March 11th, 2012
Resource.org is the source of Supreme Court materials in data form Justia.com receives for publication. Public.Resource.org is owned and run by Carl Malamud, and funded in part by the Center for American Progress once run by John Podesta, and funded by George Soros. This is a direct connection to the Soros Foundation, a major source of political donations to Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.
By Dianna Cotter
A singularly remarkable event has taken place in the United States of America. This event occurred in Arizona on March 1st and was an earth shattering revelation.
A long awaited press conference was given by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a five time elected Sheriff, which should have made national and international headlines. Arpaio's credentials include serving in the United States Army from 1950 to 1953, service as a federal narcotics agent serving in countries all over the world with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and served as the head of the Arizona DEA. Without doubt, this is a serious Law Enforcement Officer, not one to be taken in by tin-foil-hat wearing loons.
Yet, in the five days since his revelations there has been little in the way of serious reporting on the findings he presented in his presser. With 6 short videos, the Sheriff and his team presented a devastating case, one the tame US press is apparently unable to report.
Obama, by being born in Hawaii, got automatic citizenship status in the United States without regard for whether the United States had jurisdiction over his citizenship. Otherwise, his citizenship would have legally followed his father's, British, as Barack himself admitted on his "Fight the Smears" website during the '08 campaign.
And it only took a witness signature to gain it. It is unknown how many children gained U.S. citizenship through this means. The real citizenship status of these individuals is similarly unknown, and now that it has been discovered that Barack Obama has put forth a forged Hawaiian Birth certificate, his own proof of birth in the state is subject to serious questions by law enforcement officials.
Months before the election of 2008 Barack Obama began deliberately directing public attention to his Hawaiian Records. The Obama campaign, before redirecting the site to "Attack Watch" maintained the "Fight the Smears" website which can still be found on archival websites. The Obama campaign posted the candidate's "short Form" birth certificate with the following information from FactCheck.com:
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982."
The campaign obviously wanted public attention directed at his birth documents in Hawaii.
The campaign itself created the entire birth certificate controversy, and acted to maintain and fan the flames of that controversy for several truly simple reasons. As long as the public was wondering about what being born under "the British Nationality Act of 1948" meant, and the birth certificate "birther" controversy in general, they were not looking into laws which would have legally prevented the senator from assuming the role of candidate and then President. Legal cases such as Minor V. Happersett.
This case was, and still is, of tremendous import. Had it been found during the campaign it would have prevented his candidacy, certainly preventing him from taking the oath of office in Jan 2009.
So a campaign to hide Minor V. Happersett was undertaken at the same time.
Justia.com is a free legal internet research site with a specific, dedicated Supreme Court of the United States server containing nearly every Supreme Court case in American history. It is specifically marketed to law students, non-profit agencies, startup businesses, small businesses and private internet researchers. In short, those who cannot afford either a lawyer or the thousands of dollars a year required by subscription legal search engines such as LexisNexis and WestLaw. Justia leverages the Google Mini internal search engine, and through this, Google.com itself increasing its visibility on nearly any search of American law. Justia.com is owned by Obama supporter Tim Stanley, and began a systematic scrubbing of Minor V. Happersett in the summer of 2008, erasing the name and specific text quoted from the case, along with specific citations to it out of dozens of Supreme Court cases which cited it over 138 years of American Supreme Court History. The controversy was dubbed "JustiaGate".
The author of this article personally documented and published the scrubbing done by Justia, documented the failure of Tim Stanley's explanation for the "errors", and assisted in the research which connected Justia.com to Public.Resource.Org, where Stanley is on the board of Directors.
On April 27, 2011, President Barack walked into the White House Press room with a Cheshire cat like grin and a "Long Form Birth Certificate" from the State of Hawaii in hand. From the podium in the press room, Mr. Obama said, "We're not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers,". Quite the barb from a man holding a forged document.
That's right, forged.
The president himself created the scene; one filled laughter from an adoring press corp., a scene of unprecedented fanfare while holding a forged document which was later posted on the White House website. This was the news Sheriff Arpaio revealed on March 1, 2012 in Arizona.
Arpaio asserts that his investigators discovered, during a 6 month long investigation which is ongoing, not only was the "Long Form" likely a digitally created forgery, but the presidents Selective Service Card (Draft Card), allegedly filed in 1980, was also a forgery. These documents are what Barack Hussein Obama relies upon to prove his constitutional eligibility to the office of President of the United States.
Forged documents are being used to qualify a President of the United States for the office he holds. Or is usurped the more accurate term?
The silence from the main stream media in the US is deafening. It almost seems as if the press is terrified to even think the question, let alone ask it: Is the President a criminal? The press in Arpaio's audience were certainly asking him to state precisely that, yet nowhere has the question been asked of the White House by the press. Instead the American Press is aggressively protecting the presumed President of the United States, pushing the fraud upon both America and the world, supporting a man who may well have usurped the office.
For months before Mr. Obama released the April 2011 forgery, American businessman Donald Trump had been demanding that the president show the country definitive proof that he was born in the state of Hawaii, and eligible for the Office of President. The birth certificate forgery which was presented by Mr. Obama was in response to the repeated public requests from the billionaire businessman.
One can easily imagine the reaction of the press had this scenario been about George W. Bush in 2004.
On the contrary, the press itself forged documents regarding the 43rd President: Long term CBS newsman Dan Rather lost his credibility along with his job when he presented forged Air National Guard documents allegedly denigrating the president's service in the 1970's. One can imagine the glee evidence presented by law enforcement officials of a real forgery made by President Bush would have generated. The press feeding frenzy would have eclipsed that of Watergate, the most controversial political event in modern America history which led to the resignation of President Nixon in August of 1974.
The questions in the White House Press room would have been merciless to say the very least.
What has been the response from the Obama era press?
Silence so loud it can be felt.
What has been the response from the 44th president so far?
A tweet from Obama Campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt, containing a link to the conspiracy theory television show "The X-files" theme song: a mocking, Saul Alinsky like, retort.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors appear to have been committed by the President of the United States or his personal representatives in presenting a forged document to the press and the Nation as a legitimate document, and this information has been delivered from Law Enforcement Officials.
Arpaio refused to take the bait offered by a clearly hostile press in the conference room. He refused to accuse the president directly, instead informing the world that they had a "person of interest" in the forgery, and were continuing with the investigation.
Where is the outrage from the press??
As surreal as this is, it isn't the main event. It's only a part of a larger story.
Years before the 2008 election, Barack Obama was involved in efforts to amend the US Constitution to allowthose who were born to parents who were not citizens to become President along with those born overseas. Those efforts have occurred several times in recent history, and all have failed. It must be intelligently asked why this was a concern at all for the then Senator.
There are two reasons for Obama's concern. The first lay in Article 2 section 1 of the constitution which states: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,".
Except for Barack Obama.
The second reason for Obama's concern lies in the Supreme Court of the United States case Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162) 1875 which defines Natural Born Citizen:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.
This U.S. Supreme Court case decided that Virginia Minor, the plaintiff, could not use the 14th Amendment to claim citizenship and the right to vote because she was a Natural Born Citizen, and therefor unable to lay claim to the statutory citizenship the 14th Amendment gave to former slaves, which included their right to vote. This is the only U.S. Supreme Court case in the history of the United States to clearly define what a Natural Born Citizen is. It has been cited in dozens of cases since.
This is an issue which cannot be brushed aside by Mr. Obama. His father, Barack Obama Sr. was a student from the British Commonwealth of Kenya, a British Citizen who never sought to become a US Citizen, and indeed was eventually forced to leave the country. Mr. Obama has only one parent who was an American Citizen. Obama clearly does not meet the requirements of Natural Born Citizen as defined by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett.
The Founding Fathers, the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, discussed these very reasons why no person of divided loyalties, divided nationalities, should ever have command of America's armed forces. Dozens of letters and many debates in the constitutional conventions recorded these concerns, always returning the "Law of Nations", Emerich De Vattel's encyclopedic record of the laws civilized nations had developed over two thousand years of which the founders were clearly aware of in their debates:
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
E. De Vattel 1758 Sec 212 Ch19
Vattel's definition has been accepted since the days the United States was still a motley collection of British Colonies. It has been accepted in no less that 3 Supreme Court Cases, has been accepted in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives. It is by no means an original source; only recently dug out of dusty tomes in 2008. Indeed, this concept is enshrined in every Nation the world over. Every nation not only accepts, but has enshrined this concept: a person born to two parents who were citizens of that nation and born on its soil was a natural born citizen of that nation.
After his rousing 2004 speech at the Democrat National Convention, Barack Obama was considered a shoe-in for running for president in 2008, and indeed his campaign began that night in Boston. Yet his citizenship was a serious obstacle to his ambitions, and the ambitions of the liberal progressive movement which supported him.
So the efforts to obfuscate Obama's citizenship issues began in earnest. The plan was deviously simple, make certain that people focused on his Hawaiian documents, and minimize the visibility of Minor V. Happersett and Citizenship to the public.
The State of Hawaii
The state of Hawaii's role in this cannot be neglected for several reasons. Hawaii has a couple of legal Achilles heels of its own.
It was well known at the time, that any person could register the birth of a child in the state on a late form with only the signature of a witness (Hawaii Department of Health no longer uses this form). This means of obtaining Hawaiian documents was used frequently by immigrants who needed assistance from the state (such as welfare), and Hawaii needed the federal dollars registering those births brought to the state. Second, and perhaps most importantly, Federal laws with regard to Hawaii had been written to allow a baby receiving state documents to be declared a Citizen of the United States without being subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States:
Sec. 305. [8 U.S.C. 1405] Persons born in Hawaii:
A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.
Missing from this US Statute is the following which appears in the 14th Amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
This disparity created a legal loophole which is specific to Hawaii: A child born in Hawaii, regardless of whether or not they were born in the state and subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States, automatically gained US Citizenship. This is the only state in the United States where this condition existed. This is why Hawaii is so vitally important to Obama, and could explain why it is important enough to forge birth documents for. It is why Obama's birth is being alleged to have occurred there instead of somewhere like Washington State or elsewhere, and is so vitally important.
Public.Resource.org is the source of Supreme Court materials in data form Justia.com receives for publication. Public.Resource.org is owned and run by Carl Malamud, and funded in part by the Center for American Progress once run by John Podesta, and funded by George Soros. This is a direct connection to the Soros Foundation, a major source of political donations to Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.
Justia erased "Minor v. Happersett" along with text quoted from the case out of its Supreme Court servers deliberately in an effort to minimize the ability of the public to find the case by searching for it, significantly reducing its apparent importance.
These two separate efforts, raising the profile of the Senator's birth certificate in as controversial a manner as possible, while minimizing the legal role of Minor v. Happersett succeeded. Barack Obama was able to illegally win the election, and illegally take office. It was stolen right in front of the American public.
The house of cards is about to come tumbling down around Barack Obama's ears as the momentum of evidence builds. Law enforcement has found his birth documents to be "highly suspect" as a forgery. His draft card has similarly been found by law enforcement as being "highly suspect" as a forgery. The smoke screen cover created by his birth certificate, hiding Minor v. Happersett in a shadow of false mockery, has been blown away. Leaving the Supreme Court case alone on the stage, glaringly exposing Barack Obama as an usurper, an unconstitutional President of the United States.
The American Press is deliberately hiding the evidence published on the internet about this defrauding of the American public and the deliberate evisceration of the Constitution of the United States. It is hiding Barack Obama's Fraud as it has been revealed by a Sheriff in Arizona. The silence of the American press would be unbelievable if it weren't so blatantly obvious.
It is nearly as egregious as the audacity of Obama's fraud itself.
More From Pravda
- Turkey deports Ukrainian feminists
- Schoolboy dies while sliding down frozen hill
- Man quietly steals bags of cash from Auchan store in Russia
- Strange object with something inside falls down from space in Brazil
Dianna Cotter is a Senior at American Military University, a 4.0 Student, the recipient of the Outstanding Student Essay of 2009, a member of Delta Epsilon Tau and Epsilon Pi Phi Academic Fraternities and on the Dean's and President's Lists for academic achievement. She has published at Examiner.com, in American Thinker, Accuracy in Media, and Family Security Matters.
March 10th, 2012
CBS News / By Mandy Clark, Phil Hirschkorn
(CBS News) KABUL, AFGHANISTAN -- The unpredictable fate of more than three thousand detainees held by the United States in Afghanistan will take another twist in the next 18 months as the U.S. military prepares to turn over control of its controversial prison at Bagram Air Base.
While the U.S. Naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has been a flash point for a decade since the military response to the September 11th terrorist attacks began, Bagram currently holds nineteen times more detainees than Guantanamo. There are more than 3,300 detainees at Bagram -- double the number one year ago and five times the number when President Barack Obama took office. Only 171 detainees remain at Guantanamo.
An agreement signed Friday by General John Allen, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak, should give the Afghan government control of the detainees by 2014, when the last of some 90-thousand American troops still deployed in Afghanistan are expected to leave the country.
The U.S. won't begin to relinquish control of the detainees until an Afghan commander is in place at Bagram and a subsequent six month transition period. Then, the U.S. military will still provide "technical assistance" for one more year.
"This is a step forward in our strategic partnership," Gen. Allen said at the signing ceremony. "It is yet another example of the progress of transition and our efforts to ensure that Afghanistan can never again be a safe haven for international terrorists."
The U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan began in October 2001 following the the terror attacks directed by al Qaeda, which was sheltered by the Taliban, which then ruled the country.
Gen. Wardak said, "The transfer of the Bagram detention center to the Afghan authority is an extraordinarily important step in recognizing the sovereignty of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan."
The Bagram detainees are mostly Afghan citizens who are accused of conspiring against U.S. forces, such as by aiding the Taliban. Though their cases are reviewed every six months, a detainee can be held
indefinitely as "enduring security threat," though the military has not released the criteria for that label.
The detainees don't get access to a lawyer or to view the evidence against them, which is typically consider "classified," or secret. Some detainees have been held for years. The military has never released a complete list of who is inside Bagram.
"There was no due process being provided for those detainees" said Daphne Eviatar, a lawyer for Human Rights First who was permitted by the military to observe detainee review hearings last year. She documented the cases of around twenty former Bagram detainees in her report, "Detained and Denied in Afghanistan."
Eviatar is now concerned the remaining detainees could be treated less humanely under Afghan control. "Afghan security services have a history of using torture to elicit confessions, and that was found just within the past year by the United Nations, so it's not clear from this agreement how the United States will make sure that's not happening," she said.
After copies of the Koran that once belonged to Bagram detainees were mistakenly burned by NATO troops last month, protests erupted across Afghanistan for a week, resulting in the deaths six U.S. soldiers.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai said defacing the Muslim holy books never would have happened if Afghans had been in charge of the prison.
The hand over agreement requires Afghanistan to consult with the U.S. before releasing any detainees, a move the U.S. could block if it deemed specific detainees too dangerous.
U.S. soldiers will continue to train Afghan prison guards for at least another year. But how Afghanistan's fledgling judicial system might handle detainee reviews is still an unknown.
Eviatar said, "It's not clear who, if anyone, will be allowed to observe hearings or if they'll even get hearings under the new administrative detention law in Afghanistan."
Clark reported from Kabul. Hirschkorn reported from New York. John Bentley also contributed to this story.
Most Popular on CBS News
March 10th, 2012
Coca-Cola and Pepsi are changing how they make an ingredient in their drinks to avoid being legally obliged to put a cancer warning label on the bottle.
The new recipe for caramel colouring in the drinks has less 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI) - a chemical which California has added to its list of carcinogens.
The change to the recipe has already been introduced in California but will be rolled out across the US.
Coca-Cola says there is no health risk to justify the change.
Spokeswoman Diana Garza-Ciarlante told the Associated Press news agency they wanted to ensure their products "would not be subject to the requirement of a scientifically unfounded warning".
The chemical has been linked to cancer in mice and rats, according to one study, but there is no evidence that it poses a health risk to humans, said the American Beverage Association, which represents the wider industry.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claims a person would need to drink more than 1,000 cans of Coke or Pepsi a day to take in the same dose of the chemical that was given to the animals in the lab test.
Coca-Cola and PepsiCo account for nearly 90% of the US fizzy drink market, according to one industry tracker, Beverage Digest.
The companies say changing their recipes across the whole of the US, not just in California, makes the drinks more efficient to manufacture.
In a statement Coca-Cola added that the manufacturing process across Europe would not change.
It said that apart from California "not one single regulatory agency around the world considers the exposure of the public to 4-MEI as present in caramels as an issue".
CLARIFICATION: This story was changed on 10 March to make it clear that it was a manufacturing process that had changed, not the recipe of the drinks themselves.
March 10th, 2012
Gaza City (CNN) -- An Israeli airstrike left one Palestinian dead early Sunday in Gaza, medical sources and security officials said, bringing the death toll from nearly two days of bombings to 16.
The early morning airstrike in the eastern Gaza Strip came hours after Hamas' armed wing threatened Israel over the attacks.
The Israel Defense Forces had no immediate comment on the latest bombing, which also left three people wounded, according to the Palestinian sources.
Israel "will pay the price" for its actions in Gaza, said Abu Obaida, spokesman for the Izzedine al Qassam Brigade of Hamas, the Islamist movement that controls the Palestinian territory of Gaza.
"The Palestinian resistance is capable of selecting its options at this time and all the time," Obaida said. "The Palestinian resistance has what will hurt the Zionist occupation and will not stand on the side and watch."
Israel said the airstrikes are a response to more than 90 rocket attacks from Gaza into southern Israeli communities that injured at least four people.
The military targeted "part of the terror infrastructure used to execute attacks via the Sinai Peninsula, and the Israel-Egypt border, while violating Egyptian sovereignty," the Israel Defense Forces said in a statement.
The forces remain on high alert, with aircraft patrolling the region and targeting suspected militants. The IDF said it "will respond with strength and determination against any attempt to execute terrorist attacks."
Four Israeli military tanks entered some 100 meters into the Gaza area, Palestinian officials in Gaza said Saturday.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke with the leaders of the communities that were targeted -- Be'er Sheva, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Kiryat Malakhi, Gan Yavneh, the Eshkol Regional Council, the Sha'ar Hanegev Regional Council and the Bnei Shimon Regional Council -- and praised the residents' fortitude. The town mayors said Israel's Iron Dome air defense system provided security to the residents, according to the prime minister's office.
"We will continue to hit whoever plans to attack citizens of the State of Israel. At the same time, we will continue to improve home front defense including by means of additional Iron Dome systems, the effectiveness of which was shown again over the weekend," Netanyahu said.
U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland condemned "in the strongest terms" the rocket fire from Gaza into southern Israel.
"We call on those responsible to take immediate action to stop these cowardly acts," she said in a statement Saturday.
Palestinians roundly condemned the Israeli actions, which also left at least 25 people wounded.
"Israel's escalation creates a negative atmosphere and increases the tension, which leads to the increase in violence in the region," Palestinian Authority spokesman Nabil Abu Rudaina said.
Talal Abu Tharifa, a member of the political bureau of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, urged the Arab League to ask the U.N. Security Council to stop the "aggression." He also wants Israeli military and political leaders to go before the International Criminal Court.
Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas leader and spokesman, said Israel's actions are intended to cover up the government's activities, such as settlement construction.
The initial airstrike, on Friday afternoon, killed two people in Gaza.
One of the dead was Zuhair al-Qaisy, secretary-general of the Popular Resistance Committees, a militant group that has launched rockets toward Israel and fired mortars from inside Gaza.
The other was Mahmoud Ahmad Al-Hanini, a Hamas military leader originally from the northern West Bank city of Nablus. Al-Hanini was deported to Gaza about five years ago after being freed from an Israeli prison.
Three others members of the Popular Resistance Committees were killed -- two in an Israeli airstrike on a motorbike south of Gaza and one on a motorcycle in Rafah, officials said.
Israeli forces also struck an apparent rocket-launching site in Gaza, killing three. Another airstrike hit a house in Beit Lahia, killing two and wounding others, medical and Palestinian officials said.
Israeli forces say al-Qaisy helped orchestrate an August attack that left 40 people injured, coordinated rocket attacks against Israel and transferred funds from Hezbollah to militant groups in Gaza.
After his death Friday, the Popular Resistance Committees vowed a "seismic response" and said Israel "has opened the doors to hell and the continuous revenge ... will be by the size of this heinous crime."
European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton urged both sides to "avoid further escalation" and "re-establish calm."
"I very much deplore the loss of civilian life," she said in a Saturday statement.
March 10th, 2012
BLS note: Wow! Amazing how they come up with this stuff--I listened for about an hour on Thursday, at lunch, and couldn't tell any difference in the show, at all....sounds a lot like wishful thinking, but remember, Soros funded both Media Matters and Huffington as well, in order to write up this sort of wistful thinking as news....
The Huffington Post | By Melissa Jeltsen
The overwhelming exodus of advertisers from Rush Limbaugh's show has big-name companies rethinking their relationship with talk radio.
According to a memo published by the industry website Radio-Info.com, at least 98 advertisers -- including big names like Ford, GM and McDonald's -- have indicated they want to avoid "environments likely to stir negative sentiments."
Here's an excerpt of the memo, as published on Radio-Info.com:
"To all Traffic Managers: The information below applies to your Premiere Radio Networks commercial inventory. More than 350 different advertisers sponsor the programs and services provided to your station on a barter basis. Like advertisers that purchase commercials on your radio station from your sales staff, our sponsors communicate specific rotations, daypart preferences and advertising environments they prefer…
They’ve specifically asked that you schedule their commercials in dayparts or programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity). Those are defined as environments likely to stir negative sentiment from a very small percentage of the listening public."
Sponsors began abandoning Limbaugh's show en masse after he made offensive comments about Sandra Fluke, calling the law student a slut for her testimony in support of President Barack Obama's birth control mandate, and suggesting she should make sex tapes if she wants birth control covered by insurance.
By last count, at least 50 sponsors had pulled their support from Limbaugh's show, including AOL, The Huffington Post's parent company.
On Thursday, Limbaugh's program was practically devoid of paid advertisements, according to reports. Of the 86 spots that aired, 77 were "free public service announcements donated by the Ad Council." Seven ads were from companies "in the process of pulling their spots."
Media Matters is tracking the companies still advertising on Limbaugh's show.
After intense backlash, the radio host offered a rare apology for his comments, saying he was "sincerely" sorry about his "insulting" characterization of Fluke.
His apology was rejected by Fluke.
"I don't think that a statement like this, issued saying that his choice of words was not the best, changes anything," Fluke said during an appearance on ABC's "The View." "Especially when that statement is issued when he's under significant pressure from his sponsors, who have begun to pull support from his show."
Fluke, who received a supportive phone call from President Obama, has retained a calm demeanor while being thrust into the national spotlight as the face of the contraception coverage debate.
Many in the Republican Party are still trying to overturn the mandate, which requires insurance companies to cover birth control at no cost to the consumer. After the Blunt amendment -- which would have overridden the contraception coverage rule -- was defeated in the Senate, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) promised to continue the fight in the House.
On International Women's Day, all 12 Democratic women senators sent a letter to Boehner, asking him to abandon those plans, saying the legislation would "turn the clock back on women's access to health care."
More from Huffington