Rush Limbaugh Posts Apology to 30 Year-Old Georgetown Activist


Rush said this earlier this week–
Sandra Fluke is going to be just fine. In fact, I would be surprised if it isn’t long before she runs for Congress, with the announcement ceremony with Pelosi and Steny Hoyer.

Tonight Rush Limbaugh posted this apology to 30 year-old activist Sandra Fluke.

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

Rush is a class act. Maybe the left will apologize sometime for all of their outrageous attacks.

 

  • Tom in CA

    I have a friend who just broke up with his girlfriend. I wonder if she makes housecalls?

  • Tocoloro

    She is still a slute and a prostitute

  • AuntieMadder

    Atta-boys to Rush for doing the right thing.

  • Taqiyyotomist

    OT

    Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

    The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

    The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

    The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

    They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

    Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

    “We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

    As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

    The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

    They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

    Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

    “To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

    However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

    They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”. …..

    http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2012/03/throwing-down-the-gauntlet.html

  • wtd
  • Tamminator

    Rush, you just let down Breitbart.
    Never back down to leftist propoganda.
    NEVER>

  • Ian

    NOOOOOOOO!

  • ebayer

    Huh?!?

  • Sarge

    What’s next on the liberal list? We keep apologizing, we keep losing.

  • DaMav

    She got far more than she deserved but Rush reminded the world that Conservatives have grace and honor

  • Ruready?

    Rush is trustworthy. “Don’t doubt me.”

  • MADgirl91

    Rush had to do it to make his comment “old news”.

  • http://biggovernment.com proudredneck

    When does Palin and her daughters get their apologies?The same people who are now crying about Rush’s remarks,had no problem when Palin and her young daughters where called far worst names than this Miss. Flute.

  • RedstateRed

    Aww, Rushbo. Say it ain’t so.

  • Militant Conservative

    She’s still a ho and a cheap trick.

    Just burying bad rubbish, even if it’s true.

    Liberals are human trash, they have no honor.

    Powder is dry

  • Sorry to Live in Illinois

    FYI….We just lost. It’s over. First Brietbart, and now this. A sad day to be a conservative.

    And Bill Maher – I DID cancel my sponsorship to HBO….because of you. I don’t miss it one bit.

  • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

    She’s objectively a slut demanding others pay for her sexual activities. No apology was needed or called for here. She should be named and shamed, because she apparently has no shame.

    This entire controversy is an attempt to get people to forget how pissed they are at having the government health insurance takeover act rammed down their throats to begin with.

  • myohmy

    Cave in?

  • donh

    Rush went to far asking for sex tapes of Fluck making use of birth control….but look at how the government media complex has siezed upon this to take Rush down. They have been waiting and waiting for an opportunity like this to come. Rush has been shunned and ignored by the party for years until that one moment he really steps in it, and they come for his head…..but Obama NEVER goes to far. The Rino Democrat political class alliance against conservative religious free people is consolidating its power . Apology won’t save him. Effective critics of the New World DisOrder must be silenced !

  • chilipalmer

    I’m stunned that Rush did this. He had nothing to apologize for. The sole purpose of the left is to silence voices on the right and Rush just gave them a grand slam home run. This makes it almost impossible for the rest of us. The left has hundreds of thousands of people who work around the clock getting advertisers to quit conservative voices. They will always win because they have the money and numbers. Rush has said himself never apologize because it will get much worse for you. The GOP has to be thrilled about this too. They hate talk radio. With this apology, the left is now going to every advertiser at his local stations. This is how they got rid of Imus.