Lots of controversy these days, even after the election and the inauguration; you’d think folks would be sick and tired of arguing, but hey – maybe that’s what Americans do best?

Rush has been spouting off on the airwaves for years; he can be amusing. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes not. His delivery is entertaining but, yes, frequently rather off-putting. Quite a few of my liberal friends think he’s a menace, and most don’t bother tuning in at all. That’s okay, to each his own. The reason Rush gets so much press is not because his opinions are so important, but because he’s so extreme in both conviction and attitude.

That said, I don’t know any conservatives who take him seriously. Well, okay, maybe one. There is probably another person out there too who believes “in Rush”. Seriously, though, giving much credence to what Rush says (and how he says it) is a little extreme; there are extremists everywhere, and most thinking people give them only about as much importance as they deserve. I’m thinking along the lines of cult members, holy rollers, terrorists, and so forth.

The current controversy is that Rush said he “hopes Obama fails”. Big whoop. He was referring to socialist or socialist-type policies. There are a lot of Americans who don’t want these things – they’re often called “Republicans” or “conservatives”. Look it up.

But the media reported this comment, out of context, then elaborated on the words themselves; most attributed the “failure” comment to the entirety of Obama’s presidency. Please. Those of you who agree with the media’s interpretation, take a moment to actually listen to what Rush said before you start clicking on commentary.

So, the next day or so, Obama retaliated. Is that too strong a word? I don’t mean it in the literal sense, as in “an eye for an eye”, but he did have a snappy comeback. He said that conservatives should stop listening to Rush; he said he’d won the presidency and that trumped anything else.

Well, okay. He did win. And it’s a pretty big job and all; the president even has a few things he can do without the approval of Congress. But unless we’ve changed over to a monarchy in the last week, being president doesn’t “trump” anything. Sure, you have better car service, a plane at your disposal, lots of traveling, great clothes, etc. And people do tend to listen to almost everything you say. And sometimes misinterpret those things.

Which is what the liberals say we’re doing. Oh, they tell us, Obama didn’t mean anything by that – he’s just being straightforward. Well, a person can be blunt and honest and still be insulting. I know. I have a mother who does that.

And they’re telling us we took what Obama said “out of context”. Wait a minute. Isn’t that what the media said about Rush’s comment? Hmmmm.

I’ve also heard several people mention that Obama shouldn’t tell us what to do as though we’re children, incapable of discerning rants from facts; treating us as though we’re sheep being led to the slaughter. Is he worried or afraid of something? I mean, seriously, Americans probably don’t have the best taste in music, books, television, or any type of entertainment, but I have yet to hear of anyone sending our President a letter telling him he should not listen to whatever radio programs or watch whatever television shows he likes. I don’t think anyone is presuming to tell him how he should spend any free time he can find.

Does he really think we vote based on commentary alone? Perhaps that’s why he has so many fan clubs and websites; after all, a celebrity needs to stay in the limelight in order to effectively maintain his base of admirers. If the media can continue to positively report his decisions, and quote him, ad finitum, if they can continue to spin things just right, Obama may very well be able to pull this off.

Well, I can’t say I’m surprised. All my liberal friends are talking about President Obama’s first week in office and his very good approval rating – 68%, so I hear.

Surprisingly, or not, one of my biggest concerns is the issue of health funding, which will now be reinstated, to overseas organizations which also provide abortions.

I won’t argue that these institutions provide much-needed services, especially to women. The purpose, however, of cutting funding in the first place was not to deny these services, but to combat abortion.

I won’t even say that I know too much about all the ins and outs, but I do know that abortion is wrong. Biblically and morally, why would anyone want to kill a child? An infant, if you will, or let’s even use the word “fetus”. Sure, abortion proponents call the child a fetus because that makes them feel better. And a lot of them are all about “feelings” – if it “feels” good, do it; they “feel” that Obama will be a great president; they don’t “feel” anything is wrong with this.

Responsibility lies with the woman – that’s not sexist or discriminatory, it’s simply a fact that a woman carries a child; we’ll stay away from the issue of Thomas Whatshisname for now. During the 1980s, the most recent statistics I can find at the moment, there were approximately 67 million pregnancies in the US. Not quite 22% of these babies were aborted – that’s 1.5 million children who were never born. What if one of those children was you? Or your mother? Or one of your siblings? How do you “feel” about that?

Don’t you think perhaps the mother should have been more careful about using protection? Sure, it doesn’t work all the time, but 99.9% of the time, birth control is completely effective. It simply prevents the egg from being fertilized, resulting in no fetus, no baby, no collection of viable cells.

Women don’t get pregnant by accident – there has to be sexual intercourse involved. No sex, no pregnancy. The choice is not to abort or to carry a child to term – THE CHOICE IS TO ABSTAIN FROM SEX if you don’t want a child.

The most common question I’ve heard from those who think abortion is a great thing, is what about a woman who has been raped? Should she be “forced” to carry a rapist’s child to term? Strictly speaking, that child is half hers, the DNA it carries is from the mother too. Life is life, regardless of how it began.

More statistics: it’s been said that approximately 32,000 pregnancies occur each year due to rape; if 22% of these pregnancies were aborted, that’s 7000 children who will never be born. A far cry from the 1.5 million who were aborted on a whim. Yes, I said “whim”. Abortion is not undertaken lightly, but in reality – there is no reason; only excuses.

I have the utmost sympathy for a victim of rape; I also have sympathy for a resulting child, who had no choice either. There is no easy answer, but a woman should not be able to make a unilateral decision to kill her child; as an adult, we all have to do unpleasant or downright horrible things, simply as a part of the accountability and responsibility we that we claim as adults.

Of course, many abortion proponents try to turn the tables on those of us who are opposed, and they play the “death penalty card”. They ask how we can strive to protect innocent babies, but have no problem flipping the switch on a convicted murderer. They conveniently gloss over the words “innocent” versus “convicted”.

It’s going to be a long four years; our new President is not really surprising anyone thus far. Let’s hope things don’t get as bad as we expect.