People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Friday, April 07, 2006

This Seems So Right

Crazy Al Gore and global warming hysteria just go together well:
Gore urges moral crusade against global warming
By Ian Hoffman, The Argus

OAKLAND — Al Gore brought corporate executives and environmentally minded investors roaring to their feet Thursday with multimedia images of an overheating planet and a call for Americans to reclaim their "moral authority" by tackling global warming.

"This is really not a political issue, it is disguised as a political issue," Gore said. "It is a moral issue, it is an ethical issue — If we allow this to happen, we will destroy the habitability of the planet. We can't do that, and I am confident we won't do that."

"We have been blind to the fact that the human species is now having a crushing impact on the ecological system of the planet," Gore said. (link)
To think, we came within a few hanging chads of this guy having his thumbs on the nuclear button.

Southwest VA Unites. We're Doomed.

From today's Roanoke Times:
Giles County supervisors say no to proposed national forest sale
By Tim Thornton

PEARISBURG -- Giles County supervisors have joined Montgomery and Roanoke counties in opposing a Bush administration plan to sell national forest land.

"I move that we respond to whoever we respond to that the county of Giles is against the sale of public land," Supervisor Richard McCoy said Thursday.

The rest of the board agreed.

More than 5,700 of the acres marked for sale are in Virginia. Giles County has one 205-acre tract near Poplar Hill. (link)
25% of Giles County's tax revenue comes from Celanese Acetate, its only major employer, one which has announced that it is laying off most of its workforce there. And the Board of Supervisors unite in opposition to the proposed sale of 205 acres of worthless federal land - the property taxes from which would go to the Giles County Board of Supervisors.

It's hopeless. Abandon ship. It's every man for himself.

What Is the GOP?

I missed the conference call the other night - through no fault of my own - with Attorney General Bob McDonnell. The first question I had on my list (had nothing to do with legal matters; I'm not an attorney) had to do with this:
Bush, GOP Approval Ratings Hit New Lows
By Ron Fournier, AP Political Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's approval ratings hit a series of new lows in an AP-Ipsos poll that also shows Republicans surrendering their advantage on national security - grim election-year news for a party struggling to stay in power.

"These numbers are scary. We've lost every advantage we've ever had," GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio said. (link)
This malaise extends to the GOP ranks here in the Commonwealth. What does the Republican Party here stand for these days? Who leads this fractured party? As best I can tell, it's some guy named John Chichester - the leading advocate - next to Governor Tim Kaine - for raising taxes in the state.

As for President Bush and the national party, spending is out of control and the hottest topic of discussion as I write this has to do with how we are going to give amnesty to eleven million lawbreakers in our midst.

I suppose I would have framed my question to poor Bob somerthing like this:

What in God's name has happened to the Republican Party?

On Illegal Immigration

Want to know my problem with the current debate in the United States Senate that has to do with illegal immigrants?
Creeping amnesty
By Diana West, The Washington Times

... then came last month's massive, mainly Mexican street protests against border control and in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, mainly Mexican, who have crossed into this country since the last time Uncle Sam granted amnesty in 1986. Back then, it was amnesty for under 3 million. Today, 20 years later, these protesters, along with George W. Bush, want to see some 12 million illegal aliens "earn" citizenship (amnesty). In another 20 years, will a new, amnesty-seeking illegal population number 48 million? In light of the post-protest retreat -- I mean, "deliberations" -- in the U.S. Senate, such a
colossal figure looks increasingly plausible. (
  • 3 million illegal aliens in 1986. We gave them amnesty and made them citizens.
  • 11 million illegal aliens in 2006. We are giving them amnesty and making them citizens.
  • 48 million illegal aliens in 2026. ......
Is amnesty the real issue here?

We might as well just throw the doors open.

¿Se Habla EspaƱol?

The Solution

While I'm on the subject, I should provide a workable solution to the immigration mess that Congress and a succession of presidents have created. Better yet, I'll let the smartest man in America provide it for me:
First a Wall -- Then Amnesty
By Charles Krauthammer, The Washinton Post

Every sensible immigration policy has two objectives: (1) to regain control of our borders so that it is we who decide who enters and (2) to find a way to normalize and legalize the situation of the 11 million illegals among us.

My proposition is this: A vast number of Americans who oppose legalization and fear new waves of immigration would change their minds if we could radically reduce new -- i.e., future -- illegal immigration.

Forget employer sanctions. Build a barrier. It is simply ridiculous to say it cannot be done. If one fence won't do it, then build a second 100 yards behind it. And then build a road for patrols in between. Put in cameras. Put in sensors. Put out lots of patrols. (link)
The current debate over legalizing lawbreakers will bring us a flood of more lawbreakers. Enforce the law. Close the border. Then talk about amnesty.

Revisiting Massachusetts

I brought up on Wednesday the latest scheme that politicians have dreamt up in their relentless effort to bring about total economic ruin.

Here is some additional perspective on Massachusetts' universal healthcare debacle-to-be:

Bill of Health
By Arnold Kling, The Wall Street Journal

The elected leaders of Massachusetts have come up with a novel solution for the vexing problem of paying for health care: abolish the laws of arithmetic. Their new plan is a perfect illustration of what happens when politicians approach a problem unconstrained by reality.

The plan includes tax incentives and penalties for employers and individuals to get everyone covered by a health-care policy. It also promises affordable health insurance for people with modest incomes, under a program yet to be negotiated between the state and private insurance companies. Nevertheless, three numbers stand out: $295, the annual penalty per worker a company must pay to the state if it does not provide health insurance; $0, the deductible on the typical state-subsidized health-insurance policy under the plan; and $6,000, the average annual expenditure on health care for a Massachusetts resident.

The question is this: What insurance company will provide coverage with $0 deductible, at an annual premium of $295, for someone whose health care costs on average $6,000 a year? The numbers imply losses of over $5,700, not counting administrative costs. To subsidize zero-deductible health insurance, state taxpayers might have to pay out about $6,000 per recipient. [emphases mine] (link)

You think your healthcare is expensive now? Move to Massachusetts in a few years. And make sure you take your entire worldly wealth with you when you go.