Diane Rehm, you are a hypocrite

Diane Rehm on her daily program on NPR this morning was discussing, along with her guests, the comments Rush Limbaugh made about Sandra Fluke last week in which Rush called Ms. Fluke a "slut." Diane's comment was that "As a woman, I am appalled" about Rush's comments. One of her callers came on the air and said that a lot of people are wondering why more isn't being made of Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a "cunt, twat, and bimbo." The caller went on to say that this is because Sarah Palin is a politician and is therefore in the public eye on purpose, or words to that effect, while Sandra Fluke is a private citizen who was merely testifying before Congress, not making her life as a public figure. Ms. Rehm said, "Yes, there is a big difference."

Seriously, Ms. Rehm? In your eyes, there is a "big difference?" Are you flat out kidding me? Let me pose two hypothetical scenarios for you, Ms. Rehm, and your answer to these scenarios will reveal whether you are truly a hypocrite or are just so dense you don't recognize your own hypocrisy.

First scenario: If a commentator, be it Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher, Howard Stern, or anybody else, were to call a female Democratic politician (Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi just to name a couple) anything like "slut," "twat," "cunt," "bitch" or "bimbo," would that be ok in your eyes because after all, that woman is a professional politician and is therefore in the public eye on purpose? What would be the difference between calling a Democratic female politician such names, and calling Sarah Palin such names? Do you think it would be ok?

Second scenario: If Sandra Fluke were to run for public office and win, and become a Congresswoman or a Senator for example, would it then be all right in your eyes for Rush Limbaugh to call her a "slut" because now she's a professional politician and therefore is open for verbal attack?

Seriously, Ms. Rehm, your blindness and hypocrisy are what is "appalling." Get a clue, please.

Gay mom who embarrassed her son

A few months back, a gay mom had her little boy approach Michelle Bachman and forced him to tell the Congresswoman that "my mom is gay and she doesn't need fixed."

First of all, what kind of mom does that to her little boy? That child was so uncomfortable and embarrassed, that mom ought to have been ashamed of herself for doing that to a child, especially her OWN child.

Second of all, the Bible very plainly teaches that ALL of us are broken and "need fixed." This applies to gay, straight, man, woman, old, young, everyone across the board. We are ALL broken and need fixed, and Jesus is the one who fixes us. And yes, homosexuality is a form of brokenness. And there are MANY people who have successfully come out of the gay lifestyle and found freedom in Christ, just as there are people who gain control of alcoholism through AA, or drug addiction through places like the Betty Ford Clinic, etc. To refuse to seek help is to continue to turn a blind eye to your own problem. But when you involve your child and embarrass him to tears at a public event, that's incredibly low and appalling. For that alone, this mom "needs fixed."

Signing contracts under duress - Obamacare loses?

I love that the Institute for Justice has filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court pointing out that contracts signed under duress have never been legal. Forcing people to buy an insurance contract they may not wish to buy, and forcing insurance companies to insure anyone, no matter what pre-existing condition they may have, is putting both parties in the contract under duress by the government. Anthony Kennedy, you're the swing vote - are you listening? How can the Supremes uphold Obamacare in light of this salient fact?

Rush Limbaugh is right! The Sandra Fluke controversy

The attacks on Rush Limbaugh and his comments on Sandra Fluke (who as far as I am concerned should be Sandra Flake) are uncalled for and worse than anything he said about her. Does no one understand the true meaning of "separation of church and state?" (A phrase, by the way, which does NOT appear in the Constitution.) This is meant to protect religious institutions from the government, not to protect the government from religious institutions!! Duh!!

This young woman chose to go to a Jesuit college. They have strongly held religious beliefs, and it is NOT the federal government's place to be FORCING a religious institution to go against their religious beliefs and pay for or provide something to someone that the religious institution feels is morally wrong. If Sandra Flake (Fluke, whatever) chose to go to a Jesuit college, she implicitly is choosing to abide by the belief and value system of that college. If she is not willing or able to abide by their belief system, she is free to choose a different college. No one is forcing her to go to this college.

Is she going to this college to get an education, or so she can sleep around with all the fellas on campus? Is she going there to hit the books or to hit the sack with the guys? She could choose to spend $3000 a year on things that would help her with her education, not on birth control that would, as our President would say, "help her to avoid being punished with a baby." Our taxpayer dollars should not go to help someone avoid the consequences of sexual promiscuity, or, as Rush so aptly put it, "being a slut." Abstinence is not impossible, it costs nothing, and it doesn't get you talked about on the radio. Nobody ever died from abstinence, nobody ever got an STD from abstinence, and nobody ever got unwantedly pregnant from abstinence. You're going to school to get an education, not to be sexually promiscuous at taxpayer expense. Grow up, Sandra.

LEAVE RUSH LIMBAUGH ALONE.