Fluke, Flake, Fraud--or All Three?

Fluke, Flake, Fraud--or All Three?

No stranger to controversy, conservative talk radio commentator Rush Limbaugh stirred up a wasp’s nest last week when he concluded Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke had to be a slut and a prostitute.

More specifically, he said, “What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] 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.” Limbaugh added, ”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.”

On Saturday, without retracting the reasons for his rant, Limbaugh apologized to Ms. Fluke on his website for his “insulting word choices.”

He needn’t have.

The derogatory term “slut” refers to a sexually-promiscuous woman, “prostitute” to someone who accepts payment for sex acts. As injudicious and inflammatory as his words were, Limbaugh was correct since, by definition, Sandra Fluke fits the definitions.

Republican Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum characterized Limbaugh as “absurd,” House Speaker Boehner termed his language ”inappropriate,” and President Barack Hussein Obama called Ms. Fluke with some encouraging words.

In what was the most outrageous defense, Jesuit Georgetown University President John DeGioa praised her: “She was respectful, sincere, and spoke with conviction. She provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people.”

What Jesuitical BS!

On the other side of the controversy, Bill O’Reilly also criticized Ms. Fluke for wanting taxpayers to pay her for her hyperactive sexual activities, Michelle Malkin called her a radical feminist tool, and Eric Bolling said, “She seems like a plant.”

Rep. Darryl Issa precipitated the Fluke controversy when he refused to allow her to testify at last month’s hearings on religious liberty and the constitutionality of Obama’s mandate that church-related institutions bury their collective consciences by providing free insurance coverage for women seeking sterilization, abortafacient drugs, and contraceptives.

Obama’s “compromise,” shifting the burden of providing “free” birth control to those institutions’ insurance companies, simply meant religious institutions would pay indirectly through increased premiums for what they regard as morally-objectionable procedures.

Issa’s decision that Ms. Fluke was unqualified to testify in a matter involving the Constitution and religious rights was totally valid.

Nevertheless, ignoring constitutional issues, Democrats used Ms. Fluke as a tool to cover Obama’s infringement on religious liberty and promptly provided her with a forum to espouse her point of view.

The next day she appeared on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” where she told Ed Schultz that the outpouring of support ”really has meant a lot to me. And I think to women across America . . . I don’t really see why anyone would not condemn this type of language.”

She said she would testify in the future if asked and, with a blinding sense of altruism, promised, “I think what I’m going to be doing from here on out is just continuing to do what I have been, sharing the stories of the women who contact me and really trying to make sure that their voices are being heard. . . ” (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=15503.)