And some venting.

Why, oh WHY does every forward directed toward females with safety warnings always—ALWAYS—have to come in size 40 font, bolded, and in color?  Does the originator somehow believe that people will be more likely to read and take note of it if it is annoyingly large? 

Why, oh WHY can’t people learn to use apostrophes correctly?  Have we failed that much in our high school grammar courses?  Or is it somehow the result of short-form text messaging?  The latest egregious example I stumbled upon recently:  At the American Legion, the wall says something like “We honor our veterans”  except it said “We honor our veteran’s”.  AHHH!!!  I saw a sign awhile back:  “Bracelet’s for sale.”  No, please, no!  Really, we must get to the bottom of this. 

Why, oh WHY do people persist in sending email forwards that contain beautiful and inspirational messages, followed by dire warnings to pass it along to one hundred people or your dog will catch bubonic plague and die a long, horrifying death?  Come on, people.  Look, unless you’re twelve, it’s just silly.

The above is surpassed only by the forwards that include this message:  Forward to seven friends including the person who sent it to you!  Who comes up with this stuff?  Are you really that desperate for love that you need someone to relay back the message about puppies and angels? 

Why, oh WHY do some cashiers feel it necessary to give back your change by placing the bills in your hand first, followed closely by the change, which is dropped ON TOP OF said bills, which then proceed to slide off of the bills onto the ground?  The chances of this happening increase four-fold if you’re in a drive-through.

Okay, I’m through for now.  And I feel relieved.

Feel free to add more to the list.  It’s for your mental health.

“Results not typical”

I’ve been seeing this ad around lately, and I’ve greeted it with a mixture of adolescent hilarity tinged with an undertone of ambivalent awe.  It’s aimed at men–particularly older men, and it’s called Cenegenics.  It makes many claims:  Decreased risk of age-related disease, improved muscle tone, decreased body fat, increased energy, increased sex drive, sharper thinking, etc…  Now, I’m not necessarily doubting it, but I do have a healthy skepticism regarding any of these supposedly miraculous products.  If it looks too good to be true, it probably is. 

The reason I get the urge to giggle and point is due to one thing.  Look at the ad.  It pictures its developer, 67 year old Dr. Jeffry S. Life.  Yes, Dr. LIFE.  I’m thinking that the Cenegenics people left off another key result of the program:  You might end up looking like a buff Santa Claus.  You might end up with the head of a crotchety 67 year old and the body of an Adonis.  People might point and stare, and find themselves torn between admiration for your fine form and trepidation at the dissonance between form and mug.  It’s kind of weird.  It’s like looking at a science experiment gone horribly wrong.

This has been my reaction to seeing the ads.  My conflict of emotion is exacerbated by the fact that the good Dr. Life bears a strong resemblance to a man in town, and every time I see this man at church, the childish small voice that can’t pay attention during mass is busy wondering what Mr. X looks like with his shirt off.  No!  Not in a sexual way, people!  It’s just that the resemblance is there to such a degree, that my subconscious deliberates.

I know we live in an age nearly completely engrossed in the young and the beautiful and the fit.   It is amazing to see people who are in their golden days running marathons, lifting weights, and staying healthy.  And my post today has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that actress Helen Mirren, at 60, rocks a bikini better than do I.  Really, I’m not jealous at all.   REALLY! 

But everything in moderation, right?  Call me old-fashioned, but I kind of like the idea of my grandfather being grandfatherly.  And as I near the end of my twenties, I realize that with each passing year, it takes a lot more work to look good (or even passable) in jeans.   

I guess what I’m trying to say in my usual, long-winded, convoluted way is that no matter what, this Dr. Life spends at least four hours of his day in a gym, and Hellen Mirren (besides being blessed with good genetics) likewise has to dedicate a healthy portion of her time to an elliptical.  I do hope that I can stay fit and healthy into my senior years, but I also hope that the desire to look a certain way doesn’t interfere with the things that matter.  I hope that I’ll be too happy and fulfilled and busy with my family and friends to devote large quantities of time preparing for my close-up.   A mid-life crisis at 67 seems disordered…  

I showed the ad to my husband and he said that he, too, could look like that:  “Just give me a few minutes with Photoshop.”  Ha, ha.  Yes.  But the ad says right there that the photo is not “digitally enhanced.”  So apparently, we’re not the only ones.

It’s a girl thing.

I snapped this picture the other day to preserve the contents of my daughter’s purse for posterity.  I’ll probably put it into her baby book.

It always strikes me the difference between my firstborn (a boy), and my girl.  They’re completely different; it’s been pink from the start for my daughter, whereas my son was immediately drawn to trains and tractors.  Back in my college days fresh from sociology class, I would have superiorly noted that there are no differences between the sexes (other than the obvious biological ones.)  Children, I’d say, will play with what their parents give them.  Boys will play with dolls if you provide them, and girls trucks, and vice versa.  In the nature/nurture debate, I tended toward the nurture side. 

This was back before I had children of my own–you know, back when I knew everything about parenting.  God has a wicked sense of humor that way.

Let’s run through the items.  Note the glittery, pink of the purse; she is truly a girl in this sense, and you’ll find her affinity for the color extends to the items that she feels it necessary to include with her at all times.  Several bracelets may be found, a pink matchbox car, glittery nail polish, a small doll, two fetuses, a couple superballs—what?  Did I just say two fetuses?  Yes, there they are, and I’ll say that they’re probably her most prized possessions.

Why on earth, you’re asking,  are there two fetus models in your daughter’s purse?  About a year ago, we were on a trip with my parents, and the kids were getting restless in the car.  Grandma, who counsels at a crisis pregnancy center, had them in her purse, and gave them to the kids to distract and occupy themselves with until we reached our destination.  My daughter ”adopted” them into her heart and life, and has treasured them ever since.

To her, though, they’re not fetuses (she’s two).  They are, and were from the start, babies.  I’ve found it useful to take note of the innocence and absolute forthrightness diplayed by small children.  They tell it like it is; they hold nothing back, and are incapable of nuance.  They’ll tell you (or anyone) that you have a funny nose, or ask strangers the relevant (and often embarrassing) questions.  But most of the time, they single out the pertinent thing, and proceed to nail it.  There’s nothing else in the world that those two items could be to my daughter other than babies. 

I guess for my two year old, the question of when life begins isn’t above her paygrade.

Pelosi: Less babies=less cost, UPDATED

Or, how about, “Pelosi’s Final Solution”?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent statement defending her move to include hundreds of millions of our tax dollars in the economic stimulus plan is generating quite the stir, and well it should be.  In an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Pelosi stood by her decision to allocate this money toward contraception and the abortion industry.  How this is supposed to stimulate the economy and create jobs is anyone’s guess, but that’s for another post… 

As I go about my work, this keeps coming back to me, and I find it particularly disturbing.  Here’s how the interview with Pelosi went with George Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy. 

So, let me get this straight.  In Pelosi’s addled brain, to reduce costs we must simply reduce PEOPLE!  Particularly babies.  They’re just too expensive.  Fantastic plan, Democrats!  As I said earlier, no wonder Obama is funding the abortion industry like crazy–we need less mouths to feed in this country.   Hey, you know what, while you’re at it, why don’t you just give one of your ”tax credits” to people who voluntarily sterilize themselves or stop at one or two kids?  Why stop there?  Why don’t you just pull the plug on all the useless old people laying around, eating up Medicare and not paying taxes?  

The culture of death and the Democrat party go hand in hand, make no mistake.  I am, of course, engaging in a little innocent conjecturing, but this type of thing always starts out small and sounds rather Orwellian.  Look at China and their government-mandated population control policies.  One child only rules, forced sterilizations, forced abortions, they’ve got it all.  A diminished lack of respect for the dignity of the human person, no matter what age or condition, leads inevitably to such things.  Through his lack of support for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (four times over) and his reversal of the Mexico City Policy by executive order last Friday, Obama is illustrating his continued disregard for human beings.  His next move?  Funding the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) with our tax dollars, which helped instigate, perpetuate and enforce China’s coercive one-child policy.  I find this all quite troubling.

Plus, what about this stimulus package isn’t all about a dirty four-letter word?  I’m thinking “P-O-R-K.”  In what way does contraception lead to a short-term (or even long-term) economic boost?  How much money do you think Planned Parenthood stands to receive from this glut of pork packaged as “economic stimulus”?

As Cliff Thier of American Thinker stated yesterday: 

“I look forward to Pelosi’s opposition to increased immigration (legal and illegal), tax benefits for families with children, social security for selfish oldsters, and, most importantly, improved access to health care. It’s time we confront the danger that population poses to our people.”

Don’t count on it, Cliff.

And, finally, isn’t Ms. Pelosi admitting that the liberal programs put into place by the hundreds to help the underprivileged (and apparently over-sexed) sectors of the population not working?  It’s funny, really.  Instead of, say, cutting back on some of these programs (which are not the church-related, voluntary organizations that help so many anyway), she advocates cutting back on…people!  

I suppose they’re at least being consistent in their unwavering faith in the rubber as panacea to every ill, i.e., throw a condom on it!   

May I present to you the people in charge of our country.  May God have mercy on us.        

 UPDATE:  Obama trying to back away from Pelosi’s contraception  Obama realizes that the greatest threat to his reign are his own people.

Explanations and a dose of double standards

One of the reasons I blog is because, for me, the strength of feeling sometimes becomes too much to bear without pouring it all out in writing.  Most of the time this is in response to the fact that I care about the greatest nation on earth, and would kind of prefer to keep it that way for the sake of my offspring.  

Upon examination, something that seems to trigger my writing response most frequently is the overwhelming amount of double standards that I see around me by people—usually those in the media—regarding the people in power, and the targets of those double standards happen to usually fall under the category entitled, “conservatives,” anyone who professes to be ”religious” (however, to be ”spiritual” is A-ok, a la Oprah), and often times “Catholics.”  So, I get to let off steam, have some fun, and point out these blunders through my writing.  Sometimes I do feel that I must risk being shunned by the “cool people” and take a stand against those people infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome.  I do wish to point out that I didn’t agree with every move of Bush, he sort of paved the way for the Democratic spending spree—er, I mean stimulus package—and I didn’t like that at all.  But, I have to correct misinformation if I can when I encounter it. 

I ran across a list of double standards, compiled by Elizabeth Scalia, aka the Anchoress, currently being employed by the lapdog media regarding the first few days of the Reign of Obama.  (Recall, Obama will not simply lead, he will reign.) 

Here is an excerpt.  Do go over to the Anchoress to read the whole thing (Aboard Air Force One & More):

“This administration will not torture”: Unless we feel it’s prudent to. Any criticism from the left? :::I hear chirping:::

“If innocent civilians are killed in war, you’re a war criminal and a terrorist”: Except when you’re not named Bush. :::chirp:::

This administration will close Gitmo: Just as soon as we’ve found appropriate terrorist cells to which the prisoners may be transferred. :::chirp:::

“This administration will ban lobbyists”: Except when we don’t. Oh, wait, you thought he was serious about that? :::chirp:::

“We are post-partisan and I will listen to everyone:” Except we’re not really and um…forget that. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” :::chirp:::

“It is arrogant, divisive, rude, hubristic and IMPERIAL to suggest that as President you are the “decider”: Until a Democrat says “I won; I will trump you.” At that point, it’s self-assured, direct and reassuringly authoritative. :::chirp:::

“Too much power consolidated in the White House is a very bad thing:” Except when it’s not. Hello? :::chirpchirpchirp:::

The quagmire of war: Lowering expectations until he can be called the Great Liberator of People, as George W. Bush has been soundly called. Oh, wait…

“This administration” will not use these words?: Democracy” or “democratic” or umm…“life”…or “pay…taxes…”. Whoops, I’m sure that last bit about the taxes is wrong. We’ll pay them. Others may not have to, but you and I will pay them. Yes, indeed. And we’ll do it with a smile, or be called selfish and un-American.

 

Dissent = Treason?: No, wait, dissent is still the very highest, ultimate form of patriotism. No, really. It is. And asking questions is good. Except when it’s not. Then it’s “obstruction.” It’s complicated. Back when Bush was president, it was okay (and good, and healthy for democracy) if you said the president was a terrorist, and a nazi-fascist, who should be assassinated. Now, if you just hope the president fails at promoting socialist policies, well…that’s arguably treasonist, baby, “arguably treasonist.” Got that? Wanna fantasize about assasination, actively work to expose sensitive policies in wartime and incessantly talk down the economy for one president? That’s alllllll good! Hope the other one fails? Treason. Evil treeeaasson!   

There’s more, here.

And one more story: 

The brilliantly dull Nancy Pelosi, on how massively funding contraceptives will stimulate the economy.  Less babies=more money!  No wonder the Democrats push abortion to such a degree.

Governing by threats and intimidation, UPDATED

I think SOMEONE is getting too big for his britches.  And his name is Barack Obama.  Hey, Barack:  You’re the President of the United States, not the dictator of the USSA. 

Not only is the One getting off to a blazing start by killing Pakistanis, dismantling a prison that houses the terrorists who killed thousands of our own people on 9/11, and expanding abortions for the poor overseas, he’s also starting his administration by intimidation and boasting of his win to the representatives that you and I elected to Congress.  What happened to “post-partisanship,” Barack? 

Yesterday, he told Republican representative Eric Cantor, “I won,” supposedly trying to put the matter at hand to rest once and for all.  Cantor had simply dared to raise an objection to Obama’s spending orgy, and his stimulus plan that is set to reach 1 trillion dollars.  Yes, Cantor made the mistake of not marching in lock-step with the new administration, and was haughtily called down for it.

Obama also warned Republican lawmakers to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh if they want to get things done.  Well, at least Obama recognizes the most salient threat to his liberal agenda; Limbaugh is the last man standing among the media who is actually examining the president’s actions on their own accord.  I suppose I’d revile the only one who wasn’t engaged in sycophantic drooling over me, as well.  (Actually, I wouldn’t.  I’m not that narcissistic.)  No opposition allowed during an Obama administration, apparently.

See, Barack, that’s the thing about being POTUS:  You don’t always get what you want, and sometimes you have to share with and listen to others.  Try not to throw any more fits.  It’s smacks of childishness.  And remember you chided against such things in your Inaugural?  What happened to “setting aside childish things”, Barack? 

You know, the indication of a good leader is someone who knows how to handle criticism.  So far, you’re not anywhere close to the leader that GWB was.      

 The real message here?  Half of the country didn’t vote for Obama and his radical agenda.  Most of these people are staunch conservatives (like Limbaugh).  These are the people who are standing in his way.   I say, LET’S KEEP IT UP!  We’re the only ones left who will keep our country from the brink of stagnant European socialism.  Rush is making Obama uncomfortable.  He must be doing something right. 

By the way, I predict Rush’s ratings to go through the roof as a result Obama’s comment.  Way to go, Obama—you’ve done something right!  

More on the “sore winners” here.

Regarding BO’s executive order yesterday revoking the Mexico City Policy, Ed Morrissey had this to say:

This isn’t exactly a Profile in Courage.  Actions get taken on Friday afternoons when people want the media to ignore it.  By noon, the broadcast networks have their evening news well planned, and Americans as a rule go out to socialize.  It’s not called the graveyard of news cycles for nothing.

It seems significant that the first such Friday afternoon news cycle of the Obama administration gets used for authorizing American tax dollars for abortions abroad.  We’re spending a trillion dollars that we don’t have now for an economic stimulus that will likely make the economy worse as we pull capital out of the markets.  With the federal budget deficit exploding to three times its previous size, thanks to the bailout, why should Americans pay for abortions overseas?

At least the shame Obama appears to show in signing this dreadful act can give pro-life activists a little hope.  Perhaps if Obama realizes that he has to bury this in a Friday-afternoon news cycle, the Freedom of Choice Act won’t get much attention later in this Congressional session.

Gateway Pundit has more:  Because 42 million global abortions are not enough…Obama will use taxpayer $$$ to pay for more

Michelle Malkin:  A few questions about President Obamas first airstrike

Good question of the day, “How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives—how does that stimulate the economy?”

Poor Barack.  The guy can’t even handle a substantive question without getting irrated.

UPDATE:  Rush Limbaugh responds to Obama.  Brilliantly.  Accurately.

More on this:  From Just One Minute, Rush to Judgement:

Third, can Obama be foolish enough to cite Rush as Obama Enemy Number One and then try to revive the Fairness Doctrine?  Dumb, de dum dum.  If it is a bad idea to get in an argument with a person who buys ink by the barrel, how smart is it to get in a verbal contest with someone that sits behind a live mike three hours a day?

A Tale of Two Presidents, UPDATED

Yesterday marked the 36th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade and thousands–upwards of 225,000—flocked to our nation’s capital for the 2009 March for Life.  The turnout was huge, as it is each year.  It is amazing to see so little coverage of such a large gathering of people devoted to such a cause—one is hard-pressed to find more than a passing sentence in the media of this event. 

And today, in one of his first acts as President, Obama revoked the Mexico City policy, which prohibits US tax dollars from going toward groups that provide and promote abortions oversees.  Here is what Obama had to say about his decision: 

“On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters,” said Obama. “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose.”

See, that’s the funny thing about the liberal mindset:  They think the government should intrude in each and every aspect of the citizenry’s lives EXCEPT where it would serve to protect and defend millions of innocent lives.  The only place where they don’t want government involved is the one place it could effectively eliminate the sickening destruction of babies in the womb.

Abortion is not a matter of privacy, contrary to what pro-abortion people attest.  It is a matter of natural law:  One does not have the right to take the life of another.  Abortion is not necessarily a religious issue, either.  A good atheist realizes the fallacy and the destructive nature of abortion.  Apparently, our 44th president does not. 

Contrast Obama’s statement to that of George W. Bush’s to the crowds in Washington yesterday via telephone:

You believe, as I do, that every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak, and that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient.  These principles call us to defend the sick and the dying, persons with disabilities and birth defects, all who are weak and vulnerable, especially unborn children.

This reminds me again why I’m proud to have supported President Bush.  The man was committed to promoting a culture of life.  I cannot and do not support President Obama, and frankly, I think his stance on abortion is an embarrassment to modern civilization and an age that should know better.  Those people who support such a heinous practice–even those who support it by proxy by voting for those who support it—will be looked upon as fools in the fullness of time, just as we look back in horror at the Nazi regime and its extermination of the Jewish people.  As the president of the March for Life, Nellie Gray, said in a statement when asked what she wanted Obama’s first impression of the pro-life movement in America to be:

 ”I definitely want him to see that Americans are telling him that this is our country, and our country does not kill innocent human beings.  And now we are at the point of killing 50 million innocent human beings – that’s genocide. The reason for the March for Life is to assure that in history no one will be able to say, ‘Why didn’t those people stand up and do something?’” 

I think that to say that abortion is all about “choice” is to gloss over the fact that the child has no choice in the matter.  It sounds so benign and fair to say you support “a woman’s right to choose.”  People who have not thought about the realities of abortion hide behind that statement.  People who have not truly examined the issue from every single point of view hide behind that statement.  And people who simply cannot face up to the brutal reality of abortion hide behind that statement.  

Pray for the heart of our president to change on this issue.     

UPDATE:  Contrary to Mainstream Media, Hundreds of Thousands at Giant Washington March for Life, pictures

At March, Black Pastor Warns Obama not to Preside Over the Genocide of American Blacks 

White male construction workers: You’re SOL

REICH: …”I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers…I have nothing against white male construction workers, I’m just saying there are other people who have needs as well.”

Thus proclaims Obama’s terminally liberal economic advisor Robert Reich.  Instead, money for the so-called infrastructure should not go to white male construction workers, but women, minorities, and/or the long-term unemployed—-who likely aren’t even IN the construction business. 

Let me step outside the fact that I disagree with the entire premise of the government being in charge of each and every aspect of our lives and of the economy—and especially in the private sector.  If we want the stimulus package to actually stimulate anything, and especially in relation to improving infrastructure, wouldn’t it make eminent sense to just make sure the money got to the people who are actually involved in the business of construction no matter what color they are?  It proves the point that when government gets involved in anything, it’s sure to complicate matters to the point of lunacy.  It proves that all too often, the government is motivated by ideology and not by common sense and practicality.  It’s the reason that I don’t want the government to take over health care, for example. 

As Ace pointed out:  “Sorry, Robert– for real infrastructure work, eventually you’re going to have to pay a guy who knows how to use a laser for surveying or how to operate a crane or how to weld steel. You cannot just draft the “long term unemployed, minorities, women” into real infrastructure work. Except, again, for pure bulls**** soft stuff like putting a couple of planters of flowers around a walkway to a federal building.”

Heaven forbid the funds go to anyone based solely on their experience or their resume.  All that matters anymore is skin color.   

Michelle Malkin has more on this lunacy.     

And by the way, just how, exactly, is Reich not being called out for being completely racist for this statement?  Okay, okay, I’ll do it.  Robert Reich is a liberal, socialist, wealth-redistributing, ideological racist.  There.

Obama looks to overturn Mexico City Policy

Barack Obama is wasting no time in endeavoring to overturn the Mexico City Policy, started by Reagan in 1984 (named for the venue of the UN Population conference where it was announced), kept by Bush one, overturned by Clinton, and upheld by Bush two.  The Mexico City Policy prohibits forcing taxpayers to help fund abortions and those who promote them abroad.  So, it starts.  I find it rather ironic that the same man who campaigned on promises to reduce abortions is now actively seeking to overturn a policy that does just that. 

I stumbled upon probably the most scathing critique of Obama yet—and trust me, this is hard to do.  Most journalists are busy fawning over Obama’s chiseled pecs or sticking it to bigoted rednecks to actually just objectively report the news.  Anyway, Gerard Warner holds nothing back, and I can’t say that he’s not completely accurate in his assessment.  Remember this line from the Inaugural Address?  “We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.”   Warner caught the irony in this statement as well: 

To anyone who kept his head, the string of Christmas cracker mottoes booming through the public address system on Washington’s National Mall can only excite scepticism. It is crucial to recall the reality that lies behind the rhetoric. Denouncing “those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents” comes ill from a man whose flagship legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act, will impose abortion, including partial-birth abortion, on every state in the Union. It seems the era of Hope is to be inaugurated with a slaughter of the innocents. 

As Fr. Andrews pointed out during mass, Barack Obama’s election represents the breaking down of a barrier; a black man now holds the highest office in the land, when only fifty-some years ago, a black person was not even considered a full person—they were fractions of a person.  An entire class of people was deemed somehow less human than all others.  Obama’s election did break that barrier down—a great thing for our country.  Unfortunately, through his radical pro-abortion agenda he is essentially erecting another, greater barrier:  The dehumanization of an entire group of small people, the unborn, deemed somehow less deserving of rights than all others.  It is a sad thing, and no matter how great a step forward his election is in regard to the black civil rights movement, it is an even greater step back for the civil rights of humanity itself.  Actively seeking to destroy the most vulnerable among us and promoting a culture of death represents the beginning of the decline of civilization.

This is especially poignant precisely due to the inordinately large percentage of black babies who are aborted in this nation.  African Americans comprise roughly 12% of the population, but comprise nearly 40% of all abortions.  In promoting abortion so radically, Obama is in essence supporting the decline of his own people.   

So far, 77 members of Congress have signed a letter to Obama, asking him not to overturn the Mexico City Policy (courtesy lifenews.com):

“As a new administration begins, it is our hope you will work, as you have pledged, to create a new era of bi-partisan cooperation. We urge you to continue the Mexico City Policy, which separates abortion and family planning in America’s foreign aid programs,” the bipartisan group of lawmakers wrote Obama on Friday.” 

For Obama to go forth with this renews my cynicism in his wishing for bipartisan cooperation.  He will be doing so over the objections of many in Congress.

Back to the piece by Warner:

It is questionable whether the present political system can survive the coming crisis. Whatever the solution, teenage swooning sentimentality over a celebrity cult has no part in it. The most powerful nation on earth is confronting its worst economic crisis under the leadership of its most extremely liberal politician, who has virtually no experience of federal politics. That is not an opportunity but a catastrophe.

These are frank, even ungracious, words: they have the one merit that, unlike almost everything else written today about Obama, they will not require to be eaten in the future.

Yes, please, enough of the teenage swooning.  Obama is not the fifth Beatle.  Let’s judge him by his actions, and not his cult of personality.  As Juan Williams stated in this WSJ editorial, judge Obama on his perfomance alone. 

The Age of Obama is here.

Ah, it begineth:  The Age of Obama.  Brace yourselves, fellow conservatives, and stay strong.  Find other like-minded individuals and be not afraid of the intolerance of the snarky liberals that inhabit your places of work or the recesses of the coffee shops you inhabit.  Know that there are countless millions (58 million, actually) who dare to refrain from joining the panting masses of Obama worshipers, and blasphemously say, “This man is not God.”  Take heart.

David and I listened to the bungled oath and the inaugural speech as we industriously spackled and sponged the tile in the kitchen.  (What a crappy job that was…but the result is fabulous.)  We made it through to the end, and I didn’t even feel compelled to faint. 

Of course, one can always count on the libs to keep it classy.  As Bush was being ushered onto the stage with his family, a bunch of BDS-afflicted morons had the poor taste to chant “Nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, goodbye.”  How utterly embarrassing.  But it’s what can be expected from this type of unprincipled person, I suppose.  Par for the course. 

Here’s an idea:  Go to www.grassfire.org, the Patriotic Resistance to the Obama administration.  You’ll find conservatives from all over the fruited plain with which to share your pain and put forth new ideas for the conservation of the nation as we once knew it.