Can She Afford to Pay For Her Own Birth Control Now?

Wednesday, July 30, AD 2014

18 Responses to Can She Afford to Pay For Her Own Birth Control Now?

  • They will “allow” women to have birth control and abortions now. they will give it to them with a beneficent smile.
    Later they will require birth control and abortion, no longer smiling, but sternly calling women into line, not for the good of the woman, or her child, but for the whole, the state.

  • One picture is worth a million words. Has anyone seen a more vapid face on an individual? Hello, Is anyone home? Is there a twitter, a single brain cell in action? I guess HOPE and CHANGE did not work for Sandra Fluke.
    .
    Hypocrisy? I think extortion is a better word.

  • What else can we expect from good little leftists?

    The “education” system is churning out 10’s of millions of these people.

    If we don’t fix that, then we are sunk. It may be too late.

    The result of letting the fox guard the henhouse.

  • Supposedly, Fluke is a working-class girl from a country village in western Pennsylvania. If my own experience in communities of that size is a guide, youngsters therein who gain admission to schools with a certain amount of cachet (or to any sort of research institution) tend to be faculty brats (if there is a college nearby) or doctor’s kids. Supposedly, Fluke’s papa is a machinist. There are no tertiary institutions within 30 miles of where she grew up and the nearest such would be a community college, a branch campus of Penn State, and a quondam Catholic college, all of which have fewer than 2,000 students. Not only is she not a faculty brat; she likely didn’t know anyone who was growing up. The intelligentsia at her high school (one wagers) consisted of Fluke and the local dentist’s kid.

    Pennsylvania has an ant heap of colleges and universities, public and private. Most youngsters who attend 4 year colleges in state and in Pennsylvania, about 78% do. I cannot imagine the concatenation of circumstances which persuaded la famille Fluke that it would be advisable for their daughter to attend Cornell University given that there are three public research institutions in state and (what is unusual) six private research institutions which do not likely have more rigorous admissions screens. Fluke is not in any ethnic or cultural category which makes her a Democratic-party client (quite the contrary); if she won enough of an academic scholarship to make Cornell economical, she’d have been unusual indeed in the countryside vaguely proximate to Altoona, Pa.

    She wastes her time at Cornell in the arts and sciences faculty garnering some synthetic degree, then lives in New York for six years working as a sort of uncertified social worker, then goes to law school. There are quite a number of law schools in New York, including two public institutions (one conveniently located). Instead, she attends an expensive private institution in Georgetown because she’d have standing to make a pest of herself there. Financed how? Who knows?

    One can imagine a husband chosen from a locus more distant from her upbringing than Adam Mutterpurl (who is apparantly ’employed’ as a comedian), just. (She could have married into the Kennedy claque). Still, you get the impression this whole bad comedy is derived from having more intelligence than she knew how to use, from having poor native judgment, from having a mother and father whose counsel would be most applicable in a world she did not wish to live in and had never been at home in, and from ignoring what good sense they had which would have been applicable (because young people who have more intelligence than sense do that).

    It looks like she’ll end up like the Obamas – with a simulacrum of an adult life rather than the real thing.

  • “Fluke’s own family has donated $9,600 to her campaign (her mother gave one donation as Betty and one as Elizabeth).”

    Odd that her “working class family” could come up with $9600 bucks to blow on her campaign. If it isn’t really their money, and came from another source, well that is the type of campaign funding shenanigans that are going to cause Dinesh D’Souza to spend time in the near future at a Club Fed.

  • I think the family tends to re-use names. There appear to be multiple people named “Richard Fluke” (grandfather and grandson, or uncle and nephew, or father and son, cannot tell) and multiple people named “Betty Fluke” (one mother-in-law to the other, I think) and also an “Elizabeth Fluke”. There is a lawyer in New York named “Elizabeth Fluke” the right age to be Sandra Fluke’s sister or a proximate cousin. The (not very reliable) “White Pages” data indicates there is an “Elizabeth Fluke” born ca. 1985 who has passed through that county in Pennsylvania, Boston, and New York. The lawyer in New York attended Boston University, per her LinkedIn profile.

    Sandra and Elizabeth Fluke would appear to be about four years apart in age but received their law degrees the same time. Elizabeth Fluke is an associate at an 850-lawyer megafirm and evidently specializes in corporate law. Just out of puerile curiosity, I do wonder how much of Sandra Fluke’s recent odyssey has been driven by competition with proximate relatives.

    My suspicion would be that any straw donations are being funneled through 1st degree relatives. No, Eric Holders Department of Justice would never prosecute these people.

  • Art Deco
    I rather fancy “intelligence” is, as B John Henry Newman suggests, “not so much one faculty, as a collection of similar or analogous faculties under one name, there being really as many faculties
    as there are distinct subject-matters.”
    “It is almost proverbial that a hard-headed mathematician may have no head at all for what is called historical evidence. Successful experimentalists need not have talent for legal research or pleading. A shrewd man of business may be a bad arguer in philosophical questions. Able statesmen and politicians have been before now eccentric or superstitious in their religious views.”

    And so, no doubt, it is with Ms Flu

  • “No, Eric Holders Department of Justice would never prosecute these people.”
    Agreed.

  • “Like most self-appointed tribunes of the poor and disadvantaged, Fluke is personally well heeled.”
    .
    One wonders what Profession Sandra Fluke is in? Perhaps the oldest? But I doubt it. From my sinful time in the US Submarine Force some three decades ago, I learned that women in that profession give good honest measure for the money they receive, something of which Sandra Fluke is clearly incapable. Therefore, I will not insult such women by including Sandra Fluke in their company.

  • She is an attorney Paul. Certainly not the oldest profession, but one which came into being probably soon after man discovered fire and had disputes about the day’s hunting haul over campfires.

  • I’d take it up with the psychometricians, MPS. There is a distinction between intelligence and good judgment, without a doubt. I am sure there is a story there, and perhaps some family psychodrama. None of my business, I suppose, but I am still curious. About 8% of the tertiary enrollment in baccalaureate granting institutions is to be found in private research universities. Here we have this family of very ordinary means which has two daughters (sisters or cousins to each other) attending such institutions and sending them out-of-state to do so. I cannot figure why they would do that unless these girls got a monster financial aid deal (which would suggest that both were very unusual in their home town). One of this pair got a degree in communications (all three public universities in Pennsylvania have a program) and the other a degree in ‘policy analysis’ with a second major in ‘women’s studies’. The course list for the policy analysis program is here. It is light on statistics.

    http://www.human.cornell.edu/pam/academics/courses/index.cfm

    You can certainly find components of this program at Penn State and Temple if not the University of Pittsburgh.

    Then one of them spends six years working at desultory human services jobs, they both go to law school in a buyer’s market for legal labor (and at the beginning of the recession), and they both attend the law faculties of private research universities (which requires relocating). Not the most practical approach to these matters.

    Sandra Fluke comes from a part of the world where the self is small and budget constraints matter. I cannot figure how she came by the attitudes she has….

  • One wonders what Profession Sandra Fluke is in? Perhaps the oldest?

    Her husband is 39 years of age.

    http://adammutterperl.com/bio.html

    My guess is that drawing on G.I. financing is a big part of meeting expenses.

  • AD: I am going to borrow your term “family psychodrama” and use it in several applications by changing the first word. Lol. 😀

  • Art Deco
    People do sometimes choose a university because they want to study under a particular professor or tutor
    In my day, the two great Grecians, Hugh Lloyd-Jones and Martin Lichfield-West made Oxford a magnet for those reading Classics (including me), as did Hugh Trevor-Roper and A J P Taylor for history and Isaiah Berlin for politics. Then there was A J Ayer, Miss Anscombe and Philippa Foote in philosophy, David Daube and Tony Honoré in Roman Law and so on.

  • People do sometimes choose a university because they want to study under a particular professor or tutor

    There is no tutorial system in this country, you’re not likely to have heard of any of the faculty in your chosen department before enrolling, you often have not chosen a program at the time of your enrollment, and you’re never likely to take more than a few courses with your preferred professor(s) (in part because you’ll have a mess of distribution requirements to fulfill but also because they’re likely to teach only a few of the courses you’ll need). What you’re referring to might happen if you’re scoping graduate programs and very definitely when you are scoping for a dissertation advisor. Neither of these young women have ever entered an academic graduate program.

    Currently, the sticker price for the law schools they attended (ranked #13 and #16 out of 200 by U.S. News) is around $49,000 per annum. Full freight in-state tuition at the three public law schools in Pennsylvania (ranked #51, #61, and #81) is between $20,000 and $42,000 per annum. One of this pair appears to be intent on paying off the balance by making big bucks. She’s not running for a seat in the California legislature.

  • I am going to borrow your term “family psychodrama”

    I stole it off Camille Paglia (who is not writing topical commentary anymore but I would wager has this dame’s number).

  • There are a few subjects that I am afraid to comment on directly (in any fashion) because it makes me so angry I am afraid I could get arrested by what comes out of my mouth. This lying, decitful, self righteous, idiotic, fool of a woman is one of those topics. May God have mercy on her soul–may God help me to be able to pray sincerely for her soul.

  • Ms. Fluke is 33 years old or so (born in 1981). One of these days, she may just decide she wants a baby. She’d better hurry, since fertility for a woman drops pretty quickly around age 35, and by age 40, the decline is quite apparent (http://infertility.about.com/od/causesofinfertility/a/pregnantafter35.htm)
    .
    Hmm, I think I saw something about IVF being the next thing insurance companies/employers will be required to pay for. I expect she will be in on that. IVF doesn’t work that well after age 35, though. Wonder whom she will sue?

8 Responses to Sandra Who?

  • I wonder if Sandra Fluke is really happy. And yes, Rush Limbaugh was originally correct. She wants someone else – the tax payer, the Church, insurance companies, whoever – to pay for her to have consequence-less sex. That’s a whore by any sane definition, and like most whores in history, she ends up without notice, indeed, without even the notoriety that her sexual promiscuity should result it. Thus does history bury the immoral. I hope she repents. I hope her boy friends repent. I hope that we all repent. I am not guiltless of sexual sin in my past, and I doubt most people are.

  • The median 30 year-old Republican woman is educated, is married, has two children, and has a career.

    The notorious Ms. Fluke is 30 years old; still in school; and wants the government to pay for her birth control.

    Nothing to see here.

    Move along.

  • She is the Cindy Sheehan of this election cycle: she’s been used by the Democrats,
    and then discarded like a soiled kleenex.

    It seems Ms. Fluke is no stranger to that chain of events.

  • She want people to vote early?
    Yes, because the stercus is about to hit the fan for O’bummer, and his slice of the vote is on its way south.

  • It’s too bad that Limbaugh went overboard in his rhetoric about Fluke. His name-calling and subsequent apology overshadowed the fact about how clownish she and attention-seekers like her really are. It inflated her significance as a public person much like Monica Lewinsky. Both these women were suckered in to their bathetic roles. Only I have a feeling that, unlike Monica, Sandra will end up teaching at a university someday. Sort of like Anita Hill.

  • Did she pass the hat to get some money to pay for her birth control…..???? Was that sarcastic?

  • It inflated her significance as a public person much like Monica Lewinsky. Both these women were suckered in to their bathetic roles. Only I have a feeling that, unlike Monica, Sandra will end up teaching at a university someday. Sort of like Anita Hill.

    1. Lewinsky was (and one hopes no longer is) notable for her superficiality, comprehensive absence of discipline and discretion (sworn to secrecy she only told 11 people), and loose morals (in part a product of her mother’s inane interests and silly rearing). She never sought public attention in the first instance. She is not all that obtrusive now.

    2. Anita Hill has to know at some level that her academic career is a sham and an example of the collegiate apparatchiki’s racial patronage mill at work. She is 56. She cannot really fix her life at this point. (That a woman who has no background in quantitative social research was willing to seek out and accept a salary as a professor of ‘public policy’ is a piece of evidence that should retrospectively call into question her integrity).

    3. Sandra Fluke was not suckered. She sought out confrontation and attention. Someone who ponied up for Cornell University’s pricy lessons and then squandered it earning a degree in ‘women’s studies’ is not the most sagacious of individuals. It has been in for a dime, in for a dollar for her ever since. We can all hope, however, that she shuts her mouth and finds a serious vocation.

  • Wait a minute. Isn’t she the Contraceptive General of the War on Women? Ten is a crowd for her.

Sandra Fluke and Our Broketastically Brokey-Broke Nation

Friday, September 7, AD 2012

At his best, there’s simply no one who writes like Mark Steyn.

So this is America’s best and brightest – or, at any rate, most expensively credentialed. Sandra Fluke has been blessed with a quarter-million dollars of elite education, and, on the evidence of Wednesday night, is entirely incapable of making a coherent argument. She has enjoyed the leisurely decade-long varsity once reserved for the minor sons of Mitteleuropean grand dukes, and she has concluded that the most urgent need facing the Brokest Nation in History is for someone else to pay for the contraception of 30-year-old children. She says the choice facing America is whether to be “a country where we mean it when we talk about personal freedom, or one where that freedom doesn’t apply to our bodies and our voices” – and, even as the words fall leaden from her lips, she doesn’t seem to comprehend that Catholic institutions think their “voices” ought to have freedom, too, or that Obamacare seizes jurisdiction over “our bodies” and has 16,000 new IRS agents ready to fine us for not making arrangements for “our” pancreases and “our” bladders that meet the approval of the commissars. Sexual liberty, even as every other liberty withers, is all that matters: A middle-school girl is free to get an abortion without parental consent, but if she puts a lemonade stand on her lawn she’ll be fined. What a bleak and reductive concept of “personal freedom.”

America is so broketastically brokey-broke that one day, in the grim future that could be, society may even be forced to consider whether there is any meaningful return on investment for paying a quarter-million bucks to send the scions of wealth and privilege to school till early middle-age to study Reproductive Justice. But, as it stands right now, a Cornell and Georgetown graduate doesn’t understand the central reality of the future her elders have bequeathed her. There’s no “choice” in the matter. It’s showing up whatever happens in November. All the election will decide is whether America wants to address that reality, or continue to live in delusion – like a nation staggering around with a giant condom rolled over its collective head.

As funny as it is, it almost makes one want to weep.

Read the rest.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Sandra Fluke and Our Broketastically Brokey-Broke Nation

  • One of the most dismaying features of contemporary liberalism is how it infantilizes its adherents. Sandra Fluke is a first rate example of this process of transforming adults into perpetual wards of the State. That the Democrat powers that be thought that parading this embodiment of “gimme gimme” liberalism would sway sane voters is a testament that the epithet socialist that is tossed at them vastly understates the religious devotion to Holy Mother the State that is obviously now the guiding belief of the party of Jackson.

  • Mark is wonderful. Contrasting the naive nature of Sandra Fluk with our elders and anscestors that made societal advances one painful and slow step at a time is wonderful. In ages past, someone like Sandra would have been dragged out of the gathering. She would not have been given the privelage to banter after the first few minutes. Today, she is the darling of the liberal left. I say, let her speak. She may do more good for conservative growth than you think.

  • stuff like this is why i appreciated Cardinal Dolan’s use of the phrase “ordered liberty” in his benedictions — i think he’s the only prominent figure i’ve ever heard use a phrase like that recently. Republicans like to invoke how we’re a nation of liberty, and they obviously see it in different terms than the personal libertinism of the Left, but because neither side does a ton of in-depth discussion in politics about what exactly our conceptions of liberty are, Democrats inevitably go “you say you’re for liberty, well why don’t you support [insert Democratic proposal here]”

  • Even the grand pooh bah of world socialism H G Wells was deathly afraid that socialism would degenerate into a society of slackers and infantile wants. His book The Time Machine was intended as a stark warning of that with its pretty but feeble ELOI. Even the degenerate Morlocks who worked in a lowbrow way were too much for the Eloi to fight against.

    It’s ironic the Sandra advances a position that is almost identical with the old male chauvinist idea of the available woman who could be used without consequence and attachment. Her boyfriends (she has never indicated that she was in a monogamous relationship) apparently have no responsibility to her. She is smart enough to realize though that she could never make it as a conventional lawyer; her only hope is as a politico in some blue state.

  • Good post, Paul Z. Aside comment: for the life of me, I can’t understand why any red-blooded American male would even be able to muster the physical straightness (as it were) required to necessitate Sandra Fluke’s need for contraceptive. Looking at her face and appearance, one’s ability for reproductive activity would surely shrivel up in disgust and revulsion for nothing attractive therein resides.

  • “It’s ironic the Sandra advances a position that is almost identical with the old male chauvinist idea of the available woman who could be used without consequence and attachment.”

    Thank you, thank you, thank you! I don’t know how many times I have tried to explain to my fellow women that contraceptives and “consequence free” sex turn a great many of us into mere receptacles. It drives me up a wall to see how so many women blatantly advertise their sexual availability, in some cases literally trolling for sex, and in the next breath (or post if they’re on the interwebs) will complain about being lonely and not being able to find a good man who loves her for who she is. And if you suggest that maybe these ladies should keep their lady bits to themselves for a while, you’re a “hater” and a prude. It boggles the mind!

  • Rozin: ” She is smart enough to realize though that she could never make it as a conventional lawyer; her only hope is as a politico in some blue state.”

    Because unless Fluke’s life is gounded in TRUTH, Fluke and her overlords and minions, and everything they touch, will fail.

    This one requires three (3) Hail Marys

  • If I were Sandra Fluke’s father I would be so heart sick with shame, I would have an emotional breakdown.

  • etcera, etcera, and so forth: Twenty three million people, unemployed, and Sandra Fluke tells us that the people owe her birth control; speaking of being “out of touch”. The War on Women is nothing more than a war on reality. The human being must take back his dignity and his taxes.

  • “… What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they’re not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That’s not a stand, it’s a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool…”

    ~ Peggy Noonan
    http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

  • Yeah Greg, I know I would be pretty heartbroken and feeling dishonored if she were my daughter too. When I read your comment, my mind immediately jumped to some lyrics by my favorite band, Marillion, and I wonder if they would apply.

    She was a wallflower at sixteen
    She’ll be a wallflower at thirty-four
    Her mother called her beautiful
    Her daddy said a whore

  • JA: I may start to read Peggy Noonan. I stopped reading in 2008 when she went “all in” against Governor Palin and McCain.

    Greg: If that was me, I’d say, “I always thought she looked a lot like the mailman.”

  • RL says: “some lyrics by my favorite band, Marillion, and I wonder if they would apply.’

    She was a wallflower at sixteen
    She’ll be a wallflower at thirty-four
    Her mother called her beautiful
    Her daddy said a whore.

    At sixteen, the child is an un-emancipated person, a minor in a court of law, and daddy don’t do nutthin but pray for her. Maybe, “her daddy” needs the prayers more. Pornified culture be damned. RL, don’t go there.

    Mary

  • Thanks for the advice Mary. But since the subject wasn’t a sixteen year old’s sexual escapades (“was” is past tense, and the reference was to a particular man’s actions), and the subject matter of the album is the very fallen state of a man who realized that his life of licentiousness not only failed to bring happiness, but destruction and despair. He ended up finding that the goodness contained in his childhood was the answer to his happiness. But again, thanks for the warning. I’ll be more careful about my consumption of the pornified culture in the future.

A Flukey Speech

Thursday, September 6, AD 2012

 

 

 

Sandra Fluke’s speech last night at the Democrat convention is the worst I have ever heard at a national convention, and I have heard many very bad ones.  Whiny and petulant (Why didn’t Romney stand up to Limbaugh when he insulted me!), self-obsessed and grating, I think even some pro-aborts watching in television land were probably thinking by the end, “This 30 year old spoiled brat isn’t helping us!”.   Liberal columnist Kirsten Powers tweeted during Fluke’s screed:   “I find this speech so offensive as a woman. The idea that women are silenced victims.”

Of course, Fluke was invited when it was thought by the Democrats that the War on Women meme was going to be their magical pathway to victory.  I doubt if many Democrat strategists still believe that as the polls indicate that even for Democrats the abortion/contraception “holy war” being preached by Fluke is at the bottom of their priorities.  I can understand that once she was invited the Democrats had to allow her to speak, but why such a prized time slot? 

Continue reading...

4 Responses to A Flukey Speech

  • Here’s a suggestion for an Obama2012 bumper sticker: “Victims Vote!”

  • Fluke is (at age 30!) a deeply confused person who needs intelligent people around her to be reflecting reality back at her. Ms. magazine and the cheering throng at that convention are not getting the job done.

  • The annual law school tuition is approx $48 k per year, yet she needs someone to pay for her birth control. She is a clueless little girl.

  • I like Art’s line about reflecting reality back at her. Unfortunately she is in no shape to be able to receive such a reflection.

    I’m not so sure she is clueless however as much as interested in using the coercive power of government to achieve her pet political goals. I wish she were more clueless in that regard.

Declaring War on the Church

Thursday, August 9, AD 2012

Well the above video from the Romney campaign removes all doubt that the HHS Mandate is going to be front and center in the fall campaign.  Obama was campaigning with Sandra Fluke yesterday, as Ed Morrissey at Hot Air details here.  Obama’s war on the Catholic Church, and his attempt to promote schism within the Church, may play a decisive role in the swing states like Ohio that will decide this election.

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Declaring War on the Church

  • Someone was there interviewing people as they left the Fluke/Obama rally. It’s an amusing video.

  • Thank you, Donald, for this post!

  • Pingback: Declaring War on the Church | Brown Pelican Society of Louisiana
  • Actually everything is A-OK.

    President Obama, Archbishop Dolan and very likely Mitt Romney will be attending the annual Al Smith Catholic Charities dinner together. It should be a great photo op and good laughs all around!

  • Pingback: THURSDAY EVENING EXTRA | Big ?ulpit
  • The laugh will be on Obama at that dinner I suspect. Carter when he appeared in 1980 was booed while Reagan was received with warmth. We shall see.

  • I’ve got to tune out until election day. News that 2012 is shaping up to be a replay of 2008 is too depressing for words. I can’t begin to imagine why my fellow Americans voted for Mr. Obama to begin with, much less why they’d do so again. Here we are though, again watching a GOP challenger slip in the polls. This time though, it is astounding that we have an utter failure of policy and the President’s lead grows daily. Remind me again how voting for Santorum was foolish because he couldn’t win a General campaign.

    Give some good news guys. I’m sure I’m not the only loyal reader who needs it!

  • Sure, check out Rasmussen. He is the only pollster who polls 15000 people each month in a huge survey to determine party strength. His polls over the past month have usually shown Romney with about a two point lead:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

    His party id poll currently shows the Republicans with a slight advantage over the Democrats, which is death for the Democrats in the coming election. Most other election polls that you see floating around are junk with no likely voter screen and usually something like a D6-D9 advantage for the Democrats in the percent of people sampled, which is simply absurd this year. Junk data makes for junk polls.

  • Wow. “Be Not Afraid!” was an eloquent choice for Mitt Romney to quote the Pope. Yes he is trying to appeal to Catholic voters, and I hope Catholic voters listen, stay informed be active and pray. Be Not Afraid.

    We can Not be afraid of what almost seems cataclysmic around us culturally and politically.

    When I hear those words and think of young Karol W lying face down hiding from Nazis – he knew what he was talking about when he said not to be afraid.
    And the brave people of Ukraine, Latvia — saints- who kept their faith in the face of real evil. The little prayer book in my purse is called “Mary Save Us” – smuggled out of Siberia– the author, Adele, a catechism teacher, did die in the camp.. in the 1950’s.

    I hope voters take this war on religion seriously. All you eastern europeans now in heaven pray for us.

  • Don,

    I’ve seen many other polls showing the opposite.

    I still think Obama is going to win in a squeaker, but I hope to be proven dead wrong.

  • Anzlyne: “All you eastern europeans now in heaven pray for us.” All the saints and angels in heaven, pray for us.”

  • Tito, you have to look at the poll internals. Gallup, which is the best poll after Rasmussen, shows Obama with a one or two point lead usually over the past 30 days. Polls which show Obama with a large lead are simply junk with too many Democrats sampled and usually no likely voter screen.

  • The communist government officials raped Lech Walesa’s daughters while he waited in the next room listening to their screams. Only the voters can stop Obama’s rape of little children’s conscience rights. Walesa knows the evil and Walesa is endorsing for Romney.

  • “The communist government officials raped Lech Walesa’s daughters while he waited in the next room listening to their screams.”

    Source Mary? I have never read that.

  • Gallup polls registered voters, not likely voters. Rasmussen is the major which uses a likely voter screen as a matter of course. I think NPR has attempted that as well.

  • Just which is the constituency to whom Sandra Fluke would appeal?

  • Correct Art. Assuming a two point decrease for Obama in a switch to a likely voter screen, Rasmussen and Gallup have been very close in their numbers this cycle.

  • “Just which is the constituency to whom Sandra Fluke would appeal?”

  • I got a call today from a pollster asking a bazillion questions about mainly local and state races, about name recognition for various local/state candidates and whether I had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of them, etc. I wasn’t completely decided about several of the races she asked about, and didn’t really have any opinion on some of the people she mentioned, but when she asked how likely I was to vote, I said “very likely” and when she asked whether I would vote for Romney or Obama I said “definitely Romney.” So maybe I just nudged the polls a tiny fraction of a point in the “red” direction….

  • I am interested in whether there is a poll taking demographic – if that is a correct term for polls about which I agree with G-Veg – that counts people who decline participation.

    A month or so ago, there was a call from someone who said they were from Gallup and I declined participation. Maybe caller ID would be helpful. I’ve seen some very long alpha-numeric ID’s, city-state ID’s, and other generic words (like service) and am wary.

    Just a glimmering hope that many may remain silent in resolve in this intimidating atmosphere, such as when using lawn signs or bumper stickers causes an occasion for sin for someone.

  • Lord Courtney famously remarked that there are lies, damned lies and statistic.

    It is worth noting that the noble lord was not merely an excellent mathematician (he was Senior Wrangler at Cambridge) but a President of the Royal Statistical Society (1897 – 1899)

  • War on the Church?

    Don’t worry about the Church.

    Worry about Obama.

    They declared war on drugs 50 or 60 years. Who won that one?

  • Donald McClarey says: “The communist government officials raped Lech Walesa’s daughters while he waited in the next room listening to their screams.”

    Source Mary? I have never read that.

    Ask Lech Walesa. Walesa is the most reliable source.

  • Link to where you read this Mary. If you do not I will delete the comments referencing this. I have a strong love of history and I will not allow statements like that to remain on this blog if they are not based on fact.

  • I am sorry Donald, I do mean to be rude. I saw Lech Walesa on television weeping, his hands to his eyes, confessing what he had endured, and this is what he confessed: that “the communists took his minor daugters into the next room and he heard them screaming”. This happened when the communists tried to break Walesa and Solidarnocs (sp) the Gdansk shipyard solidarity encouraged by John Paul II, something one does not forget decades later. The fact that Walesa is still alive and can vouch for the truth of this is relevant. Otherwise you may do as needs to be done.

  • That is fine Mary. I am sure you heard what you heard. I can find no reference to the incident but I will let the comments stand based upon what you heard Walesa say.

  • Thank you, Donald. I am thinking too, of Jerzy Popielusko (sp), the Cathoic priest whom the communists beat and drowned, who is now up for canonization. I am going to continue to look as this is very relevant to Obama’s election. Obama is a man who will not permit people the use of their free will and their conscience and I see no difference between a war on God, a war on the Catholic Church and a war on the individual person made in the image and likeness of God. There is a very enlightening episode by Fulton J. Sheen entitled “The Glory of Being an American.” Bishop Sheen says that persons make up “WE, the people”. Communism is made up of “the masses”. When the individual no longer has any value to the party, he ceases to exist. The communist party error in that logic is that the communist party did not give the human being existence and therefore cannot take existence away.

Sandra Fluke and Walmart

Thursday, March 22, AD 2012

 

Sandra Fluke professes not to have known that birth control pills  for $9.00 for  a month’s supply are available within easy walking distance of Georgetown.  I believe her.  I doubt if Sandra Fluke would ever do anything as declasse as shop at a Walmart.  That is for the hoi polloi.  Sandra’s life as a struggling law student includes trips to Europe, presumably paid for by her mega-rich boy friend.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Sandra Fluke and Walmart

  • Although you come off as agreeable with Ms Fluke, it does not take long to show your intentions. Way to totally miss the point of this conversation. At least you could have called her a slut! Jesus Christ!

  • “Although you come off as agreeable with Ms Fluke, it does not take long to show your intentions.”

    How perceptive you are Bryan. My intention was to show that she is a completely out of touch limousine Leftist. Thanks for picking up on that.

    “Way to totally miss the point of this conversation.”

    That Sandra Fluke is a spoiled brat Leftist who wishes to trample on religious liberties is, I think, the point of the conversation.

    “At least you could have called her a slut!”

    Nah, she isn’t that harmless, or honest.

    “Jesus Christ!”

    Ah, casual blasphemy, always the way to end a well-argued contribution to com box debate.

  • Birth control drugs can potentially have some negative side effects. Working with a doctor to try to find what is right for you, getting the appropriate prescription, and having follow-up appointments can be an expensive proposition, regardless of the cost of generics at Walmart.

  • Please Michael, give it up. Sandra Fluke was simply lying for political effect. She has given zero details as to how she came up with the $3,000.00 figure and she clearly had no intention of discussing how cheap contraception is for the average woman, or that contraception is available for free to poor women under Title X.

    Ace of Spades asked her how she arrived at the figure she cited. The response, a refusal to comment:

    “By asserting, with no citation to any source, that she’s “informed” that some people with a conveniently-unnamed “genetic” disease can’t take those particular pills (which ones? there are a lot of different types available at that price) but must take pills costing “$1500 per year.”

    Look, as a blogger, sometimes I, well, I don’t make things up, but I pass things along without verification.

    If I started telling Jake Tapper or anyone in the media things I’d been “informed of” by unnamed people in my comments, would they take it seriously?

    No. They’d ignore it. People tell stories. People’s stories tend to be those that push their agenda. Absent verification, they’re just stories.

    Has Jake Tapper or anyone else in the media checked Fluke’s main claim — that many insurance policies won’t cover hormonal therapy when prescribed for medical reasons?

    Because that’s her big claim — that while birth control per se might be cheap, some women have rare “genetic” diseases requiring birth control hormones for medical purposes, but insurers won’t cover these costs. (These are the only conceivable truly high costs of “birth control.”)

    And yet, has she named a single policy or provider which maintains this bizarre scheme?

    No.

    And I asked her on Twitter
    She refused comment.”

  • “Birth control drugs can potentially have some negative side effects. Working with a doctor to try to find what is right for you, getting the appropriate prescription, and having follow-up appointments can be an expensive proposition, regardless of the cost of generics at Walmart.”

    This. Exactly. Birth Control isn’t something you screw around with. It can have serious side effects if you take it without seeing a doctor. Not all prescriptions are the same and not all women can take the same kind of birth control.

  • “Birth Control isn’t something you screw around with.”

    No comment.

    “Not all prescriptions are the same and not all women can take the same kind of birth control.”

    And for the vast majority of women contraception is dirt cheap or free. Next red herring.

  • No comment.

    LOL – really!

    Even if they are more expensive for some, it’s still not likely to cost $3000. Regardless, that’s missing the point. It is unjust to force other people to pay for your expensive recreational activities – especially if they view those activities as immoral.

  • Birth control pills DO have serious side effects…breast cancer for one. The best method yet to prevent unplanned pregnancy is abstinence.

  • Birth Control isn’t something you screw around with.

    Dr. Pepper on monitor… almost. HAHAHAHAHAHA

    But then again, side effects are real. They include such wonderful things as weight gain, moodiness, and loss of libido. Really, sounds like the ideal spouse… not.

    On the unattractive side, they can contribute to cardiac issues and increased risk of cancer.

  • Birth control is also known to cause abortion. OK, maybe “lead to” more than “cause”, but the ends are the same.

    And I didn’t know that you needed a prescription for condoms.

  • Birth control pills have poisoned our ground water with estrogen. Obama wants us to pay to pollute our ground water, then pay to clean it up.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY EXTRA: U.S. CULTURE WARS | ThePulp.it
  • At the houston anti hhs rally. About 400 people so far.

  • Let us know how the rally went c matt. We need to have such rallies up and down the nation.

  • but must take pills costing “$1500 per year.”

    Taking her at her word, that’s $125 a month.

    A latte (tall) costs about $3.50 each. One latte a day would just about cover it. That is not even factoring in her use of a health savings account which would lower the after tax cost even more. Maybe if the HHS mandated coverage for one latte a day, that would free up her coin for the pills?

  • Went very well – beautiful day, inspiring speakers. One young female speaker in particular who recognized the despicable tactic of the media and HHS supporters to change the narrative from religious freedom to banning contraceptives. She was not fooled, but unfortunately too many others are.

    Tough to estimate the crowd, several hundred at least. And very well behaved – vocal with cheers for the speakers, but no disruptive conduct at all. Lots of kids present too, mostly babies and elementary school age. An Orthodox priest, several Catholic nuns, Catholic priest and Protestant Minister (…walk into a rally…sounds like the intro of a joke).

    Four or five cops on hand, and essentially just sat in the shade, chatted with each other, and watched – not much for them to do.

  • One thing I never quite understood. The same people who go out of their way to eat only organic fruit, vegetables and meats (when they do eat meat) and decry the use of hormones in food products, have no problem directly ingesting a synthetic hormone on a daily basis. Go figure.

  • c matt, that observation fits Seattle to a T.

  • Suzanne Sommers books reveal her investigation into the ways big pharma has fooled women into thinking that they have the answers when the reality is that it is all about making money and they don’t care how they tamper with nature or the consequences. Men and women from both sides of this issue should look at what she has written and investigate for yourselves. The bottom line for me is that if you are following church teaching you don’t have to worry, if you are not and thinking you are going to get away with it, think again. It can have lifelong effects and affects everyone around you, from our having to deal with family illness to the water it pollutes and environmental harm from the hormones in the water.

  • I get that Ms. Fluke’s friend could have bought birth control pills cheaply at Wal-Mart. However, she needed to take them for an ovarian problem (which, because she did not have birth control pills, she died from, I believe). My thought is that she perhaps needed a certain type of BC pill, a type that might have been very expensive. So we have a situation in which the Catholic Church doesn’t want to pay for medication that could save lives…In any case, it all goes back to intent. If BC pills can be an abortificient (sp?), a question that is highly suspect, well, so can booze, and that is beyond question, but Catholic church’s happily give out booze at parties and so forth.

  • God knows Walter where you got the lie that Fluke testified that her friend died. Here is a link to Fluke’s meretricious testimony and she never said that:

    http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/02/23/transcript-sandra-fluke-testifies-on-why-women-should-be-allowed-access-to-contraception-and-reproductive-health-care/

    Of course this has absolutely nothing to do with the rare cases, already covered, where birth control pills are used to treat a medical condition and not for contraceptive purposes. It has everything to do with running rough shod over religious liberty in order for Obama to score points with pro-abort feminists and to conjure up an imaginary “Republican war on women”, so he can overcome his miserable record and get another four year lease on the White House.

  • Mac,

    The evil, hateful sacs of excrement at MSNBC, moron.org, et al twist the facts to make massive traps for imbecile liberals.

2012: An Elijah on Mount Carmel Year

Monday, March 12, AD 2012

And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? If the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

First Kings 18:21

 

When the Supreme Court begins oral argument on ObamaCare on March 26, the White House is unveiling a new secret weapon:  Prayer.

On Wednesday, White House officials summoned dozens of leaders of nonprofit organizations that strongly back the health law to help them coordinate plans for a prayer vigil, press conferences and other events outside the court when justices hear arguments for three days beginning March 26.   

The acolytes of the South Side Messiah have long known that their strongest adversaries are among Christians who take their faith seriously.  That is why they are promoting a de facto schism in the Catholic Church, and why they have attempted to promote Sandra Fluke, that summary of all that is wrong with Jesuit run Georgetown,  as the White House sponsored symbol of an alternate magisterium for American Catholics.   Religion in this country is to be transformed into a useful auxiliary for the President, spearheaded by astroturf pro-Obama “religious” groups like the George Soros funded Catholics United and the interdenominational Faith in Public Life, and dissenters will be silenced through mockery by the mainstream media which is overwhelmingly on the side of Obama, and propaganda campaigns led by the Obama administration and its allies to undermine leaders of any denomination who do not toe the line.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to 2012: An Elijah on Mount Carmel Year

  • The analogy with the 450 prophets of Baal is most appropriate. BTW, their fate did not end well.

  • Also this:

    Numbers 16
    Korah, Dathan and Abiram
    1 Korah son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and certain Reubenites—Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth—became insolent[a] 2 and rose up against Moses. With them were 250 Israelite men, well-known community leaders who had been appointed members of the council. 3 They came as a group to oppose Moses and Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the LORD’s assembly?”
    4 When Moses heard this, he fell facedown. 5 Then he said to Korah and all his followers: “In the morning the LORD will show who belongs to him and who is holy, and he will have that person come near him. The man he chooses he will cause to come near him. 6 You, Korah, and all your followers are to do this: Take censers 7 and tomorrow put burning coals and incense in them before the LORD. The man the LORD chooses will be the one who is holy. You Levites have gone too far!”

    8 Moses also said to Korah, “Now listen, you Levites! 9 Isn’t it enough for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the rest of the Israelite community and brought you near himself to do the work at the LORD’s tabernacle and to stand before the community and minister to them? 10 He has brought you and all your fellow Levites near himself, but now you are trying to get the priesthood too. 11 It is against the LORD that you and all your followers have banded together. Who is Aaron that you should grumble against him?”

    12 Then Moses summoned Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab. But they said, “We will not come! 13 Isn’t it enough that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the wilderness? And now you also want to lord it over us! 14 Moreover, you haven’t brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey or given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards. Do you want to treat these men like slaves[b]? No, we will not come!”

    15 Then Moses became very angry and said to the LORD, “Do not accept their offering. I have not taken so much as a donkey from them, nor have I wronged any of them.”

    16 Moses said to Korah, “You and all your followers are to appear before the LORD tomorrow—you and they and Aaron. 17 Each man is to take his censer and put incense in it—250 censers in all—and present it before the LORD. You and Aaron are to present your censers also.” 18 So each of them took his censer, put burning coals and incense in it, and stood with Moses and Aaron at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 19 When Korah had gathered all his followers in opposition to them at the entrance to the tent of meeting, the glory of the LORD appeared to the entire assembly. 20 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 21 “Separate yourselves from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once.”

    22 But Moses and Aaron fell facedown and cried out, “O God, the God who gives breath to all living things, will you be angry with the entire assembly when only one man sins?”

    23 Then the LORD said to Moses, 24 “Say to the assembly, ‘Move away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram.’”

    25 Moses got up and went to Dathan and Abiram, and the elders of Israel followed him. 26 He warned the assembly, “Move back from the tents of these wicked men! Do not touch anything belonging to them, or you will be swept away because of all their sins.” 27 So they moved away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. Dathan and Abiram had come out and were standing with their wives, children and little ones at the entrances to their tents.

    28 Then Moses said, “This is how you will know that the LORD has sent me to do all these things and that it was not my idea: 29 If these men die a natural death and suffer the fate of all mankind, then the LORD has not sent me. 30 But if the LORD brings about something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them, with everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the realm of the dead, then you will know that these men have treated the LORD with contempt.”

    31 As soon as he finished saying all this, the ground under them split apart 32 and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their households, and all those associated with Korah, together with their possessions. 33 They went down alive into the realm of the dead, with everything they owned; the earth closed over them, and they perished and were gone from the community. 34 At their cries, all the Israelites around them fled, shouting, “The earth is going to swallow us too!”

    35 And fire came out from the LORD and consumed the 250 men who were offering the incense.

    36 The LORD said to Moses, 37 “Tell Eleazar son of Aaron, the priest, to remove the censers from the charred remains and scatter the coals some distance away, for the censers are holy— 38 the censers of the men who sinned at the cost of their lives. Hammer the censers into sheets to overlay the altar, for they were presented before the LORD and have become holy. Let them be a sign to the Israelites.”

    39 So Eleazar the priest collected the bronze censers brought by those who had been burned to death, and he had them hammered out to overlay the altar, 40 as the LORD directed him through Moses. This was to remind the Israelites that no one except a descendant of Aaron should come to burn incense before the LORD, or he would become like Korah and his followers.

  • Pingback: MONDAY EXTRA: U.S. POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • AS for me and mine, I will serve God.

  • Yes, the devil can pray also to mislead people…truly the evil one is prowling very hard.

  • Pingback: Bishops? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Bishops! | The American Catholic
  • So the new secret weapon of the White House is prayer! Oh, the absolute irony of it!!!!

  • “So the new secret weapon of the White House is prayer! Oh, the absolute irony of it!!!!”

    But its okay because it is under the guidance of our god-Pharoah. Perhaps he will send Jannes and Jambres to help.

  • Pingback: An American Issue | The American Catholic
  • Fluke : “All that’s wrong with Jesuit run Georgetown” ?????
    How can that be given that she’s running a campaign against Georgetown’s faith-based refusal to fund her contraceptive appetite? She’s an example of how Georgetown is challenged as it tows the line, not the opposite.

  • Not at all Tim. The administration and faculty of Georgetown quickly rallied around Sandra Fluke:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/03/05/jesuitical-13-rush-and-the-jesuits/

  • Pingback: The Church in America: Low Grade Civil War | The American Catholic
  • Excellent: I see I’m not alone in thinking of Elijah lately. John the Baptist is another prophet who comes to mind—as the priests who worshipped Baal (and those that rebelled against Moses) are analogous to modern-day libertine Catholics, so the Pharisees and Sadducees are to the heretical “theologians” who thrive in American schools, even ones that are nominally Catholic.

Surprise! Sandra Fluke Being Run From White House

Friday, March 9, AD 2012

29 Responses to Surprise! Sandra Fluke Being Run From White House

  • It’s working . . . [gasp]

    The Catholic War and BC kerfluffle are distracting you the people from skyrocketing gasoline prices and no jobs.

    So much so that in the OK primary Obamessiah lost 15 counties and won the state-wide primary with 57% of the Democrud vote.

    Also, it’s working for Hewo of the Wevowution Ewizabeth Wawwen who is polling 10 points behind Senator Scott Brown.

    Re: Mao and Mother Teresa: Mao would say, “Let’s kill 50,000,000 people to change society.” Mother Teresa would tell you, “You won’t be going to Heaven if you vote Democrat.” “

  • “Anita Dunn is a political strategist who served as White House Communications Director from April through November 2009. She is a senior partner at SKDKnickerbocker Consulting in Washington, D.C. and has recently become a contributor for NBC News / MSNBC / CNBC.”

    The Main Stream News Media – why am I unsurprised!

    He spouse is Robert Bauer who in turn “…is an American attorney who previously served as White House Counsel under President of the United States Barack Obama…Bauer was President Obama’s personal attorney and the general counsel of the Obama for America presidential campaign prior to his appointment as White House Counsel. He has also previously served as the general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, and had advised President Obama since Mr. Obama came to Washington, D.C. in 2005 as U. S. Senator.”

    The tentacles of the Comité de Salut Public grows. Any day now we will hear the cries of Liberté, égalité, fraternité as we are shown the guillotine.

  • Instead of us being shown the guillotine Paul, the country is going to show these bizarre characters the door in November.

  • Regarding Ms. Fluke, I feel compelled to say this, which is something I feel I should have posted about earlier when the story first broke…..she did not ask for Congress to subsidize students having sex. That I would be morally offended by. What she seemed to me to be saying is that even when students had doctor’s notes saying they were using the contraceptives for help with things like cancer, they were denied coverage. From my understanding of Catholic teaching, If a person was using contraceptives for medical reasons only, AND was abstaining from sex while using said contraceptives, that would be different from using contraceptives to prevent pregnancy.

    It seems to me that the best way to counter taking her testimony as a reason to cover contraception in all cases would be to try and ensure that when a person brings a doctor’s note saying they are using the contraceptive for a limited period of time for medical reasons, they are covered.

  • Can someone explain why a 30 year old private citizen with no wage or salaried employment has any need of a public relations firm or would be inclined to fork over for one? Is she being forwarded Beyonce’s fan mail?

  • “What she seemed to me to be saying is that even when students had doctor’s notes saying they were using the contraceptives for help with things like cancer, they were denied coverage. ”

    That was thrown in as a smokescreen. She is a hard core pro-abort activist who attended Georgetown precisely to get that Jesuit school to change its policy on student health insurance not covering contraceptives.

  • “Can someone explain why a 30 year old private citizen with no wage or salaried employment has any need of a public relations firm or would be inclined to fork over for one?”

    Or how she can afford to be jetting around the nation making speeches. Additionally her law school appears to be mighty accomodating on her missing classes, although it is her third year and I do have to admit that most law students in their third year are concerned with finding employment and preparing for the bar exam with class work taking a back seat.

  • Lord Jesus, please make Donald’s prediction a reality! In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen!

  • Isn’t this Saul Alinsky’s strategy, to place an enemy in the midst of a peaceable assembly to disrupt that peaceable assembly? Isn’t this the abrogation of free speech? Isn’t Sandra Fluke bearing false witness, which, in a court of law is perjury? Perjury from the White House is treason. Obama took an oath to uphold the constitution, especially that part that says: “or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” And that part of the Obamas being community organizers for the poor with Alinsky’s philosophy of : “Take as much as you can as fast as you can” is that called working for the poor? Alinsky asked God to send him to hell and from hell Alinsky has been orchestrating our desent into hell. Mao Tse Tung said: Mind your own business. Mother Teresa said: “Give what you have to the poor and come follow me.” That woman could not keep her tongue in her mouth.

  • So if the White House is pimping her, Rush needs to take back his apology. Sure she didn’t sell her body but it’s clear she has sold her soul.

  • Limbaugh is sitting pretty. Advertisers who bailed on him are begging him to take them back:
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/03/rush-limbaugh-advertiser.html

    Liberal Kirsten Powers has attacked the rampant misogyny on the Left:

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/van-susteren-and-kirsten-powers-on-media-misogyny-obama-and-super-pac-will-look-other-way-if-you-pony-up/

    Exhibit A of this misogyny is Bill Maher who routinely attacks conservative women in the vilest imaginable terms, and who recently contributed a million bucks for Obama’s reelection. Here Maher is taken to task by ShePacTv:

  • If WH organization is using her for a schill, she’s on an all expenses paid (by taxpayers or PAC’s) whirl. Her law degree will be awarded in the same way ND did for the leader of the disgrace.

  • I was watching Sean Hannity on Fox News yesterday at a friends place where this very topic was being discussed, and showed a clip of Bill Maher pouring out his vitriol.

    I simply cannot understand how 1. An audience would find his abuse amusing and laughable.
    and 2. Why the network channel allows that sort debased language and deliberate insult to go to air.
    I go to my local bar once or twice a week for a beer with a bunch of mates; a couple of them are pretty hard cases – but they would not use that sort of abusive language about women.
    Its really quite shocking, and is not what I would view to be the America, and Americans,
    that I have come to know over the years,( looking from the outside).
    But what really staggered me was that Obama seems to accept it against his opponents.
    That guy is looking increasingly shifty when he speaks publicly – doesn’t seem to have quite the self assurance of a couple of years ago. Eye contact seems to be avoided – or is that just imagination?

  • Too many Leftists Don view their opponents as evil and deserving of no shred of respect. Common decency is becoming increasingly uncommon on the port side of the political spectrum. Fun times ahead.

  • Don,

    It’s all out war and there are no rules: “no holds barred.”

    Obam is organzing prayer vigils for the SC steps when the socialized medicine case is heard. Maybe he’ll send Malia and sasha to “occupy” the SC. Somebody’s got to pay for their condoms!

    Maybe Rev. Wright is available to lead some “Goddamn Americas.”

    Today NYT published an ad calling for on Catholics to leave the Catholic Church.

    The far left hate group, Freedom from Religion, calls liberal (de facto excommunicatos) Catholics “enablers” and says it’s time to choose between the “woman-hating, sex-perverting, old boy’s club” and reproductive rights.

    May as well, commies. Either way, you’re going to hell.

  • They must be laughing up their sleeves at this new idea to defy Truth. Mind control and another excuse for getting the mob primed. Coincidentally, the sun is sending some plasma to earth tomorrow night.

  • Obama is organizing prayer vigils? remember that word “co-opt”?

  • I Hope we DO show them the door in November. There is apparently a lot of work to be done and we seem to be at a disadvantage.
    I am thinking of this consideration: had Gandhi or M L KIng not been able to appeal to a public formed by Christian conscience, they prob would not have been successful.
    Could it be now that we no longer have a nation with with a Christian conscience?
    The other side seems to have the weight of the culture, of ingrained popular opinion, constantly shaped and formed by the media/movies, music…(sigh)

  • As 2010 indicated Anzlyne, none of that trumps reality. The reality is that Obama has been an appallingly bad President, and I am confident that a majority of the American people will register their rejection of him and all his works come election day.

  • yes you are right —
    the ephemeral “hope and change” promises lose appeal with people when they are faced with reality– makes us become, ah, realists !
    keeping and building that momentum (the midterm elections) will be key

  • by the way Mr. McClarey, I like your characterization: “reject him and all his works” -it has that familiar ring– “pomps” would be nice added in there! : )

  • I am against abortion but if Fluke’s mother had one it wouldn’t have bothered me.

  • Donald McClarey: “The reality is that Obama has been an appallingly bad President,” Obama has not been a president at all. Obama has been our legislative branch of government, the Congress, writing executive orders: Rural Councils, NationaL Defense Authorization Act, Obamacare, none of which, when put to the ballot would pass. While Obama is being Congress, who is being president? Nobody.

  • If she wasn’t being run from the WH, I would have considered that a fluke.

  • You know, as crude as Limbaugh’s remarks may seem, he was actually right. What else do you call an unmarried woman who openly demands someone else to pay for her contraception? This sure strikes me as slutty. Act like one, get called one I say. I’m beginning to think Limbaugh made a huge mistake in apologizing. I think it is about time conservatives stop allowing themselves to be intimidated whenever there is backlash over pointedly stated truths. It’s time we start demonizing the demons.

    If I had a daughter who did what Ms. Fluke did, I would be so ashamed, I would probably have an emotional breakdown.

    Given Georgetown being a CINO (Catholic in Name Only) college for decades, I’m actually surprised they don’t pay for contraceptives already.

  • Obama the Apostate:

    http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/09/obama-the-apostate

    The Church’s charitable work has been seen as a threat to the power of the state as far back as the reign of Julian the Apostate.

  • IronHammerStew-
    if that’s what she claimed, then she was flatly lying. PJTV did this crazy thing where they actually called up the college to see if such a situation was covered……

Jesuitical 13: Rush and Georgetown

Monday, March 5, AD 2012

Part 13 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits.  Georgetown University, founded in 1789, is the oldest Jesuit college in the United States.  Last week it found itself at the center of the debate over the HHS Mandate.  How the powers that be at Georgetown reacted to all of this is instructive.

On February 16, 2012 Representative Darrell Issa (R. CA), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing on the ramifications of the HHS Mandate in regard to religious freedom.  Democrats had the opportunity to present witnesses.  Initially they were going to have Barry Lynn, a Methodist minister and Leftist political activist, and head of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, but for some reason that fell through for the Democrats.  They then proposed Sandra Fluke, identified as a third year law student at Georgetown.  Issa refused to allow her to testify on the grounds that she wasn’t testifying about the religious liberty issue but rather about a perceived need for contraception.  The Democrats, who realized that they were in trouble on the religious liberty issue, used this as an argument against the hearings, arguing that women were banned from the hearings as speakers.  This was a lie, as there were two panels which testified in opposition to the Mandate at the hearing.  The second panel included Dr. Allison Garrett and Dr.  Laura Champion who testified as to the dangers that the HHS Mandate poses to religious liberty.

On February 23, 2012, Nancy Pelosi (D.CA), minority leader, organized a Democrats only “hearing” at which Sandra Fluke gave her testimony.  Go here to read that testimony.  Among other statements she said that in three years contraceptives could cost a law student three grand.

The idea that someone at Georgetown Law School, an elite school that costs over 50k a year to attend, was crying poverty over the alleged cost of $1,000.00 a year, a sum about $800-$900 too high in relationship to the actual cost, to make illicit whoopee has its comedic possibilities, and this was  seized upon by Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday February 29:

What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra 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. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We’re not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that’s right. Pimp’s not the right word. Okay, so she’s not a slut. She’s “round heeled.” I take it back.

This caused an uproar and on Thursday March 1, John J. DeGioia, the first lay President of Georgetown, released this statement:

Continue reading...

45 Responses to Jesuitical 13: Rush and Georgetown

  • Something for nothing/free lunch: the liberal prime directive: She merely wants sex and she wants GU to pay for it. That is not a new concept.

    Let’s try to save America from disparate treatment.

    To be fair and equitable, malicious Maher needs to apologize for calling Governor Palin “Slut!”, or we DEMAND Obama return the $1,000,000 malign Maher gave him.

    History lesson for liberals: Money for sex is the “oldest profession.”

    The new concept is Liberty.

  • Disparate Treatment Command:

    You are justified when you viciously slander (add laurel for foul words) a woman because you truly hate her and she’s Republican, e.g., Governor Palin.

  • Slut or slattern is a term applied to an individual who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous. The term is generally pejorative and often applied to women as an insult or offensive term of disparagement, meaning “dirty or slovenly.”However some women have demonstrated saying they’re proud of being “sluts”, and have given it a positive connotation.
    By either definition, Fluke would seem to fit the bill.

  • I don’t begrudge the Georgetown president’s full-throated defense of one of his students without his adding the caveat that he disagrees with her on the issue that made her famous. Such a defense generally needs to be done in a manner that is not watered down by “Howevers” and “Buts”.

    There is just something in the psyche of civilized people that reacts with horror to the thought of a man commenting upon a woman in a manner that calls into question her chastity. Now, maybe her testimony left little doubt in that regard, but still, to hear a man publicly comment upon a woman in such terms brings a visceral reaction that a line has been crossed in terms of genteel behavior.

    One thing I was always taught growing up is that a gentleman does not make comments about a woman that imputes unchastity to her. And gentlemanly behavior dictates defending a woman in such a situation, which is what Georgetown’s president was primarily concerned with doing in this instance..

  • I suspect that the sole pupose of the President’s letter Jay was to pick up some quick praise for himself from the powers that be at Georgetown, in Washington DC and in the Mainstream Media. As for Ms. Fluke, I think in other circumstances she would be the first to reject the traditional codes that have guided gentlemen and ladies in our civilization. Of course all of this misses the actual significance of Ms. Fluke’s testimony, which I think was rather the point of this whole media created tempest.

  • I find it ludicrous that this young woman who is apparently attending Georgetown with a scholarship is making this argument. First, if it was THAT important to her why did she attend a Catholic University. If I attended a Muslim University and then whined that I had to dress modestly then it would show me to be intolerant and maybe not the smartest cookie (I lived in Saudi Arabia for 3 years as a military wife and always covered when I went off compound. It was the correct and respectful thing to do).

    Second, can she NOT either abstain or ask her partner to participate in the costs of birth control?

    Third, I had to wonder about the other student she said was embarrassed and humiliated when she discovered birth control was not covered at the cash register when she picked up her birth control. Isn’t this woman a LAW student? Can’t she read her insurance policy? I only have a B.A. in Psychology but I read my policy to see what is covered BEFORE I see a doctor.

    They may not be sluts but this woman is definitely prostituting herself for the liberal democrats.

  • I listened live when he made his remarks, and even I forgot that he actually took the slut comment back almost as soon as he made it. Considering that what he said certainly crossed my mind, I can’t fault Rush for his comments.

  • “They may not be sluts but this woman is definitely prostituting herself for the liberal democrats.”

    It isn’t prostitution if it is done for love Lee anne, and I know that Ms. Fluke loves the far left of the Democrat Party unless she finds it too moderate for her tastes, which may wll be the case.

  • “She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.”

    Rush misspoke here in that when it comes to the Pill, you have to take it every day whether or not you have sex frequently. Ms. Fluke might very well be a slut, but that should not be the focus of the arguments against her. Gingrich summed them up perfectly – there is no contraceptive shortage in the US, nobody wants to take birth control away from Ms. Fluke, and the issue is who pays for it.

    It is mind-boggling to me how this issue has gotten away from us. The Dems are successfully painting this as “The GOP/Catholic War on Women” and millions of idiots appear to be falling for a completely non-existant issue. In the meantime, Iran becomes more frightening by the day and I nearly had to take out a bank loan when I filled up my tank last night. But let’s keep on talking about the sex life of a 30 year old Dem activist. It’s unreal.

    And as for the reaction of Georgetown U- well, absolutely no surprise there. I tell people my entire education up until college was Catholic – and then I went to a Jesuit university.

  • Paul, it’s one thing for it to cross your mind; it is another thing altogether to publicly give voice to those thoughts. In more genteel times, such comments (regardless of their veracity) were considered to be slander per se.

  • “As a student at Cornell and treasurer of a pro-choice organization at the school, Sandra
    Fluke helped shut down a pro-life speech on Cornell’s campus by counter-protesting.”

    Miss Fluke made no secret of her activities as an undergrad. I am astonished that of all
    the thousands of applicants for the few openings at Georgetown Law, the Admissions
    Board would give a place at a Catholic university to someone with her history.

    I suppose it can be argued that all sorts of views should be represented at a university.
    However, I’ve got to wonder if Admissions would be so complaisant if she had been an
    enthusiastic member and treasurer for a racist or anti-semitic student organization.

    It would appear that, by granting one of their few places in the law school program to
    someone like Miss Fluke, “… the teachings of the Church are of small concern to the
    powers that be at Georgetown…”.

  • Jay, I agree with your posts but would add that I do not believe for a second that Ms. Fluke was hurt or insulted by Limbaugh’s remarks. My guess is she snickered as she thought about how they would be used to her advantage.

  • I agree, Mike. No doubt she wears any insult by Limbaugh as a badge of honor.

    My objections to Rush have less to do with any imagined “damage” that might have been done to the particular woman’s reputation as they are to the damage that is done to the notion of gentility whenever a man comments in such a manner upon a woman’s chastity or lack thereof. Such comments about a woman used to merit one a punch in the nose (50-60 years ago) or a fight to the death on the field of honor (200 years ago and back to the middle ages).

  • Clinton,
    I wish I was surprised, but I’m not. As you point out the advantage of welcoming competing ideas has its limits. Think Wafen SS. A Catholic law school should be concerned with how to use law to protect our most innocent fellow human beings from intentional killing, but it appears that Georgetown has other priorities.

  • Oh I understand, Jay, and agree. Perhaps I am wrong, but I did not understand Limbaugh’s rant as asserting a genuine charge; I took it as parody, especially his comparison to a prostitute one who must be provided financial assistance as a condition to having sex. While this comparison has turned out rather poorly for Limbaugh, I don’t think any listener seriously thought Limbaugh was challenging the chastity of Ms. Fluke — for a whole bunch of reasons.

  • “…I don’t think any listener seriously thought Limbaugh was challenging the chastity of Ms. Fluke…”

    Especially since Ms. Fluke herself has answered that question.

  • Why would any man would want to talk with Ms. Fluke if she were chaste?

    Does her father own a liquor store?

  • In the classic movie “Ben-Hur”, there is a scene early in the movie in which the outgoing Tribune, Sextus, asks his replacement. Messala, “How do you fight an idea?” After a brief interruption, Messala answers him: “With another idea.” That is exactly what Obama and his cohorts are doing. They can’t win if the idea is that the federal government is violating the first amendment, so they invent their own idea, which is that Republicans are trying to take away women’s access to contraceptives. This is, of course, absurd, but to quote a line from another biblical movie, “But they (the Roman people) are believing it!” (Petronius, “Quo Vadis”). It is absolutely imperative that whoever wins the Republican nomination (looks like Romney at this point, but time will tell) press this issue. This is not a fight for contraceptive rights, but for religious rights. To paraphrase James Carville, “It’s freedom of religion, stupid!”

  • Unfortunaly Obama is framing this argument with might I say….. diabolical cunninngness…….

    Just the other day my son’s piano teacher said in passing with much gusto “I wish our parish would stay out of politics”. She was reffering to the letter our Bishop had read at all masses last week. During the reading of that letter I noticed at least on person get up and walk out.

    My mother said the same thing happened at her church all the way across the country.

  • I think Joseph’s analogy with Rome is very appropriate.

  • “During the reading of that letter I noticed at least on person get up and walk out. ”

    Frankly, those who prefer Obama to the Church probably should get up, walk out, and keep on walking.

  • Pingback: MONDAY EXTRA: U.S. CULTURE WARS | ThePulp.it
  • You are all morons if you think in today’s society calling a 30 year old woman who advocates “free” contraception a slut is insulting? Do you all live under a rock? Do you not go to the movies? Do you not listen to music? Do you not listen to people between the ages of 14 and 30 conversations? “Slut” is the mildest of words that is bantered about in today’s society. This “scandal” is a joke…brought to you by people who truly hate those that disagree with them. And Fluke is one of them.

  • Somebody with more time than me needs to research… did she go to one of those “slutwalks” that were all the rage half a year or so back?

  • I read Ms. Fluker’s statement, and what it was, was the usual liberal use of “hard cases” to make us feel sorry for someone, then to drastically change policy based on the hard cases. She speaks of women needed the Pill for control of polycystic ovaries. First of all, as a woman, I know that doctors are extremely quick to prescribe the pill for just about anything, not just as an “antidote” to fertility. If a doctor recommended the Pill, I would do a great deal of research before accepting his or her recommendation, to know what my other options are. But what the liberals are trying to do is say, “Look at these poor women who are discriminated against because they need the Pill and are insured by a Catholic institution! In order to solve this problem, we must ALL be given free birth control!” Huh? If you need insurers to cover the Pill based on certain diagnoses, then you have the insurers cover the Pill for those diagnoses. It is extremely simple. It makes no sense to argue that the reason the Pill should be covered for all is because a few people are using it for recognized medical conditions.

  • AFAIK, using the pill for an actual medical condition is treated the same as any other drug with any other off-label use– policies differ on if they’ll accept it, usually along the lines of if the medication is known to be useful for that purpose. (Like Viagra for women, especially those on anti-depressants– similar use as for men.)

    So, again, standard: they use a hard case that isn’t even accurate….

  • From the comments, I have to gather that liberal, Leftist People’s Democratic Party members and supporters will lie, obfuscate, spin and generally dissemble whatever, whenever and wherever it fits their political ends. I am (yawn) shocked.

    From “Power to the People” to Machiavelli in two generations.

  • Has Ms. Fluke been expelled from Georgetown yet? She’s bringing ill fame to the institution.

    By the way, there was a SlutWalk just last year in Georgetown. Did Ms. Fluke participate? Or did she condemn it? She does call herself an “activist,” I hear.

  • Good question. Here is a celebratory post by a participant:

    http://georgetownvoice.com/2011/08/26/lezhur-ledger-slutwalk-2011/

    Ah, yes, protesting sexism and a “rape culture” by dressing like a slut. Makes as much sense as stating that one is deprived of contraceptives if someone else is not picking up the tab.

  • The St. Augustine quote about Onan is HILARIOUS. A sperm is NOT a human being. An ovum is NOT a human being. Life begins at conception-so Onan wasn’t engaging in abortion. Sperm aren’t human. Embryos are. He needed to learn some basic biology. The Bible condemns adultery and fornication, NOT sexual techniques within marriage. He overrated Onan’s importance. I guess Augustine was of the “every sperm is sacred” ilk. Too bad Monty Python didn’t exist yet.

    For married couples, any form of sex is OK as long as it doesn’t involve artificial contraception, especially the kind that can destroy unborn life (as it says in the Didache). The Song of Songs praises sex of all kinds WITHIN marriage. When the Bridegroom speaks of tasting the Bride’s fruit, one can tell what he’s talking about… and the Bride sats something similar. Oral sex belongs within marriage.

  • No Susan you are incorrect. The sin of Onan referred to by Saint Augustine was that he “spilled his seed upon the ground” as an act of contraception. The Church has always been against contraception as the quote indicates.

    A nice article to read for people ignorant of the history of the Church prohibition in regard to contraception:

    http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0663.html

  • Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

    Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.

    Description of Appeal to Ridicule

    The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.” This line of “reasoning” has the following form:

    X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
    Therefore claim C is false.
    This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: “1+1=2! That’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!”

    It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim. One form of this line of reasoning is known as a “reductio ad absurdum” (“reducing to absurdity”). In this sort of argument, the idea is to show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result follows from a claim. For example: “Bill claims that a member of a minority group cannot be a racist. However, this is absurd. Think about this: white males are a minority in the world. Given Bill’s claim, it would follow that no white males could be racists. Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations.”

    Since the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim that a member of a minority cannot be a racist is false.

    Examples of Appeal to Ridicule

    “Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable.”
    “Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!”
    “Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace!”

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

  • Also begging the question in that the statement that sperm and ovum aren’t people implies that killing someone is the only yardstick the Church uses in terms of sexual practices inside a marriage.

  • If Onan’s sin was so egregious, why isn’t it in the Levitical Holiness Code? It’s pretty exhaustive. Don’t sleep with a parent, don’t sleep with a sibling, etc. When the Levitical Code was given, it went into DETAIL about sexual do’s and don’ts. Onan gets only one appearance in the whole Bible-he isn’t that important. Not even St. Paul brought him up in his writings on marriage.

    Sperm and ovum aren’t human. If you say “life begins at conception”,BELIEVE it… instead of what Bill Maher said about Santorum recently.

    The Song of Songs praises oral sex within marriage-Clinton should’ve understood that.

    The Didache forbade artificial contraceptives as well as “poisons that induce abortion”,adultery, promiscuity, fornication. It didn’t describe sexual practices within marriage because it was NONE of its business.

    The Bible condemns adultery. A LOT. Jesus condemned divorce&remarriage. Where does the Bible give ANY prescriptions on sexual acts within marriage? Not many.

    “Thou shalt not commit adultery”-save sex for marriage.

    Got problems with that?

  • “If Onan’s sin was so egregious, why isn’t it in the Levitical Holiness Code?”

    Beats me. Of course there are a whole host of very serious sins not included in that Code. The Church is of course not limited by the strictures set forth in the Old Testament.

    “Onan gets only one appearance in the whole Bible-he isn’t that important.”

    Melchizedek gets only a brief appearance in the Old Testament, yet he is very important in the New. Traditionally Jewish rabbis opposed male contraception on the basis of Onan. That brief passage in the Old Testament has been very important in traditional views of contraception for both Jews and Christians until the day before yesterday in historical terms.

    “Sperm and ovum aren’t human.”

    No one has said that they are. That is not the point of the ban on contraception.

    “The Song of Songs praises oral sex within marriage”

    A debatable proposition. Sodomy has always been condemned by the Church. The Old Testament of course is not controlling over what the Church approves and what the Church condemns.

    “It didn’t describe sexual practices within marriage because it was NONE of its business.”
    Untrue. This from the Epistleof Barnabas ( circa 74 AD) ” Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, ‘Thou shall not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shall thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness’”

    The Church has legislated in this area since the time of the Crucifixion. You are very much mistaken.

  • Back in my college days, I once knew a guy who made a conclusion from the Robert DeNiro/Billy Crystal film “Analyze this.” DeNiro’s mobster says he has a mistress because he can’t imagine his wife kissing their children after practicing oral sex on him. Basically, rationalizing adultery.

    If one thinks oral sex is somehow wrong within marriage,it paves the way for mistresses&adultery. Police sexual practices unreasonably within marriage-and people will DEFINITELY commit adultery.

    It’s normal, natural&human for lovers to kiss each other, even down there (especially if down there) It’s natural for a wife to want to please her husband–no wonder the Epistle of Barnabas isn’t canonical. It’s also natural for a husband to go down&please his wife. If he’s scared for her lady parts, he’s got issues. It’s not done out of malice, but for love.

    I know a pastor (non-Catholic) who’d be appalled that you condemn oral intimacy within marriage… considering he backed Prop.8 in California AND managed to stop Planned Parenthood from opening up shop in his town. He’d be headdesking.

    That passage from Barnabas is condemning oral sex OUTSIDE of marriage. Besides, it would be a buzzkill for some men if their wives wouldn’t do it. It depends on the couple.As well as consent. If done for the wrong reasons, oral sex is wrong within marriage, but if it’s consensual&loving, who are we to condemn it?

    And weasels are cute creatures.

  • If you wish to argue for approval of what the Church has condemned throughout her history Susan, you are at the wrong blog.

  • I don’t know Donald, are you really prepared to simply cede to two millenia of the teachings of Popes, Bishops, and Church Doctors when you have the brilliant philosophic insight of “Analyze This” staring you right in the face?

  • From an article by Pete Vere JCL (once available on Cathoic Exchange, 7-10-07, but I can’t find it anymore. All I hard is hard copy. The article was called “Abortion and Contraception: Old Lies”

    [The book Eve’s Herbs] answered a question that had long troubled me; I had often wonderded why Holy Scripture appeared to say so little about the grave evils of abortion and contraception….Eve’s Herbs provided me with a startling realization: in ancient and medieval times, contraception and abortion were often considered a form of sorcery and witchcraft, rather than a form of medicine. Thus, Holy Scripture may never use the words abortion and contracpetion, but the Bible is not silent on the issue. It simply condemns these practices under a different name.”

  • Just thought of something else: when I was a kid, “gay” meant “happy” (or something like that). When I got to college, it meant “homosexual.” Now my kids use the word “gay” but it isn’t always being used to mean “a homosexual.” It means something more like “stupid.” Words change over time. Our understanding of things change over time, so that gives credance to Pete Vere’s thoughts on the matter.

  • DJ-
    Here you go! (Bless TFR and their habit of having copies of all sorts of things.)

  • DeNiro’s mobster says he has a mistress because he can’t imagine his wife kissing their children after practicing oral sex on him. Basically, rationalizing adultery.

    If one thinks oral sex is somehow wrong within marriage,it paves the way for mistresses&adultery.

    No… it was DeNiro’s character thinking that oral sex is something he’s got to have that paved the way to adultery.

    Oral sex good + mouth that’s performed oral sex on him touching his children= get mouth that won’t touch his children for oral sex.

    His initial assumption was wrong, so of course his conclusion was wrong. It would be shocking if his conclusion wasn’t wrong!

  • Pingback: Surprise! Sandra Fluke Being Run From White House | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: 2012: An Elijah on Mount Carmel Year | The American Catholic