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.

"The Black Stallion and the Lost City"

Another new "Black Stallion" book by Steve Farley is coming out next summer. I've been a loyal fan of Alec and the Black since I first discovered the books at age 9, which was 40 years ago (no, I don't care who knows how old I am.) But Steve Farley's last book as he attempts to follow in his father's footsteps, "The Black Stallion and the Shape Shifter," was just WEIRD, and the plot of this book as outlined on Amazon sounds even weirder. (Alec and the Black find themselves about to be sacrificed to flesh-eating mares in a city lost in time???)

Why does Steve Farley write weird fantasy plots? His father did a science-fiction plot in "The Island Stallion Races," and he himself got into weird fantasy in "The Black Stallion's Ghost" (Alec lost in the swamp in Florida, and were his encounters with this weird Kovi just hallucinations or real? That book creeped me out as a 1o-year-old and to this day it's one of my least favorite of the senior Mr. Farley's books) and "The Black Stallion Legend," which was just bizarre. I would rather read more traditional horse stories involving Alec and the Black, not weird fantasy tales that are totally improbable and off the wall.

That being said, I will, of course, be dumb enough to buy this book and add it to my collection simply because it is a Black Stallion book, but I have a strong feeling I'm not gonna like this one any more than I did "Shape Shifter." Please, Steve, write a book that is more plausible and less science-fictioney (did I just make up a word?)

Sorry, I have to be grammar cop here

It drives me crazy to hear people say "in regards to" or "with regards to." The correct phrase is "in regard to" or "with regard to," singular, no "s" on the end.

And please, remember the apostrophe does NOT mean something is plural. The plural of "Smith" is "Smiths," NOT "Smith's." The plural of dog is "dogs," NOT "dog's." Etc.

Thank you. I feel better now.

Leave NPR alone!!

Ever since Juan Williams was so ridiculously fired by NPR for comments that were taken out of context (the people who run NPR can now challenge the people who took Miss California's crown away from her for "hypocrites of the year"), there has been a loud outcry for NPR (as well as PBS) to be defunded. There is a loud cry as well by people who seem to think NPR is a "left-wing commie network" that shouldn't even be on the air in the first place. My admittedly disgusted reaction to this is - have these people even bothered to LISTEN to NPR???

I don't approve of the way Juan Williams was fired or even THAT he was fired - taking comments out of context, and then insinuating the man needs to see a psychiatrist, is totally appalling. As I said, the people who made this decision are hypocrites who were obviously looking for an excuse to fire Mr. Williams because he (gasp) does commentary for FOX News. (Which proves FOX News is fair and balanced, because he's extremely liberal in his viewpoints, and they have him on regularly and allow him to have his say, along with other liberals like Bob Bechtel.)

But the NPR network itself is hardly as terrible as the people who seem to want it, not just defunded, but taken completely off the air, would think. Very little of NPR's programming is even political in nature at all. Most of it is "slice of life" stories, "Americana" stories, "everyday lives" stories.

In recent weeks, I have heard - Scott Simon interview Michael Caine on "Weekend Edition" about Caine's life and career - Scott Simon also interviewed Laura Hillenbrand, who wrote the book about Seabiscuit a few years ago, about Zenyatta - A story was done about Mark Twain's autobiography being published this year 100 years after his death, as he had requested - Alan Alda was interviewed about his career and his famous dad Robert Alda - "Storycorps" on Friday mornings is simply Americans talking about their ordinary lives - "Science Friday" has something for anyone who is interested in any form of science, from stories about trying to find a cure for diabetes to stories about the Mars Rover, the Hubble Telescope, etc. - "Car Talk" on the weekends features the always entertaining brothers Tom and Ray giving advice on car repairs with a generous dose of humor - the game show "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" is fun to listen to - "A Prairie Home Companion" features Garrison Keillor's wonderful and humorous tales of "my hometown, Lake Woebegone, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."

Yes, some of the programming on NPR is political, and leans left. Diane Rehm on Fridays does her "weekly news roundup", usually with a panel of liberal commentators, and Diane herself is obviously liberal judging from her own comments. But so what? I'm a conservative bordering on libertarianism, but I don't think a radio network should not be allowed to have liberal commentary or liberal talk-show hosts! I listen to Diane Rehm's show, and most of the time her subject matter isn't political at all, and when she DOES have political topics, I'm capable of listening to her liberal point of view, even though I'm a conservative, without thinking she or the network should be taken off the air! There is room on the radio airwaves for BOTH a Rush Limbaugh AND a Diane Rehm.

Point is - NPR's programming is about 90% NOT political in nature. The vast majority of their programming has nothing to do with politics and is, to me at least, very interesting and mentally stimulating to listen to. Should the network be defunded? Well, when we are so deeply in debt as a country, and we need to cut spending wherever possible, the answer is probably "yes." But should NPR be taken off the air because they're "liberal," as some conservatives are angrily demanding? My answer is a resounding "no!" Not any more than FOX should be taken off the air for being conservative!!!

Leave NPR alone! Defund it if we must (if they have to sell commercials to stay on the air, so be it), but stop criticizing it for being something it's not.

The American people are about to be raped

The Democratic senators are refusing to listen to tea parties, town halls, callers to talk radio, letters, emails, phone calls to their offices, the march on Washington on 9/12, the rally at the Capitol a few weeks ago - they are determined to rape the American people by foisting this health care bill on us tomorrow morning. And Merry Christmas to you too, Senators!

What does it take to get them to listen? What does it take to get them to understand their job? And what will it take to stop this? I think this should go to the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court will consent to hear it, because it absolutely is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the government to force people to buy something (such as insurance). If ever there was a need for the Supreme Court to fulfill the role of checks and balances, this is it.

Are "birthers" just crazy conspiracy theorists?

Some explanation is in order before I get into the heart of my post today. I live in Phoenix, and I listen to talk radio, primarily KTAR 92.3 FM, which is a highly conservative station. (Most talk radio is highly conservative - the liberals can't seem to be successful with talk radio shows of their own.) The morning talk show host on KTAR is usually Darrell Ankarlo, but he has been off the air for several months following a bad car accident, although he is expected to return soon. A number of hosts have been filling in for him over the past several months. One of them is Austin Hill, who has a web site at http://www.austinhill.net/. Now, most of the time, I agree with Austin Hill's point of view. But he and I diverge completely on the issue of the so-called "birthers."

"Birther" is the derogatory name given to those of us who believe that President Obama is being less than forthcoming with releasing his birth certificate, and have questions as to whether or not he was born in Hawaii or somewhere else. Most of us who think there might be any credence at all to this opinion are looked upon as kooks, "just a bunch of conspiracy theorists." But for a conservative talk-show host like Austin Hill to have the same mindset really bugs me!

He was discussing this topic on KTAR this morning, and his attitude and tone of voice left no doubt that he feels nothing but scorn for anyone who dares broach the idea that Obama's birth certificate needs to be released. According to Austin Hill, this is "a waste of time," "irrelevant," and "we need to concentrate on more concrete matters." He says that if we expect the President to release his birth certificate, we are "asking him to "disprove the hypothetical," whatever THAT is supposed to mean.

One caller was trying to argue in favor of the birth certificate being released, and Mr. Hill, in a voice brimming with sarcasm, asked him, "Where do you think Obama was born?" When the man replied, "I have no idea," Hill took off with that and proceeded to ridicule the man with more of this "disprove the hypothetical" nonsense. How is producing a birth certificate "disproving the hypothetical?" Rather, is it not just simply proving where you were born in the first place? And no, Mr. Hill, he has NOT produced his birth certificate already. He has produced a "certificate of live birth," which is not the same thing at all and does not carry the legal weight that an actual birth certificate carries.

Another caller made the mistake of referring to someone who had called Darrell Ankarlo, the very host for whom Mr. Hill was filling in, as "a chick named Orly or something like that," and right away, because the caller phrased it that way, Hill refused to give him any credence. Would it not be the remotest bit possible, Mr. Hill, for you to ask the producer of Ankarlo's show to pull the tapes of past shows and find the conversation this caller was referring to, and listen to it yourself, to determine if "this Orly chick" had any credence, instead of instantly dismissing it with derision?

Mr. Hill's take is that birthers pay too much attention to what they read on the Internet, adding sarcastically that "we all know that everything on the Internet is absolutely true and can be believed." So I guess we all are just getting our information from wacky Web sites and we aren't intelligent enough to figure out what's legitimate and what isn't.


Yet another caller referred to having seen Obama's grandmother interviewed on CNN (is CNN a wacky Web site, or a legitimate news organization?) and she had said she was present at her grandson's birth in Kenya. Hill ridiculed this too (I guess he figured the caller, who by the way identified himself as being African-American, can't tell the difference between CNN and a wacky Web site, or that he just dreamed he saw this on CNN.) The story about Obama's grandmother claiming he was born in Kenya has been around for quite awhile; can't anyone simply check it out and see if his grandmother ever actually did go on record as claiming this? Or is she just a crazy old lady who can't remember where she was when her grandson was born?

It's not just the birth certificate, Mr. Hill. "Birthers" also want to know why ALL of Obama's records - school records, high school and college transcripts, everything - are sealed and not available for public perusal. He claims that John McCain and Hillary Clinton would have investigated all this if there were anything to it. How could McCain or Hillary have investigated ANYTHING if it's all sealed and under lock and key, not being released to anyone for any reason???????

He wants to know if we think the election should be overturned, and wants us to consider what the result would be to the country if we went down that road. My response is - yeah, if the election was fraudulent, then it HAS to be overturned. You can't just shrug off someone who is not legitimately president! You can't just sweep it under the rug! Would it be highly traumatizing for this country? Yes. But are we a country of laws or not? If it's "irrelevant" that Obama is or isn't legally qualified to be president, then the section of the Constitution that dictates you must be a natural-born citizen is also "irrelevant" and should be removed from the Constitution! (That darn Constitution - what a pesky thing!)

By the way, Congress could not impeach him, because if he isn't legally President, then they have no legal right to impeach him. Think about THAT one.

I would email Austin Hill with all of this, but he is SO closed-minded to the idea that there could be any SHRED of legitimacy to what the so-called "birthers" believe that even if he were to read my email, he would disregard it with the same sarcasm and derision with which he was dismissing the callers on his radio show this morning. It's like he locked himself inside a soundproof vault where he can't (or won't) hear anything anyone says to him because we're all "conspiracy theorists" who don't know our heads from a hole in the ground.

Mr. Hill, you are being an idiot about this. Get a clue.