E!!

Breitbart found some video of Obama speaking on health care from a 2003 speech to the AFL-CIO.

Here is the money quote:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

“Wow.”

The White House response to this?

A three-minute (mis)information video featuring Linda Douglass, a former ABC news correspondent and now the WH Office of Health Reform communications director, sitting in front of a computer screen showing Drudge’s front page and saying the video and site headline is “taking sentences and phrases out of context, and they’re cobbling them together to leave a very false impression.”

Why not try to explain why Obama has changed his mind, rather than denying what we just saw him say ON VIDEO in a speech just a few years ago…?

This NY Post health care op-ed includes some truly appalling commentary by Dr. Ezekiel (Rahm’s brother) Emanuel and Dr. David Blumenthal.

As I was reading the piece I had a wrenching, visceral reaction.  Orwellian in nature.

These people actually believe they are adequately equipped to make not only “minor” but also life-and-death health care decisions for the elderly, the infirm, and the terminal.  That they have the right to say when a person does, or does not, need or deserve health care – and to what degree.  That they can and should decide which technologies are “appropriate” and which are too costly depending on the age and condition of the patient.

They knowingly and deliberately wish to suppress and subvert the will of family, and of the individual.  And they do it in the name of money:  cost savings, greater efficiencies.

It is horrifying.  Because the only thing more agonizing and torturous than having to make a life-or-death and/or quality-of-life choice about the care of a loved one, or yourself, is to be taken out of the process and have some computer algorithm or committee make the decision for you.

If these monsters are allowed to proceed — what else do you call men so misguided and monomaniacal that they sit in their mahogany-trimmed offices and play at being gods with clear conscience? — we will find ourselves living that horrifying vision that was once but a fiction.

(As an aside, Orwell’s heirs should sue Emanuel, Blumenthal, President Obama, and two-thirds of Congress for copyright infringement over health care language.)

And we should all come out of our slumber before we find ourselves in a nightmare from which we cannot wake.

Update: Fred Thompson interviews the writer of the above-named NY Post piece, Betsy McCaughey (8 minutes).

She said that on page 425 of the House bill is language making it mandatory that every five years, people in Medicare will have a required counseling session that will educate them about how to end their life sooner (how to refuse nutrition and medication, and how to approach hospice care).  And that some parts of the bill dictate that the elderly will be faced with denials of care based on their age.  It’s called “comparative effectiveness.”

Much has been said about Obama’s hurried, we-must-do-it-now approach to health care reform.  I don’t want the rush, and further, I think rushing through this is a really good way to ensure we end up with some really bad policy.

Now CNN’s Dana Bash is reporting that Harry Reid said there will be no Senate vote until after August on health care.

But, from Ohio, Ed Henry reports that a “senior administration official” said Reid’s comment does not change the president’s plans:  He still wants votes in both houses before August recess.

H/T:  K-Lo @ The Corner

Update:  Mr. Crum just called me and said he thinks Harry Reid’s statement was made with one eye on the polls and one on Reid’s 2010 senatorial campaign.  If a bill is rushed through and things don’t end well, Reid can say he tried to slow things down.  If things do turn out well, he can still point to how cautious he was.

I got three LOLs and one verge-of-tears moment out of this video.  It’s a joke, but my love for my country, and my desire for truth and transparency in government, is not.  Watch, laugh, cry, and then decide what YOU can do about it.

I am shocked and outraged.

It is well-established historical and political fact that America does not negotiate with terrorists regarding the release of hostages.  We do this so terrorists will not be emboldened to take even more hostages  in order to have even more of their demands met.

But apparently, about two weeks ago, Obama authorized the release of an Iran-backed terrorist who is responsible for the 2007 abduction/murder of American troops (five murdered, four of them after being kidnapped) in Karbala.  And did so as barter for five British hostages.  Or rather, for two dead bodies of former British hostages – because that is what we actually got back.  Two corpses.  In exchange for the freedom of a terrorist who murdered American soldiers.   

Andy McCarthy has all the details – including a very plausible theory about how Obama’s decision might be tied into some Guantanamo prisoners being sent to Bermuda.  Here’s the money quote from his piece:

Back in May 2008, in a speech before the Israeli Knesset, President Bush derided the “foolish delusion” of unidentified, naïve politicians who “seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.” Exhibiting a thin-skinned consciousness of guilt, Sen. Barack Obama assumed Bush had been referring to him, and lashed out: “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists.”

President Obama is now way beyond mere support of such engagement. Under his leadership, and even as the mullahs who have been at war with the United States for 30 years are engaged in a Tiananmen-style crackdown, Obama is neck-deep in terrorist-for-hostages negotiations with Iran-backed killers who have American blood on their hands.

A WaTi write-up is here.  Senators Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Jon Kyl of Arizona have written a letter demanding answers.  I would think so.  And where is the LameStream Media?  Still under the ether…

I’m a sucker for Monty Python references.  And this one recalls one of my favorite scenes from The Holy Grail while cleverly poking fun at socialized health care.

My very favorite scene from Grail is this one (dialogue with Graham Chapman as KING ARTHUR, Michael Palin as DENNIS THE PEASANT, and Terry Jones as the WOMAN).

Available on YouTube here.

You’ve probably heard the social drinker’s jovial party line, “I don’t drink any more.  (dramatic pause)  Don’t drink any less, either…”

Yuk-yuk.

Today’s Morning Bell says this joke pretty much sums up Obama’s proposal for pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) legislation which comes equipped with an exception for entitemlement spending.  Their quoted quip: 

Commenting on President Obama’s exemption for entitlement spending in his PAYGO legislation, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget President Maya MacGuineas said: “This is like quitting drinking, but making an exception for beer and hard liquor.”

Here’s a clip from the piece:

In theory, PAYGO sounds like common sense: Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere. In reality, PAYGO is nothing more than a political gimmick that only enables higher spending and exploding deficits. Heritage fellow Brian Riedl explains:

1) PAYGO has never been enforced

• During the 1991-2002 round of statutory PAYGO, Congress and the President still added more than $700 billion to the budget deficit and simply cancelled every single sequestration that would have enforced PAYGO.
• Since the 2007 creation of the PAYGO rule, Congress has waived it numerous times in order to add $600 billion to the deficit. In fact, the entire “stimulus” bill violated PAYGO; Congress simply ignored the rule.

2) PAYGO’s design is flawed

• PAYGO exempts all discretionary spending, and would also allow all current entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to continue growing on autopilot. It affects only new entitlements or tax cuts that may be created in the future.
• Even if PAYGO were fully enforced, entitlement spending would still grow 6 percent annually, and discretionary spending could grow without limit.

Already this year Obama expanded Medicaid liabilities by $200 billion over 10 years, and he is now pushing a public health insurance option that would cost $452 billion per year, or more than $6 trillion over a 10-year period. How does Obama plan to pay for all this new spending under his new PAYGO legislation? He doesn’t.

Obama is banking on trillions in exemptions to PAYGO over the next decade, including the one for his health care reform plan which will have to run big deficits if they get it passed.  PAYGO is a farce, sham, mockery, etc.  As is politics in this country.

Pass the vodka, please.

Well, I guess we need to have another Tax Day TEA Party ASAP!  What part of “get out of our wallets” and “stop ‘helping’ us!” and “stop spending money that doesn’t need to be spent” and ”stop hiring government employees to do things we can do ourselves” does the government not understand…?   Good grief!!

This “plan” from the White House is so outrageous and hair-brained and so likely to have the opposite of the intended effect that it is hard to even believe (copied and pasted from The Corner to save time):

Remember when the Left snarked at Bush for the orchestration of various photo opps with the U.S. military? 

Apparently Obama’s PR people have decided to adopt the practice.  Including pre-screening and special-stamping military personnel based on who they voted for in November.

Here’s a great piece on it (on Hot Air).

I’ve shamelessly swiped that terrific header from Jonah @ NRO.

The linked-to piece – from ExurbanLeague - is here.  An excerpt (satire alert):

Obviously, this incident has raised many concerns among Americans. There have been calls for justice and even violence against the misguided perpetrators. But such an emotional reaction has led to the disparagement of entire groups with which we are unfamiliar. We have seen this throughout history.

For too long, America has been too dismissive of the proud culture and invaluable contributions of the Pirate Community. Whether it is their pioneering work with prosthetics, husbandry of tropical birds or fanciful fashion sense, America owes a deep debt to Pirates.

The past eight years have shown a failure to appreciate the historic role of these noble seafarers. Instead of celebrating their entreprenuerial spirit and seeking to partner with them to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

Some of us wonder if our current Overseas Contingency Operation would even be needed had the last administration not been so quick to label Pirates as “thieves,” “terrorists” and worse. Such swashbucklaphobia can lead to tragic results, as we have seen this week.

If we had a Special Olympics for people who can’t function without committing grave social gaffes at every turn, the Obamas would surely compete.  Examples:

Obama bows deeply to the Saudi king here.  American Thinker calls it “unbecoming” an American presisdent.  I would say so.  And would add that it’s more than a little creepy.

Although it is reported that the Queen of England was actually agreeable to receiving a hug from Michelle Obama, I wonder what Her Majesty thought of the iPod the Obamas gave her as a gift?  Granted:  it contained footage and photographs from her 2007 US visit, but so what?  Do the Obamas think no one in the Queen’s huge entourage – including the British press – was in possession of a camera during her trip?  Or that she cannot afford her own iPod?  (It’s been reported that she already owns one.)

After the British prime minister presented Obama with a pen holder crafted from the timbers of the 19th century British war ship HMS President (whose sister ship, HMS Resolute, provided the wood for the Oval Office’s desk) AND a first edition of the seven-volume biography of Winston Churchill by Sir Martin Gilbert…Obama gave the British prime minister 25 DVDs of classic American movies.  The package could be purchased anywhere for about $200.  And the discs that were given don’t even work across the Atlantic (different formatting).

Is there no one on Obama’s staff with a clue about international diplomacy and etiquette?  Or, for that matter, with a lick of common sense?  I’m pretty sure my thirteen year old son could come up with better gift choices for world leaders.

Whatever your political leanings, you should give yourself the gift of a quick education and read this 12-page report from Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.  It is an excellent overview and contains many easy to understand charts, graphs, and summaries.

There is no denying that this budget contains enormous spending increases and will lead to unprecedented levels of national debt.  And Obama’s ”spending cuts” are nowhere to be found.  (Where is the promised scalpel, sir?!)  For example: 

– Obama proposes to move some items from the “discretionary” to “mandatory” spending category, but that is just re-arranging chairs.

– About half the total “savings” come from tax increases.

– Another large chunk of “savings” is really just money ($170 billion a year) that won’t be spent in Iraq after 2012.  But the Bush administration never planned to extend anything like the current levels of spending beyond 2012.  It’s not “saving” to not spend money that was NEVER going to be spent.

Fake savings and tax increases aside, this budget is scary because it is a permanent expansion of the federal government as a percent of GDP.  The simple chart on page 12 sums it up very nicely.  De Rugy, an expert in her field, predicts “slower growth rates, higher unemployment rates, lower standards of living, and higher levels of poverty.”

Change is definitely on the way, folks.  And you better hope your family is spared.

That’s a line from one of our favorite Adam Sandler movies, Waterboy. 

He yells it at a KFC colonel look-alike professor who is trying to convince him that contrary to what his back woods Mama Says – “alligators are angry because they have all them teeth and no toothbrush” - alligators are ornery because they have an enlarged medula oblangata.

“So you see, Bobby Bouche, your mama is just wrong.”

-

And on the subject of being wrong, Max Schultz claims Yucca Mountain is not dead.  Enough money to keep the project alive (see Obama’s budget) is all the proof we need.  No matter what Harry Reid says.

A blogger (or is blogging?) acquaintance, Patrick O’Hannigan of the Paragraph Farmer, has a good piece on the male vs. female wages myth and Obama’s new “White House Council on Women and Girls”  in The American Spectator.  Includes cameo appearances by Shakespeare, Foghorn Leghorn, J.R.R. Tolkien, Cinderella, and George Orwell.

Patrick also gets brownie points for pointing us to P.J. O’Rourke’s latest brilliance in the WS (and he, in turn, gives thanks to The Anchoress, from whence he got it).  P.J. – who is still hilarious even while battling cancer – shreds Obama on stem cells; you simply must read it.

this painting by Andy Thomas.  And it’s new caption.

Thanks to the Paragraph Farmer for posting.

…because I will now praise Nevada Congresswoman Dina Titus for statements she made today in a Budget Committee meeting on The Hill:

“…I remain concerned about President Obama’s proposal to reduce the itemized deduction rate for families with incomes over $250,000.  I am particularly concerned with the impact this provision could have on housing and charitable giving.
 
“The Mortgage Interest Deduction (MID) is an important incentive that encourages Americans all over the country to buy homes.  Many consider the MID to be the single most important tax incentive facilitating home ownership in the United States.  I am concerned that reducing the value of this incentive would lead to the further deterioration of the housing market.  It has become evident over the past few years that the housing market is tied closely to the national economy as a whole.  With the economy in its current state, we simply cannot afford to make changes to the tax code that could lead to a further decline in home prices.  The housing market in Congressional District Three in Nevada – previously one of the fastest growing markets in the nation – is currently in shambles.  Today, nearly 58.2 percent of Las Vegas homes have negative equity.  We can’t afford to let prices drop any further by making it less attractive to buy a home.
 
“I am similarly concerned about the impact the proposal to reduce the itemized deduction rate could have on charitable giving.  The tax deduction for charitable giving encourages Americans to make contributions to philanthropic organizations, many of which have been hard hit by the economic crisis.  With so many people in need, the services many charities provide are in high demand.  I believe that it is the wrong time to make changes to the tax code that could make charitable contributions less attractive.”

Forthwith, let it not be said that I am unwilling to acknowledge sanity when it occasionally visits itself upon Congresswoman Titus.

One of my favorites over at The Corner, Victor Davis Hanson, explains:

When Obama said he would restore our image in the world, few were mature enough to realize that there were already sympathetic governments in Europe, India’s billion people liked us, and all of Africa was appreciative of what Bush had done. Fewer still accepted the fact that, given the sorry state of the world, the United States faces a awkward choice: It can either be largely disliked for taking a principled stance in support of constitutional government and open markets, or it can be liked for being unprincipled.

We seem to have forgotten that those who most hated the Bush-Cheney administration were Putin, Chávez, Assad, the Castro brothers, Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejad, Hamas — and European intellectuals. So, yes, we can be liked in the age of Obama, and the way to do it is to give up Eastern Europe to Russian concerns, be praised by Chávez for our newfound socialism, drop sanctions against Cuba, talk to Iran and Syria without preconditions, ignore Korean missiles, rebuild Gaza (though I hope that does not include restoring the depleted rocket inventory), tack hard to the left of the salons and coffee houses of the EU, and drop all that bothersome talk about democracy and constitutional government.

In other words, the way to be liked is to become like those who don’t like us. Who knows — maybe the U.S. will now be asked to chair the U.N. Human Rights Council?

Here’s a little two minute ditty I think you’ll all enjoy.  My complements to singer and song writer Kathleen Stewart and lyricist Steve Jones.

LOL

Harry Reid said the following in a newsletter to his constituents yesterday:

“In his budget request for 2010, President Obama will announce plans to devise a new strategy to find another solution to deal with the nation’s nuclear waste that does not include storing it in Nevada.”

This is a shame if so.  The Yucca Mountain project currently employs hundreds of people and stands to employ thousands more, not to mention the nearly $100 billion it would bring into the hurting state economy.

The operation of nuclear energy plants and the transportation, recycling, and storage of spent nuclear fuel can be done quite safely these days - in fact is done safely all over Europe - but apparently Harry Reid is not going to let the facts get in the way of politics-per-usual and a Wednesday press release.  (More on the latest with Yucca here.)

This is the second time in less than three weeks an Obama agenda item has dealt a heavy blow to Nevada’s economy.  What was the first, you ask?  This offhand comment recently made at a townhall meeting:

“You are not going to be able to give out these big bonuses until you’ve paid taxpayers back, you can’t get corporate jets, you can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers dime.”

Rich Becker wrote an excellent piece on the fallout of that comment, which summed up is this:

Companies are now scrambling to avoid the “stigma” of holding company functions in Las Vegas and millions of dollars have been lost due to cancelled rooms and convention events.  (These organizations aren’t really cancelling the events; they’re just relocating them.  To sunny California, mostly.)  And the tremendous loss of room revenue, convention business, enertainment dollars, and gaming revenue is going to lead to even more layoffs than Nevada’s already seen.

So where are Harry Reid (and Dina Titus) with their outrage and big press releases when Nevada’s economy really needs them?  Busy rubbing elbows with a president who clearly doesn’t give a damn about the what’s best for the Silver State.

I guess Nevada is now “blue” in more ways than one.

But don’t just stand there and cry, good citizens.  You can do something:

http://dumpreid.com/

Everyone at NR is on fire today.  Rich Lowry adds fuel.

Like this:

Barack Obama, a reputed master of the persuasive art, has settled on his central argument for the stimulus bill:  I won.

That Obama is reduced to this crude appeal is a symptom of the intellectual collapse of the case for his stimulus bill, a congressional spendfest untethered from its stated goal of providing a rapid “jolt” to the economy.

As far as political arguments go, “I won” has its power—provided it’s made on behalf of an agenda ratified by the American electorate. But Obama didn’t campaign on a sprawling, nearly $1 trillion new spending plan. If he had pledged in October to double federal domestic discretionary spending in a matter of weeks—including increasing the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts by a third, spending hundreds of millions more on federal buildings and throwing tens of billions on every traditional liberal priority from job training to Pell Grants—he’d have been hard-pressed to win at all.

The president should read the transcript of the third presidential debate. He claimed his program represented “a net spending cut.” He called himself “a strong proponent of pay-as-you-go. Every dollar that I’ve proposed, I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.” He added, “We need to eliminate a whole host of programs that don’t work.”

 And this:

Obama writes that the bill “is more than a prescription for short-term spending—it’s a strategy for America’s long-term growth and opportunity.” Fine. A long-term strategy deserves long-term deliberation, the committee hearings and other processes meant to exercise a check on the heedlessness of hasty legislating in a panic.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will have a stimulative effect in the short term but a negative one in the long term, although it stipulates that “large fiscal stimulus is rarely attempted” and its effects “are very uncertain.” The stimulus bill is basically a $1 trillion bet on an utterly unproven theory—that scattershot government spending is a magic elixir for an economy in the grips of a financial crisis.

When Barack Obama ran last year, he didn’t say he’d engage in faith-based economic policy on a grand scale. He didn’t say he’d toss aside the normal processes of governing. He didn’t say he’d quickly act to add waste to the federal budget. And he didn’t say he’d try to brush away criticism with the mere assertion of his victory. On the stimulus, when Obama says “I won,” he’s out of better arguments.

Jonah is especially funny today.  What can I say, I’m a sucker for Star Trek references:

Moreover, many actually believed Obama’s own hype. This was the moment for this, that and the other thing. This was the time when we, as Americans, were going to have our cake and eat it too. Future generations were going to look back and remember how Republicans and Democrats, cats and dogs, Klingons and Romulans came together and marched to the sunny uplands of history, where shopping carts have no wobbly wheels; airplane food is free, delicious, and filling; and we get all of our energy from 100 percent renewable Loch Ness Monster poop.

So says Charles Krauthammer today in his not-to-be-missed WaPo column. 

(I love Charles.  He has a real knack for making me laugh as he delivers scores of sad-but-truisms.)

If you missed it, here’s the transcript from Obama’s speech from last night. 

What you won’t get from reading it (that was obvious when watching) is how angry he was:  dark eyes, tense jaw, stiff neck, and a light mist of sweat ‘cross his furrowed brow.  At times he all but fumed as he turned from left teleprompter to right.

I must admit, I took some pleasure in watching Obama rail against the forces that would impede his mighty (and wrong-headed) will.

What a proud and foolish man he seems.

He always seemed so, to me – but I tried to believe it was the ecstacy of adoring crowds and the headyness of the historical import of his impending victory.  I hoped the smug and self-congratulatory air would leave him a few days, or a few weeks, into office.

Not so.

Vanity, thy name is now President.

Yesterday 18 free market and limited government leaders released a letter urging the Senate to reject “the Bill.” 

And Rasumussen reported that more Americans oppose the $1.2 trillion (including intest) bill than support it.   Here are some blurbs:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.

Two weeks ago, 45% supported the plan. Last week, 42% supported it.

Opposition has grown from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats still support the plan. That figure is down from 74% a week ago. Just 13% of Republicans and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party agree.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans oppose the plan along with 50% of unaffiliated voters and 16% of Democrats.

Meanwhile Congressional Republicans doubt whether the bill will save or create the 3 to 4 million jobs Obama and the Dems claim.

The bill is full of pork and nonsense and needs to be scrapped.

Quite a few readers have asked me if I read “the CATO ad/letter.” 

I did - and now you can, too.  (Can someone count the signatures, please…?)

Remember in the Bible in Genesis 18 when God informs Abraham that he plans to destroy Sodom because of its really wicked wickedness? 

And Abraham pleads with God not to rain down fire and brimstone if 50 good people can be found in the city? 

And God says “ok,” and then Abraham lowers the quota to 40, then 30, then 20, and finally, to just 10 goodly folks?

And God still says “ok” but then the angels can only find FOUR decent people living in Sodom so the city is destroyed?

Do you think Obama can find even 10 good people…to help fill his 15 cabinet positions…?

Update:  This just gets better and better.  Now the WSJ is reporting there are problems with Panetta, too.

.

A loyal reader sent this interesting little story tidbit along.  She searched it out because her “eagle eye” husband spotted Beau Biden in some camera shots of THE Obama-Biden Express (train ride) the other day.

No two ways about it, this is pretty special treatment.

The aforementioned reader writes:

“The only person I know who’s gotten to come home early from a deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan is a friend from church:  his wife (also Air Force) was diagnosed with breast cancer a month or so before he was due to come back and they brought him home early.

Soldiers are missing the birth of their kids and Beau Biden gets to come home for a “special assignment” at the Pentagon?”

An astute reader wonders why no one (not Obama, not the poet) flipped a few words around and used “seven score and four years ago” in today’s rhetoric – especially as Obama did other things that mimicked Lincoln’s inauguration. 

It’s been 144 years since Lincoln was assassinated and the south surrendered.

(If you didn’t know it, a score is 20 years.)

I agree with every word of this post called “Why I Hate Inaugurations” by the always thoughtful Joe Carter. Here’s most of it:

I cannot bear to watch the religious fervor, the tears and chants and beaming visages, for the promotion of a man or woman to a secular office. We do not live in a monarchy; we do not crown queens and kings in American.

Lest we forget, the President of the United States is the servant of the American people. (Despite what actors like Ashton Kutcher think, we do not serve him.) There is something unseemly, and dare I say, almost un-American, about making such a spectacle about a public servant taking office.

Transition ceremonies should be dignified, graceful, and modest – the exact opposite of all that Inauguration ceremonies have become. For this one, President Bush even declared a state of emergency for the entire city of DC so that taxpayer money could be diverted from the FEMA budget for this spectacle. This disgraceful action by our outgoing President barely raised a shrug from the populace. We no longer question our kings.

Many of our fellow citizens have lost all sense of decorum and perspective about this event. The transition of Presidential power from one man to another does not mark a significant transition in the culture of America. Our worries, fears, and concerns do not abate because there is a different man in the White House. Our dreams, hopes, and happiness do not increase because of who occupies the Oval Office. This change in government does not portend a change in human nature or the hearts of our fellow citizens. America — all that is good and bad about us — remains the same.

Fortunately, the unseemly pageantry of the Inauguration will be over by tomorrow, allowing us to move on to what truly matters in our country. Perhaps then all of us, even those of us in DC, can move beyond the deification of the political to focus once again on what truly matters.