A mythical United States Congressman from New York, Jerry “Loch Ness” Nadler, is going to reintroduce Barack Obama’s “mythical” Freedom of Choice Act “sooner rather than later,”  according to his mythical spokesman Ilan “Sasquatch” Kayatsky.  Senator “Bigfoot” Boxer is expected to follow suit–it’s a mythical “priority” for them, and for their new President.

Urban Legend expert Michael “Stokes Prometheus’ Fire” Paulsen explained how this mythical FOCA would be disastrous for the Land of Nod.

Several alleged critics were skeptical, however.  Their existence could not be verified to obtain a comment, but it is rumored that Time Magazine’s ficticious “reporter” Amy “Narcissus” Sullivan has already begun Calliap-orating on an article, working with storybook “Catholics”  from Commonweal “Magazine,” David “Phantom” Gibson, Eduardo “Bogeyman” Peñalver and Cathleen “Specter” Kaveny.  

Their inspired tome is expected to muse upon how the Catholic Bishops should relocate to Roswell, New Mexico and stop wasting their time fighting imaginary ghouls like abortion.  That way, “real-world” pro-life Catholics like themselves and Kathleen Sebelius can get down to the important business of defining their own concept of the universe and resolving the “mystery” of which human beings have a right to life.

Win or lose, Sarah Palin has already done so much to promote a “culture of life” in this country.

God Bless her for that.

Professor Rick Garnett has today’s must-read post. Here’s a taste:

What is at stake in the abortion debate — and, as someone who has known and admired Doug Kmiec for years, I am sorry that he seems to be forgetting this — is not only reducing the number of abortions and helping women considering abortion to find their way to a different choice (though, of course, such reductions and help are important, and one wishes that Democrats for Life had more influence); it as about repairing the damage done to our political community, and to our constitutional order, by a decision that declared that the Constitution itself disables citizens from protecting in law the most vulnerable among us.

Today, conservatives across the country will (rightly) celebrate the twentieth anniversary of Rush Limbaugh’s syndicated radio program. Rush is many things to many people. He is smart, funny, quick witted, insightful, charming, always entertaining, and even his detractors are forced to concede that he does indeed have “talent on loan from God.” The man is the best at what he does. There is simply no disputing that.

Most importantly, Rush has been the voice of the conservative movement for quite some time now. And while his unwavering committment to limited government, free-market principles, and national defense are often the first things that come to mind when one thinks of Rush Limbaugh, he has also been a crucial proponent of a “culture of life” in this country. In taking up this mantle, Rush–perhaps more than anyone else–exposed just how radical the feminist movement is on the issue of abortion. For these things, I am eternally grateful.

Rush, when you look back on your wildly successful career, I hope you will remember that in addition to all of the fame and fortune, you played a significant role in defending the most innocent and vulnerable members of society. You have been, and continue to be, a voice for the voiceless; and I can think of no greater honor than being remembered as a man who used his power to promote the inherent dignity of all life from conception until natural death.

God Bless you, Rush. I pray that you will have many more years behind the golden EIB microphone.

You can’t make this stuff up, folks: Senate dems are actually filing ethics complaints against Senator Tom Coburn because he delivers babies free of charge.

Does anyone believe that this complaint would have been filed against Senator Coburn if he had been performing free abortions?

Of course not.

The controversy over a new Barbie doll (which looks like a hooker) brought back a crazy Christmas moment recently at Jonah Goldberg’s house:

What did your kids get for Christmas? My daughter — not yet four years old — got a whore. Okay, not a real prostitute. Not even a pretend one. She merely got a doll that dresses like one. Oh, and spare me the eye-rolling about how I’ve become a curmudgeon. I’ve been to Las Vegas, I’ve ambled through the seedier parts of cities, and I’ve quaffed more than a few cocktails at the right (or wrong) bars; I know what hookers look like. No, I have never sampled their wares, but while I’ve also never ridden an elephant, I’ve been to enough zoos to know what they look like.

Read the rest of his story.

This is so disgusting that I will not re-print it here. If you have a strong stomach, then go to CNSNews.com and read about the vulgar art at Cooper Union. Disgusting.

The university has received a lot of government funding for art, although this exhibit was not given such a grant. Nonetheless, why is the govermnent involved in doling money out to univerisities? They have more expendable dollars than anyone!

It seems that Minnesota Democrats aren’t laughing over Al Franken’s satire articles in Playboy written eight years ago.

Here’s a taste of Franken’s humor, courtesy of the AP: “At one point in the Playboy piece titled ‘Porn-O-Rama!’ Franken called the Internet a ‘terrific learning tool,’ writing that his 12-year-old son was able to use it for a sixth-grade report on bestiality.’”

It’s icky stuff and Democratic Congresswoman Betty McCollum, who supported Mike Ciresi over Franken, called it “indefensible.” She says it puts Minnesota Democrats in a bind.

“Do they spend all of their time defending him, or do they spend their time talking about issues that are important to this election?” McCollum told The Associated Press in an interview. “The whole story was a shocking surprise.”

This controversy is like a birthday gift to Sen. Norm Coleman, who Al Franken has wanted to oust from his Senate seat.

Katha Pollitt, columnist for The Nation writing in today’s Chicago Tribune argues that the Pope and the Catholic Church are the real enslavers of women. Looking back at the recent visit of the Holy Father, Pollitt wonders:

“Where were the tough questions about the church’s absolute ban on contraception, condoms, divorce and abortion—even to save a woman’s life? If it was up to Benedict, we might be more stylish than the plural wives of the FLDS, but we’d be trapped in marriage and have 15 children just like them. In the United States the Catholic Church has lost some of its moral authority—thank you, pedophile priests—but it has more temporal power than you might think.

…FLDS men have many wives and the pope has none, which goes to show there’s more than one way to keep women pregnant and in their place.”

Pollitt suggests that the Church’s consistent teachings on love and marriage are responsible for ‘millions of lives’ in Africa for opposing contraception and condoms in the fight against AIDS. But the larger premise of her article, and for that matter, the underlying assumption of the entire pro-abortion movement is that motherhood is a curse.

Never mind that women are naturally and exclusively the member of the human species endowed with the role of carrying and bearing the gift that is a new human life. Never mind that 30 years of abortion and birth control have produced an entire generation of women who now suffer from depression, thoughts of suicide, infertility, breast cancer, and other threats to their health. Never mind that the cultural legacy of our abortion culture has produced more divorce, single-parent families, and male neglect of their responsibilities as fathers, while women have been reduced to sexual playthings, urged in both dress and disposition to tantalize men, and satisfy their sexual urges without any commitment to permanence in marriage or children.

The thought that the Pope and the Church might actually teach what they do because they want to liberate women, is unthinkable. The possibility that men and society ought to respect women for what they are, and that laws ought to affirm the dignity of women, particularly in their natural roles as mothers, is anathema to so called ‘feminists’ like Pollitt.

How dare the Pope, or the Catholic Church, suggest that perhaps, just maybe, there is a better way.

A debate has kicked up in National Review’s blog, The Corner, over whether military bases should sell Playboy and Penthouse magazines. Penthouse, it seems, used to be banned, but under its new management and editorial direction, it has been allowed back.

The legislator pushing for the removal of the magazine, Rep. Broun, has made some poor arguments, saying that soldier pay is tax-payer dollars. (Ah, no! When the check leaves the Treasury, it becomes the soldier’s property!)

The poor argument gave libertarian Andrew Stuttaford the green light to roll his eyes and call this another example of the GOP “embrace of the nanny state.” Stuttaford always gets bent out of shape the most when he discusses cultural conservatism. He can’t possibly conceive why anyone would object to the sale of photographs of naked women. Even though we now have a co-ed military and many husbands are thousands of miles away from their wives. (Mind you, this isn’t a discussion of whether the soldiers should be allowed to have porn, just whether the bases should sell it.)

Another commentator, Lisa Schiffren, said: ”[A] discussion of porn in society is good thing. Except in my lifetime society has discussed it endlessly, mostly at the behest of the feminists — with whom I agree on this, and it has only gotten much much worse.”

While feminists made the loudest stink about pornography back in the 1960s and 1970s, they have largely abandoned this fight and left only Christian conservatives arguing against further cultural acceptance of pornography. Today, only radical feminists remain opposed to pornography. Today, “mainline” feminists either no longer object to pornography or they consider it a woman’s freedom of expression.

Liz Hoskings wrote an article for Feminists for Life, explaining that there might just be a reason why feminists changed their mind: “Feminists have … capitulated to the values of the libertarian playboy, which view women as sexual objects to be used and discarded. It is no coincidence that the Playboy Foundation has been one of the biggest financers of the ‘pro-choice’ movement.”

On the Huffington Post, I found an article from Good Magazine that profiled Playboy’s CEO, Christine Hefner (Hugh’s daughter). The article notes that Christine calls herself a feminist, naturally, and that she was a co-founder of Emily’s List, a PAC dedicated to only one purpose – raising money for women who support abortion 100%.

Sounds like George Orwell: Pictures of naked women are everywhere. We are free! We are empowered!

The real problem with abortion today is that there just isn’t comedy about it. Or, at least that’s what Damon Wayans must think. He’s got a YouTube video called “Abortion Man.”  The caped crusader in this sketch comes to the rescue of a man who’s fathered a child. The superhero’s solution? Punch the baby right out of the woman’s body. Violence towards women and killing a baby… what you’re not laughing?

I used to get disgusted and outraged at the incessant desire of comics and rock stars to “push the envelope.” It’s accepted as unchallenged wisdom that the only contribution to art these days is to find the next Most Offensive Thing. But after awhile, your audience just yawns — even the grandmas you so love to offend.

I mean, isn’t it pathetic that we have to be reminded how trendsetting the singer Madonna is? So we see a 50-year-old singer wearing leather on a CD cover and we’re told, “Wow, she’s re-invented herself again.” 

Snore.

Bill Maher says ‘Nazi’ Pope runs ‘Child-Abusing Cult.’

Of course, if he said something similar about Jews, he’d be out of a job. If he said it about Muslims, he’d be dead.

The amazing actor gave an incredible speech entitled Winning the Cultural War to Harvard Law back in 1999. The speech transformed me from a Libertarian to a Conservative. May you rest in peace, Mr. Heston.