Sandra Fluke: ‘‘I’d rather be a captive Nigerian girl than touched by a Republican’’

By Rich Kozlovich

I recently stumbled on a DUH PROGRESSIVE articles by D’Leereeus Johnson, DP Assistant Editor that appeared on Tuesday, May 13 2014, and I thought it worth a look with these questions: 

Do you remember Sandra Fluke? Do you remember she ran for public office in California? Do you know why she lost - badly?   Do you know where she is today and why?

Bob Miller of Joshua Pundit writes: Fluke may have put the nail in her campaign when in 2014 right after the 200 Chibok girls were kidnapped and enslaved by Boko Haram, Miss Looney Tunes said during a radio interview with KCRW host Madeleine Brand stated that:

“I must say that as dire and barbaric as these Boko militants in Nigeria seem, we have to remember that if these girls are released and come to America as political refugees, they could end up working for Republican lawmakers here in California or in Washington, or end up living in a Red state in the South, which would no doubt make them wish they were still in the clutches of militant al-Qaeda-linked rapist terrorists.” 

As unsurprisingly liberal as NPR and KCRW are in their politics, even host Madeleine Brand was taken aback by Fluke’s response, reiterating her question:  

“You mean that you would prefer that these girls be held in bondage and sold as sex slaves rather than live in a Republican state in the U.S., or work on a Republican politician’s staff?”  

“Or worse, they could live in Utah!” quickly replied Fluke. “You know they have arranged marriages in Utah, and an only 10-child-per-family policy? Utah has the Great Salt Lake, too. Salt is bad for you, it makes your blood pressure rise and leads to heart disease. That’s very unhealthy. And who likes unhealthy people? – Republicans! …I think that the kidnapped girls in Nigeria would find themselves in even a worse situation here being around Republicans than they’re in right now.” 

“…I’ve heard the reports of rape and sex slavery by the (Boko Haram) group, but it still does not rise to the level of conservatives and Republicans here who want to make women have to pay for their birth control or abortions, no matter what stage of the pregnancy they’re in. And really, as far as sex and being the ‘subject of controlling men’ is concerned, I’d rather be a captive Nigerian girl than touched by Republican. …At least the Muslim extremists are upfront about what they want to do, where as Republicans must lie about their despotic plans for the female race.”

So now you know what she lost her election and probably all political ambitions and has chosen to stay an activst.  That way she can still be out there spewing out logical fallacies, filtered facts and general nonsense because she's just like all leftist activists - irrational and dumb and dirt. 

What amazes me is how even Californians feel that way about her also.  How lefty stupid do you have to be so that even Califoanians to see it?   Just check out Sandra Fluke.   

However, I think we all owe Sandra a vote of thanks for two things.  One, she can give all the rest of us confidence that if she's for it - we need to be against it.  Secondly, this proves you can't fix stupid!

Satire Be Damned, Fluke In Running For Time Person Of The Year

November 28, 2012 by Sam Rolley 

A Chinese news site got egg on its face when it failed to realize that satire news site The Onion was only joking when it named Kim Jong Un as the sexiest man of 2012. But some Americans are likely wondering if the once iconic Time magazine is taking cues from the satire site as well with its inclusion of Sandra Fluke as a contender to be named its Person of the Year.  Here’s what the magazine says about her:  To Read More……

"Hysterical Drama Queens" - The Fluke Affair!

Who is Sandra Fluke?
by Ann Coulter

Fluke is the latest in a long line of my absolute favorite liberal typology: hysterical drama queens......From Murphy Brown to the Jersey Girls, Cindy Sheehan, Joe Wilson and the New School's Jean Rohe, these fantasists inject themselves into a boiling-hot public debate and then claim victim status when anyone criticizes them. At least since I've been keeping score, liberals had their first brush with the dark night of fascism in 1992, when Dan Quayle said of a fictional TV character: "It doesn't help matters when prime-time TV has Murphy Brown ... mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another lifestyle choice."

Suddenly, it was 1939 Germany and multimillionaire Hollywood elites were the Jews.

At the Emmy Awards ceremony that year, the creator of "Murphy Brown," Diane English, took the occasion to say: "I would like to thank our sponsors for hanging in there when it was getting really dangerous."


###

There is No Such Thing as a Conspiracy!

By Rich Kozlovich

Recently there was all of this talk by Rush Limbaugh over a girl by the name of Sandra Fluke who claims that she and her friends at college need to have their contraception costs paid for by society. Rush called her a slut and a prostitute. Isn't that a bit strong; even for Rush? Even though I agree with Rush on most things he says, I can’t stand to listen to him because he is arrogant and rude; and if I find him so difficult to listen to it makes me wonder how all the lefties know what he is saying. Having said that I do have to acknowledge that he really knows how to stir up the manure and get things started, so let’s see where this takes us!

I was curious as to what in the world this girl and her friends were doing so that it cost her classmates over three thousand dollars a year for contraception, so I did some analysis. Since she wasn’t clear about how much over three thousand dollars a year they spent, I calculated everything at $3000.00 and $4000.00. You can fill in the rest yourself. I looked up some information and here is what I found.

Birth control pills can run between $15.00 and $50.00 a month. That translates to between $180.00 and $600.00 per year, and I am given to believe there are implants that cost under $200.00 and last for three years. Those figures are immaterial as to how much intercourse she or her friends are having but that is clearly a far cry from the figures she cites. However there are aspects to contraception that will require some calculations based on how much sexual activity goes on.

Male condoms cost between $.50 and $1.00 a piece. Female condoms cost between $2.00 and $4.00 a piece. Fifty cent male condoms @ $3.000 a year would translate to having intercourse 16.438 times a day. At $4.000 it would translate to 21.917 times a day. For $1.00 condoms that would still translate to 8.219 and 10.958 times a day respectively. Remarkable!

Female condoms are a bit more expensive. They run between $2.00 and $4.00 a piece. At $3.000 would translate to 4.109 sexual encounters a day using the lower $2.00 price condoms. For the higher priced $4.00 condoms she would be having an encounter 2.54 times a day. At $4000.00 it would be 5.479 or 2.739 times a day respectively.

That is every day; seven days a week; three hundred and sixty five days a year. These Georgetown Jesuit law school (does that seem a bit Twilight Zonish to anyone but me?) girls are really busy girls! Even at the lower numbers I wonder how long it is going to take them to get through law school at that rate.

My first thought was….well….those numbers certainly seem to indicate a group of women suffering from serious mass sexual addiction problems. Can this possible be true? Does it seem likely that all the women in the nation with sexual addiction problems go to Georgetown? That doesn't seem likely! Then I realized the answer.

Let’s make an unsubstantiated assumption that they are really only having intercourse two to three times a week. At the higher numbers of one dollar male condoms that would only translate to either $105.00 a year for twice a week or $156.00 a year for three times a week. For female condoms at four dollar each it would cost either $416.00 or $624.00 a year. So what is the other two or three thousand for? Flowers, dinner, dancing and romancing the lady before intercourse. And since they want this to be covered in the women’s health care coverage the “ladies” are in effect paying for all of this, including the sex. So then, we must conclude that Rush is wrong, at least partially; they aren’t prostitutes; they are Johns…or is that Janes in the case of women?

So now....did I understand this story properly? Well....actually....no! And almost no one else understood this whole story properly either. I think we can dismiss the idea that Georgetown is filled with women with deep and damaging psychological problems, so then we have to ask; is it possible that all the women with sexual addiction problems who are going to college in the nation have chosen her as their representative to speak for them? That just doesn't seem likely either!

It appears that this seemingly demure well spoken and well presented young woman is in reality a plant. Everyone was under the impression that she was what she claimed to be; a 23 year old Georgetown law student who, after reviewing their insurance policy, enrolled at the university to battle their policy regarding contraception. Which seems to be a bit Twilight Zonish to me also, by the way! Then magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along. In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.

It turns out this really is a Twilight Zone drama "to take the attention off of Barack Obama's assault on religious freedom." It gets better. It turns out she has been an activist for some years fighting against domestic violence and human trafficking, for which she should be commended. But she is no unknown 23 year old neophyte who just dropped in one day at a Congressional hearing to promote forced contraception payments by groups that disagree with this on religious grounds. We already know that she is no mathematician, and we now know that she was a plant.

So perhaps Rush was right after all? But no matter....let's never....never.....ever forget this one all consuming fact. There is no such thing as a conspiracy! Is there?
###