Rush Limbaugh has really stepped-in-it this time. While using his famous teaching method, “demonstrating the absurd by being absurd,” some of his overly harsh comments directed towards Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke have unleashed a media frenzy that even brought about a phone call from President Obama.
Lost in this whole birth control “controversy” though, is the fact that this is really about the First Amendment. But that won’t stop the mainstream media and Democrats from continuing the manufactured lie that this is about Republicans wanting to deprive women of their “freedoms”. Don’t fall for their dangling-condom-on-a-stick trick, this is a lie that was manufactured in order to frighten women and distract from Obama’s horrendous record as President.
It’s interesting to contrast the media response to Rush’s statements with the “10:10” campaign’s “No Pressure” climate-denier ad, where children were exploded into bloody chunks of flesh for not conforming to the Lefts’ faith-based belief in man-made global warming. The ad was finally removed but certainly not through the help of a frenzied media. While I would not have chosen the same words as Rush, he was attempting to make provably true points while using a method that was actually much less harsh than that “No Pressure” ad.
In yet another attempt to destroy Rush, the media is hyping his comments without providing proper context, as is always done with those on the Right. Rush has since apologized for using such strong language but the real lesson in all of this will still be lost upon the deaf ears of the Left. I fully understand Rush taking such offense (as we all should be offended) at the idea that Ms. Fluke, a Georgetown Law student thinks that all taxpayers should be forced to pay for her birth control. And that’s before even taking into account the First Amendment aspect of this issue.
If Ms. Fluke is unable to wrap her ‘legal mind’ around the simple concept of paying for her own birth control (products for one of nature’s strongest instincts), as well as the purpose of the First Amendment, she deserves to be embarrassed and treated as a child. Then again, maybe she knows exactly what she’s doing as she appears to be an activist.
Throughout history children have been subjected to some pretty harsh fairytales in order to be taught some of life’s most valuable lessons. One such fairytale takes an especially harsh approach (this one also makes Rush look like a harmless little fuzz-ball) to getting children to stop sucking their thumbs. In the story: Little Suck-a-Thumb by Heinrich Hoffmann, little Conrad is told by his mother, who is stepping-out for a little while, that he’d better not suck his thumb or else the scissor-man will show up and cut his thumbs clean-off. Little Conrad learned his lesson the hard way as the story goes — graphic illustrations for little eyes included. On a side note: it’s once again been proven that this same scissor-man most likely got hold of Bill Maher’s brain.
Does anyone really condone cutting-off the thumbs of children in order to prevent said violators from sucking on them? Of course not! It’s just an extreme way of teaching children a valid lesson in life’s realities. Similarly, Rush used an extreme example in an attempt to show how utterly childish and destructive Ms. Fluke’s demands were.
If Ms. Fluke is an example of our “best and brightest,” being the product of one of the top law schools in the United States, I fear we have far, far greater problems on our hands than the attempted procurement of free contraceptives for ones entertainment. The fact that a large segment of our population fails to understand the real issue here should terrify us all.
Let me offer one possible solution (yes I’m being a little snarky to make a point) that may apply to some of the young college women who find themselves in Ms. Fluke’s situation:
For those who consume alcohol, toning back your alcohol intake by at least two drinks per evening out will save you (assuming you’re a “feminist” and refuse to let others pay) enough over the course of the month to more than cover the burdening expenses of your birth control. This may also come with the added benefit of reducing the need for as much of that birth control as was previously needed, thus freeing up additional funds for more of life’s little necessities.
Ms. Fluke, please understand that a scissor-man of sorts exists today and is now going straight after the Constitution. If you think Rush’s words are harsh, you should try living your life without any protection — the protection of the First Amendment that is.
Bret Bozell adds some perspective to this:
And Newt schools David Gregory (you really have to give Gregory an “A” for effort though):
And this from Pjmedia: