What the left has been salivating over – oh, glorious day, we’re now back in the business of ripping children to shreds while they are in the womb, as a nation:

…President Obama signed several Executive orders. The one of particular note was related to ensuring that the United States would not engage in torture; that we would treat even our enemies with proper recognition of their fundamental human dignity.

In that executive order, the new administration reaffirmed the requirements of the Federal Torture Statute… “regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict, such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment), whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government….”

The move was welcomed by many, this writer included.It received the affirmation of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and loud praise from throughout the world…

…Our new President signed another executive order today. This one he signed quietly, late on a Friday afternoon, at the time when actions are usually taken with hopes they will not receive much coverage. It was not done with lights and cameras and words of explanation. With the quiet deadly stroke of a pen, President Obama rescinded what is called the “Mexico City Policy”.

The policy was drafted by Pro-life champion Alan Keyes when he served the Reagan administration. It was instituted in 1984. The Policy made it clear that any non-governmental entities requesting foreign aid from the United States would not use those funds to provide for, refer or promote abortions. It was intended to prevent the United States from exporting abortion on demand around the world.

In short, the “Mexico City Policy” protected another group of human persons from being tortured, unto their death. Only these small people are not in a detention center. They are living in the first home of the whole human race, their mother’s womb.

Come now, liberals, tell us how proud you are about this. We’d especially appreciate an explanation for why this courageous step forward for the rights of children wasn’t done with more fanfare by President Obama – I’m sure you’ve got a good explanation for that.

I’m certain the artsy types among you are right now planning a documentary which will actually show a glorious abortion on camera…because in the exercise of our basic human rights, nothing should be hidden, right? I mean, we speak in public in the exercise of our right to free speech – so why not do abortions in public? What is there to be ashamed of? I mean, its just as natural and good an act as a mother nursing her child, and we don’t really mind when a woman does that in public, do we?

Why not some school field trips to the local abortion mill? You can have a one hour old baby brought in so that you can explain the our old baby is human and thus has rights, but that other baby – in the birth canal – isn’t, so here’s how we punch a hole in its head and suck out the brains…cool, isn’t it, kiddies?

That is, unless you – deep down inside – realize that it is a shameful thing to do, and thus you want to hide it from public view, and call your support for it support for a “right to choose”. Tell us, liberals, what is it?

He’s no good, but he’s the best we’ve got:

A senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee said he believes Timothy Geithner’s failure to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes is “completely unacceptable” and would in any other time disqualify Geithner from heading the Treasury Department. But the senator, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, decided to vote for Geithner because it would take too long to find a replacement candidate for the key cabinet post.

“On the matter of Mr. Geithner’s failure to pay certain self-employment taxes, I find it completely unacceptable,” Conrad said before the committee’s 18-5 vote to approve Geithner yesterday. “I’m a former tax commissioner, I’ve dealt with hundreds of cases like this one, and in normal times that alone would lead me to oppose his confirmation. But these are not normal times, and I personally don’t think we can afford a further delay in the filling of this critically important position.”

Got that? Morality is to be set aside during abnormal times. One wonders if Senator Conrad has a list os sins which are permissible at various times – tax cheating is ok during a recession, so is adultery ok when one is lonely? This is taking situational ethics to its natural end – which end being a moral vacuum.

These are the guys in charge of the shop, boys and girls. Feel comfortable?

Which means she might be a Democrat we can learn to love…until 2010, when Rudy sends her back home:

Gov. Paterson, defying the liberal wing of his Democratic Party, has chosen little-known, NRA-backed, upstate Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton as New York’s junior senator, it was learned last night.

The surprising – and, for many Democrats shocking – decision to pick the conservative Gillibrand, 42, from Hudson in Columbia County, was disclosed by the governor in calls to party officials and some members of the state’s congressional delegation, many of whom said they were unhappy with the selection, sources said.

It is clever politics, of course – she’s an attractive, young mother with some conservative inclinations which will be useful in the Democrats’ attempt to hold the seat in 2010. She’s sort of a Democrat Sarah Palin, with her NRA support and such. Cynical political gamesmanship aside, it is useful to get into the Democrat caucus some people of common sense, which this lady seems to have.

Still, we’ll have to beat her – nice, semi-conservative Democrat Senator still provides power for nasty, uber-liberal Democrat majority in the Senate. Better to have Giuliani in there.

We’ll have to see:

Just days after taking office vowing to end the political era of “petty grievances,” President Obama ran into mounting GOP opposition yesterday to an economic stimulus plan that he had hoped would receive broad bipartisan support.

Republicans accused Democrats of abandoning the new president’s pledge, ignoring his call for bipartisan comity and shutting them out of the process by writing the $850 billion legislation. The first drafts of the plan would result in more spending on favored Democratic agenda items, such as federal funding of the arts, they said, but would do little to stimulate the ailing economy.

The GOP’s shrunken numbers, particularly in the Senate, will make it difficult for Republicans to stop the stimulus bill, but the growing GOP doubts mean that Obama’s first major initiative could be passed on a largely party-line vote — little different from the past 16 years of partisan sniping in the Clinton and Bush eras.

“Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters yesterday, saying Republicans were not being realistic in their expectations.

Hoping to recapture the bipartisan spirit, Obama will host nine congressional leaders at the White House today for talks about the economic recovery package, which he has asked to be on his desk by Feb. 16, Presidents’ Day. He also agreed to talk with House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) and other GOP lawmakers next week about their proposals for more tax cuts.

Republicans have a long list of grievances.

Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), who gave Vice President Biden a 17-page list of spending requests, said he opposes the proposed increase in funding for Pell Grants for college students because it would do little to spur short-term economic growth. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) said the plan lacks enough “fast-acting tax relief,” such as a temporary halt to payroll taxes and more relief for businesses. Sen. John Thune (S.D.) said the nearly $1 trillion price tag would add too much to a federal deficit that is already predicted to top $1.2 trillion for 2009.

“The Republican concerns about what’s moving in the House are growing by the day,” Thune said. He dismissed as “very, very ambitious” Obama’s hope of securing a bipartisan majority of 80 votes for the stimulus plan in the Senate, which could consider its version of the legislation next weekend.

Yes, Nancy, you won the election – and we GOPers should not sign off on a plan which looks to be a slow-moving economic disaster. We can’t do much to actually stop the legislation from going forward…but there’s no need for GOPers to provide a patina of bi-partisanship to a bill which is relentlessly partisan as well as horribly flawed.

Before we GOPers sign on to this, we must insist upon at least some free-market, supply side provisions be inserted into the bill…even if its just making President Bush’s tax cuts permanent. That would at least allow businesses to engage in long-term planning and might help turn the economy around by the middle of 2011. All the current bill does is spend bags of money to no actual purpose – and if such a bill is passed, then whent it all comes crashing down, we want “Democrat” written all over it.

Of course, we’ll have to see if Obama’s Justice Department allows this to move forward:

Media outlets in Pennsylvania are reporting that federal agents have raided the offices of a defense contractor with close ties to Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.).

The Johnstown Tribune-Democrat reported Thursday afternoon that Federal Bureau of Investigation and Internal Revenue Service agents raided the offices of Kuchera Defense Systems and Kuchera Industries in Windber, Pa.

Murtha has provided millions of dollars worth of earmarks for the company, and company employees have provided tens of thousands of dollars for his campaign.

There is no indication what investigators are looking for and no suggestions that the investigation in any way involves Murtha.

Murtha’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The mid-terms, they are a-coming…and Democrats won’t need attention brought to the rampant corruption on their side of the aisle. This will be an early and crucial test for Obama – if he’s really there to change the way things are done in Washington, then this investigation will move forward briskly, especially if Murtha is discovered to be hip-deep in it.

I think our President is going to need a Special Assistant for American Affairs to help him avoid these rather boneheaded moves:

Here it is less than 72 hours into a new administration and the blogs have already been burning up the internet over a major snub by our new president.

What is the slight that they’re feeling? What’s got them all bunched up? A party — one the new president failed to show up for.

Every four years during inauguration evening (the galas began in 1809), groups vie for a visit from the incoming president, his wife, and anyone from his ticket. For decades, the “official” and “unofficial” galas have hoped to get a short visit from the president. He would take a few turns on the dance floor, say a few words to those gathered, and move on to the next one. Typically, these galas and balls consist of groups of people that have a common theme or background — from youth groups (H.O.P.E. Inaugural Youth Ball) to the National Council on Women ball. Which ones the new president attends say much about his priorities (right or wrong) and which demographics he may hold in high esteem.

In this case, the American Legion, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America, as well as other veteran’s groups, were sponsoring their gala that has coincided with the inaugural evening since Eisenhower took office in 1953. In total, nine presidents and 56 years have gone by, and each inaugural evening the new president arrived to thank the veterans and Medal of Honor recipients in attendance. As one of the “unofficial” balls, it meant quite a bit to have the president show up and make an appearance.

Except this time.

The president and first lady, for the first time in those ensuing 56 years, did not make an appearance at the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball. In attendance at the gala were 48 of the 99 living recipients of our nation’s highest honor. Of the 99 who are still with us, not even half are in any condition or possess the wherewithal to travel to such an event. And by the next inauguration, likely half of those won’t be with us.

Making this evening even more special was the fact that it is the 50th anniversary of the Medal of Honor Society, which has been working hard to reach out to people to educate them about its members.

He just doesn’t get it – the soaring rhetoric about America’s glory is just that; soaring rhetoric. Its means nothing because it doesn’t come from the heart – it is mere words to disarm opponents. Its not like this was a hard call. Its not like Obama has to stay the whole time. Its not like these people were just another interest group. When does the President greet veterans? Whenever there are veterans around to greet – the appointment schedule is never too booked.

Small in itself, this incident reflects the larger truth about Obama and his Democrats, just as that sick, servile “pledge” video tells us volumes about Obama’s supporters. They don’t know what it means to be American – these people will pat themselves endlessly on the back for “organizing” communities which may or may not (a) need organizing or (b) want outsiders to organize them, but the concept of landing on Iwo Jima and grappling in desperate battle with a valiant foe is outside their frame of reference. We don’t need – and never will need – someone to organize a community. We do, on the other hand, always need people who will land on Iwo Jima for us. Between a choice between meeting with ACORN and meeting with the VFW the decision is plain as a pikestaff…the ACORN people are next to useless, the VFW people are the lifeblood of our nation. But that is not how Obama and his Democrats view the matter.

So used to getting a free pass, Obama was clearly annoyed when he wasn’t given adoring praise from a Politco reporter:

President Obama made a surprise visit to the White House press corps Thursday night, but got agitated when he was faced with a substantive question.

Asked how he could reconcile a strict ban on lobbyists in his administration with a Deputy Defense Secretary nominee who lobbied for Raytheon, Obama interrupted with a knowing smile on his face.

“Ahh, see,” he said, “I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can’t end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I’m going to get grilled every time I come down here.”

Pressed further by the Politico reporter about his Pentagon nominee, William J. Lynn III, Obama turned more serious, putting his hand on the reporter’s shoulder and staring him in the eye.

 “Alright, come on” he said, with obvious irritation in his voice. “We will be having a press conference at which time you can feel free to [ask] questions. Right now, I just wanted to say hello and introduce myself to you guys – that’s all I was trying to do.” 

He can’t even handle a simple question. How sad. And we got four years of him ducking questions ahead of before we get rid of him…

Boston Herald columnist Michael Graham reports on a disturbing video showing Obama supporters  pledging allegiance to him, not their country.

President Barack Obama has an unusual ability to bring out the best in his enemies and the worst in his friends.

Which is why former foe John McCain was leading the push for a Senate vote on Hillary Clinton as secretary of state; and why the most disturbing Obama video you’ll see this year was just posted by his biggest fans.

Demi Moore and her boy toy Ashton Kutcher have put together a YouTube video called “The Pledge,” in which a cast of celebrities and semi-celebs pledge their service to Obama.

Literally.

The video starts harmlessly enough, with Hollywoodies like Cameron Diaz, Laura Linney and the like making various innocuous pledges of good behavior. They range from the serious (“I pledge to promote mental health education”) to the silly (“I pledge to never give the finger while driving again”) to the slightly icky (Jason Bateman pledges to stop flushing the toilet after urinating. House guests, you’ve been warned).

So when rocker Anthony Kiedis says “I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama,” it seems humorously over the top.

But then Moore stares intently into the camera and announces “I pledge to be a servant to our president,” a pledge echoed by all the celebs who promise to become “the change that we seek.”

A pledge of allegiance to Obama? I don’t care if you’re a Republican, Democrat or a Vegan Evangelical Anarchist – that’s just plain creepy.

It’s also odd coming from a group of people who’ve previously shown little enthusiasm for pledging allegiance to our flag, much less a previous president.

Creepy is an understatement. The aforementioned nut jobs are the worst of Obama’s supporters because they are not mativated by love of country. In fact, over the past eight years, they have been loud haters of this country. So,, it makes perfect sense that these Obamabots have pledged faithful service to Obama, not their country. 

Consider this litany: “I pledge to be a better mother. . . To be a great father. . . To consider myself an American, not an African-American. . . To always represent my country with pride. . . To care for America’s elderly. . . To meet my neighbors . . . To plant 500 trees this year,” and so on.

All this as part of a pledge to “serve my president.” Not, it should be noted, a pledge to serve their nation.

This isn’t patriotism. It’s Obama worship. Liberals who once mocked the idea of patriotism as “My country, right or wrong,” have long lived by the creed “My politics – or else.” That’s why the same celebs who never had a kind word about President Bush’s massive aid to Africa are ready to skip meals in support of Obama.

There is something truly odd, embarrassing even, about people who are only able to embrace an idea when it’s held by the right (or should I say “left”) candidates. Loving your country because of its president is like loving your kids as long as they keep a 3.0 in school.

Yes, yes; helping hungry people and being a better parent are good things. But weren’t they just as good a year ago? Eight years ago? Did Eva Longoria really have to wait post-Bush to plant those 500 trees? Had Karl Rove stolen her shovel?

This disgusting blind allegiance to America’s Narcissist-In-Chief is disturbing for a number of reasons. Mainly because their blind worship of him will make them unwilling to discern Obama’s failures from his successes. They simply won’t admit it the times he fails. It is natural that they will give him the benefit of the doubt, but even President Bush’s supporters were more than willing to call him out when they felt he did wrong. Today, I am not so sure that Obama’s hardcore supporters will ever disapprove of what he does. And that makes Obama very dangerous. When his actions fail to meet his rhetoric, will they see Obama as another politician, or continue to look at him as a god who was merely thwarted by a devil?

Obama is an imperfect person, as is everyone. If his supporters think he is bigger than the office he holds, and their only motivation to do what they think is right is having their chosen candidate in power then they are the polar opposite of patriots. They will act like they love this country for four years, and when someone else is elected they will hate it again.

From Victor Davis Hanson:

As Obama begins to govern and as the public sees that he simply borrowed Bush’s foreign policy rhetoric, jazzed it up with his cadences and pauses, and then took either Bushites or Democratic centrists and called them hope and change, and as he glued new rhetorical veneers on the Patriot Act and FISA, and as he alienates many by making decisions other than voting present, and as the gaffes begin (Biden and Michelle can’t be put under wraps forever), and the Chicago fumes linger (Blago ain’t through yet), the fawning media will begin to look embarrassed, then ridiculous, and finally completely bankrupt. They offered no audit of Obama, no tough treatment, no honest examination of his flips, no balance in their treatment of Bush, and they will soon pay a terrible price for that derelection and worse, as the public sees them as the state megaphones that they have so sadly become. The only suspense? Will they play Pravda to the end?

I think they will – and if, as I expect, everything falls apart for Obama, then I suspect that come January of 2013, we’ll hear no more of the MSM which midwifed him to office, fed him on adulation and insulated him from reality.

Stripped of the glitter of Obama, the “stimulus” looks like just another tax-and-spend-liberal boondoggle:

Less than half the money dedicated to highways, school construction and other infrastructure projects in a massive economic stimulus package unveiled by House Democrats is likely to be spent within the next two years, according to congressional budget analysts, meaning most of the spending would come too late to lift the nation out of recession.

A report by the Congressional Budget Office found that only about $136 billion of the $355 billion that House leaders want to allocate to infrastructure and other so-called discretionary programs would be spent by Oct. 1, 2010. The rest would come in future years, long after the CBO and other economists predict the recession will have ended.

The report does not analyze the entire $825 billion package assembled by House leaders and aides to President Obama. Parts of the legislation are scheduled to be considered today in the House Appropriations Committee. Other portions of the proposal — including $275 billion in tax cuts and nearly $200 billion for jobless benefits, health care for the poor and other entitlement programs — are expected to pour cash into the nation’s faltering economy much more quickly.

But the CBO analysis appears to confirm the complaints of many Republicans and other critics, who have long argued that spending money on highway construction and other infrastructure projects is ineffective at quickly jolting a sluggish economy. The report was distributed to reporters yesterday by aides to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

The report also suggests that the House measure would violate Obama’s rules for the stimulus package; Obama aides have said they want the bulk of the spending to occur before 2011…

What is going on here? Well, a huge amount of spending, which is what Democrats do best and which is how they buy and cement political support. Do keep in mind that they don’t give a damn how the economy is going except in as much as it might hurt their chances of being re-elected. What Democrats want is power – all of it, and all of the time. They’ll do anything to obtain and retain power – and if spending a trillion dollars on pork disguised as “stimulus” is what they consider a good means of obtaining and retaining power, they’ll do it.

Furthermore, Democrats don’t really care all that much about Obama – they like the fact that he’ll appoint a bunch of Democrat hacks who will help steer money the way Democrats want, but other than the fact that he keeps a Republican out of the White House, what happens to Obama – plus or minus – is irrelevant. The power Democrats care about – ie, the ability to spend money – is held by Congress, and that is the Party’s largest concern. Obama very much wants to be a success – not just for his re-election prospects but because anyone who becomes President wants to be remembered as a man who changed things for the better in America. But Obama, at the latest, will only be in office until January 20th, 2017…Democrats want to hold Congress on January 21st, 2017. Keeping the White House would be swell, but its not vital. Through 40 years Democrats managed to advance the liberal agenda – and advance their power – because they controlled the nation’s purse strings – Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the elder Bush came and went, but Democratic power went on and on and on.

Obama wants very much to be sitting atop 6% or less unemployment in August of 2012 – but his Democrats will only allow him to do things which increase the power of the Democratic party, and most of these things will actually harm economic prospects. Obama seems a clever chap, but also stunningly ignorant of the way things work in the economy and, surprisingly enough, in politics. Chicago is a hard school, but its tailored for Chicago – DC is its own, little world and Obama doesn’t seem to understand that all the smiles he sees from his side of the aisle are just a mask for ruthless, power hungry political animals who only care about themselves. But, still, Obama is clever – once we blow through a good chunk of this trillion dollars Obama might come to realize that its not working…and then it will get interesting, because the only people who will be able to help him save the economy will sit over on the GOP side of the aisle.

Politics will be endlessly entertaining over the next four years…and I can’t wait to wade into it, personally.