AOL says Rush Limbaugh's apology is not good enough and has withdrawn their advertising after he carelessly labeled Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" for demanding federal subsidies for her sex in her testimony before a group called the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee during their "mock" hearing, which "mainstream" press reports shorten to "testimony before Congress".
AOL says Rush Limbaugh's apology for his insensitive remark about Sandra's defense of her right to sex at our expense, wasn't enough. "At AOL one of our core values is that we act with integrity. We have monitored the unfolding events and have determined that Mr. Limbaugh's comments are not in line with our values," AOL said on their Facebook page.
AOL, integrity? The same group that carried via its Huffington Post property, last week's HATE SPEECH about Catholics written by Larry Doyle?
Oh? That is "integrity"?
I wrote last week of AOL's allowing this bigoted attack on the Catholic faith citing specific quotes from Mr. Doyle's vitriolic and hateful article. I cited the AOL "terms of service" which very specifically forbid hate speech.
And I asked, why is AOL allowing such hate speech in violation of their own terms of service?
I cited in that article the words of liberal Bob Beckel of Fox TV where he called Doyle's article "hate speech." And I provided an email address to write to AOL to complain.
I call again on friends here to write to AOL and demand that - especially after their sanctimonious attack on Rush Limbaugh - they should follow their own terms of service and REMOVE as promised on their website, this HATE SPEECH.
I do not approve of Rush Limbaugh calling the female law school leftwing activist the names that he did. Such a mistake on his part allows the left to gloss over his more important point.
Yes, I must side with Rush Limbaugh - not in his choice of words but in his criticism of this idea that we have to pay for Sandra Fluke's sex during her entire law school career, and if we don't, we are imposing a "hardship" on her and the other female law school students she claims to speak for.
She spoke of her "rights" to contraception to be paid for by free insurance to be provided by the Jesuits. So the very priests who teach that sex before marriage is wrong, are - according to Sandra Fluke - also supposed to provided her condoms or other birth control of her choice.
Her right to have sex is at stake and Sandra is very angry as we could see from her testimony. Also very courageous, according to Barack Obama, who telephoned the 30 year old law school student sex activist to applaud her "courage."
Yes, Sandra Fluke testifies it is a hardship for her if they won't pay for her sex. A real "burden" she "testified" before the phony Democratic "House mock hearing."
This "abstinence" by the Catholic Jesuits, or shall we say their refraining from paying for her birth control, would she testified, cost her and other worried but very sexually active female law school students $3,000 during her law school career for their sex.
Sandra Fluke did not report in her "mock testimony" as to how much of a setback would it be in her life if we only paid for $2,000 of sex during her three years, instead of the full $3,000 she said it cost her?
The Georgetown University Law school website indicates a tuition of $70,297.50 (not counting various other fees, books, living expenses and sex).
So, there you have it. A hardship for female law school students, inflicted upon them by some archaic, old fashioned Jesuits, on poor innocent female students who are already paying so much, in order to make a decent living as an attorney and to have daily sex 7 days a week, 365 days a year for 3 years while they are learning how.
To be clear on that last point, the 12,000 "Philadelphia lawyers": reports the ABA Journal, earn an average of $145,160 per year versus their poorer 2,180 brethren in Richmond, VA who earn $$130,340 per year and their 4,130 much richer cousins in the San Jose, California area.
One has to wonder how those 12,000 Philadelphia lawyers - at least the females in the group - managed to make their way through law school to their current positions without having $3,000 of taxpayer subsidized sex as Sandra Fluke "mock testifies" that this year's crop of female Georgetown University Law School students now have.
No wonder President Obama telephoned Sandra Fluke to thank her for her courageous stand in defending her right to have us pay for her sex on the way to her future position earning that income as a lawyer.
No wonder AOL withdrew its advertising from Rush Limbaugh, even after he apologized for using language he should not have, in describing the female student who wants us to pay for her sex.
Such courage, such integrity, to hear them all describe themselves.
I think it is all a bit much.
Especially after AOL refuses to withdraw its sponsorship of the Huffington Post's anti-Catholic hate message of Larry Doyle.
For details go to my previous column on this, which also provides a model "resolution" to be passed by any church or group or to be used in your message to AOL.
Or you can send a complaint right now directly to [email protected]
I don't begrude Sandra Fluke's right to sin. We are after all, all of us, sinners in the eyes of our Lord. I don't begrudge those who want to ignore the teachings of those pesky, too-strict Jesuits, which says that her conduct is a sin.
In fact, even the Jesuits themselves have publicly stated that THEY do not begrudge Sandra doing as she chooses - they simply don't want to be forced to violate their own teachings.
I note the Jesuits do not say they will expel her for attacking them, nor excommunicate aging law school student, mock testifier Sandra Fluke for her attack on the Catholic Church. I suppose her attack is tame compared to the AOL sanctioned Huffington Post attack.
Nor have the good Jesuits even labeled her a sinner - which again: all of us are, in case the non-Christians are starting to get excited and ready for the attack. Yes all of us are sinners yes. But that is not the issue, despite the wish of the left to divert attention.
The question really is simple: is it appropriate for the federal government of the United States to sidestep the First Amendment, which states so clearly: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
And is it appropriate to force the Jesuits to violate their own beliefs and Catholic Church teachings to help the lady pay for her rather active sex activity - $3,000 she says, for her law school career?
Yes amusing that she is called an "activist" in many of the media reports, although I do believe the irony of such a description of Sandra Fluke may have eluded them.
As an aside, that $3,000 figure for Sandra Fluke's sex expenses, is most remarkable.
Planned Parenthood says on their website "the cost of condoms is as low as $0.04 per unit" (yes, 4 cents each). That comes to $43.80 for Sandra Fluke to have sex every single day of her 3 years law school career, with no time off during summer or holidays. Of course, she didn't mention whether she needed two condoms per day for 365 days a year, 3 years, and that would increase the cost to $87.60.
But Sandra Fluke says she needs us to pick up the tab for $3,000 worth of sex, not $43.80 and not $87.60.
I know that the liberal/left will say this is her right but I have to ask, how much do we have to pay for this right, and if we are picking up the tab, perhaps we have the right to reduce her sex expenses to a more reasonable amount, and perhaps to give her a few days off during the school week for study and classes, so that even the $43.80 might be reduced?
If the $3,000 figure is to be believed, then Sandra Fluke is saying that she needs 68 condoms per day for 365 days a year, three years, plus three extra on the 156 Saturdays during the three years.
Stop your smirking, and write that email to AOL please.
As Newt Gingrich told David Gregory, are we really seriously having this conversation?
More recently, Newt said this issue is not about a 30 year old student demanding that we subsidize her sex life, nor about contraception.
It is about a most threatening assault on religious liberty that we have ever seen in America. Newt is right, so saith this Rick Santorum supporter!
Now I direct your attention to the hate speech of AOL as a far more worthy matter to protest and for your doing that, I applaud you in advance as a far better example of integrity and of courage, than is Sandra Fluke and AOL.
Hanover Henry aka Pat Henry welcomes new friends on Facebook.