then outraged by Limbaugh’s remarks, but said she hoped the incident had raised awareness about the new policy.

She said had received “an avalanche” of supportive emails from women and men around the United States, including many from women who said they needed contraception to respond to medical conditions such as seizures, not just to prevent pregnancy.

The president called “to offer his support and thank me for helping to make heard the voices of all the women who will benefit from this regulation,” Fluke said. “He just wanted to clearly express his distaste for the types of comments that have been made about me. He was very kind.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama thinks Limbaugh’s comments were reprehensible.

“It is disappointing that those kinds of personal and crude attacks could be leveled against someone like this young law school student, who was simply expressing her opinion on a matter of public policy,” Carney said.

On his program on Friday, Rush Limbaugh replied to this rapidly-escalating mess:

What can I do to the women of America?

Do I have the power to raise their taxes? I do not.

Do I have the power to regulate their behavior? I do not.

Do I have the power to make health care decisions for them? I do not.

Do I have the power to withhold birth control pills from them? I do not.

Do I have the power to audit their tax returns? I do not.

Do I have the power to take their little four-year-old kindergarten student’s lunch and throw it away and make ‘em eat something else? I do not.

Do I have the power to look into their personal life and leak the information to the media? I do not.

Is there one bit of freedom that I can deny them? Can I raise their taxes?

They want to blame me as being the person they should fear, when in fact the people doing all these things I just said I have no power to do, the Democrat Party is doing. That’s who everybody’s afraid of in this country. You know that story about the four-year-old girl who had her lunch taken by the federal agent? When those stories happen, have you noticed the people involved don’t want their names known? Who are they afraid of? They’re afraid of Democrat Party. They’re afraid of the Obama administration. The Obama administration will take away your birth control, and if you let ‘em do that, they’ll tell you when you can and can’t take it. And then they’ll tell you when you can and can’t have sex, and then they will tell you when you can or cannot have an abortion!

You give them this power, that’s what they want.

I can’t do any of this.

So, to recap, it turns out that the “sweet little co-ed” has turned out to be a 30 year old “Women’s Right’s” (i.e., Abortion) Activist, who entered Georgetown, a Catholic University, with a dual purpose:  to achieve notoriety and advance her political ideology.

Stepping back from all the “Who Shot John” and the P.T. Barnum-esque nature of this whole contentious media-driven exercise, starting with the opening salvo, i.e., the forcing of Catholic Hospitals to acquiesce to offer the “Holy Sacraments” (birth control pills and the morning after abortion pill) of the Obama Administration, I’m reminded of the words of one Karl Marx from A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (December 1843-January 1844):

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

One of his most famous quotes was:

Religion is the opium of the masses.

He also said:

Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.

And, of course:

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

Evidently, Ms. Fluke is very needy.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,610 other followers