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

Saturday, August 12, 2006

They Make The Rules, We Are The Fools

The Roanoke Times this morning offers up high praise for those states around the country that have taken it upon themselves to place harsh and injurious restrictions on their citizens and industries in heavy-handed efforts to combat global warming. Worse yet, the editorialist encourages Virginia to join the lemmingmarch:

States fight global warming
Virginia falls behind on the national trend of states picking up the regulatory slack left by a failed administration.

Federalism is alive and well.

When it comes to reducing pollution and greenhouse gases, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress have failed the American people. States and localities have therefore formed ranks to fight rampant emissions. Virginia should follow that trend.

Ten states in the Northeast are negotiating caps on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Companies would trade pollution credits to help reach a goal of cutting emissions 10 percent by 2019.

In the West, California has imposed the nation's toughest auto emissions standards, expecting a 30 percent reduction in a decade. Other states are ready to follow. (

All this has come about as a result of weak-minded politicians (we may like The Terminator but a mental giant he's not) being sucked in by the sensationalist doomsday language used by such renowned climate scientists as Al Gore with regard to the impending end of all life on the planet.

Politicians ...

What's really interesting about this is the fact that the pin-up boy for the global warming movement, the man who has brought about the enactment of the many rigid auto emissions standards and the pointless and ultimately destructive curtailments of industrial carbon dioxide emissions, doesn't expect of himself that which he demands of the rest of us:

Al Gore's Hypocrisy Exposed
NewsMax.com Staff

Al Gore insists the world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle" and make necessary sacrifices to head off what he warns will be an environmental cataclysm – but in his personal life he doesn’t practice what he preaches.

Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways ... [b]ut "public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.,” Peter Schweizer, author of the book
Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy,” writes in USA Today. (link)

This prompts the obvious question:

For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth, and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life?
Tell you what. I'll give up my gas-guzzling SUV (with its ass-kickin' V-8) and I'll curtail the use of greenhouse gas emitting fuels around the farm the day that Al Gore - presumably a folk hero to those on the Roanoke Times editorial staff - starts practicing what he preaches.

Well, It Seemed Like a Good Idea ...

There is trouble brewing for the Democratic establishment (and for the sycophantic left-wing blogosphere - again) over Joe Lieberman's banishment in Connecticut. While they were all high-fiving one another and singing songs of solidarity over the political assassination they had just committed, they seem to have forgotten to ask the Democratic grass roots in the nutmeg state what they thought of the whole affair. Now the questions are being asked and the answers are not what the political strategists wanted to hear:
Connecticut Feels Strain of a Rematch at the Polls
By Nicholas Confessore and Avi Salzman, The New York Times

After Mr. Lieberman’s primary loss, many prominent Democrats switched their support to Mr. Lamont and called for the party to unite behind him. But that unity may be a more elusive goal at the grass-roots level. Only a handful of those Lieberman supporters interviewed said they would switch to Mr. Lamont, signaling the difficulties he may have attracting Connecticut’s moderate voters in a general election.

As for party unity, many Democratic voters in Connecticut who supported Mr. Lieberman in the primary said that it mattered little to them. Others said that they leaned toward Mr. Lieberman not in spite of his willingness to go it alone, but because of it. (link)
The Republican party is subtly encouraging its Connecticut voters to support Lieberman in the general election, in part because the party's challenger to Ned Lamont doesn't have a hope in Hades of winning.

At this point, the numbers seem to be favorable to Lieberman.

They sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.

On Those Grass Roots Numbers ...

The New York Post offers up the first post-primary poll on the Lieberman/Lamont race in Connecticut. The Democratic primary victor quickly finds himself to be the underdog:

By Maggie Haberman

August 12, 2006 -- Sen. Joe Lieberman has a 5-point edge over anti-Iraq war Democratic primary winner Ned Lamont in the November contest, a new poll reveals.

Lieberman snared 46 percent to Lamont's 41 percent in the Rasmussenreports.com poll ...

Lieberman, whose loss was bemoaned by several Republicans, including Vice President Dick Cheney, is getting support from 59 percent of Republican voters and clearly enjoys the backing of those who are pro-Bush. (
It's quite likely that Lamont peaked on primary day. For the anti-war left, it's all downhill from here. As in tumbling ....

The Establishment Is In Disarray

Along with the Democratic grass roots in Connecticut preparing to defy the party line and support now-independent Joe Lieberman, the party establishment is not united either. James Taranto has this bit of news:
Four Honorable Dems

Not all Democrats are joining the Angry Left's mindless cannibalism. CNN reports at least four Senate Democrats are endorsing Joe Lieberman's re-election bid even after his primary loss. Here is the roster of honorable Democrats:

Tom Carper (Del.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Mark Pryor (Ark.)
Ken Salazar (Colo.)
I'm not accustomed to reading the words honorable and Democrats in the same sentence but in this case, it seems to be appropriate.

Time For Authentication

Some twit has posted to his weblog a charge that the story I brought to you yesterday regarding President Bush's encounter in the Oval Office with a young man from Montana was a fake. Rather than hunt him down and verbally abuse him, I'll do the next best thing. I'll go to the planet's premier website for researching such matters for a ruling - Snopes.com:
Origins: On 27 April 2004, the advisory council of Preserve America, a White House initiative headed by First Lady Laura Bush to "encourage and support community efforts for the preservation and enjoyment of our priceless cultural and natural heritage," announced four groups who were to be honored in a 3 May 2004 Oval Office ceremony as recipients of the first annual Preserve America Presidential Awards. One of the selected groups in the category for outstanding privately funded historic preservation projects was the Historic Raven Natural Resources Learning Center, and that group was represented at the awards ceremony by officials from two of the center's partnering organizations: Mr. Bruce Vincent, Executive Director of ProviderPals, and Mr. Bob Castaneda, a Forest Supervisor with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The above-quoted article is Mr. Vincent's account of his participation in the Oval Office awards ceremony.

Mr. Vincent was undeniably present at the ceremony described, he has verified to us that he did indeed write this article, and other participants have given similar accounts of that day's events, so to that extent this item is true. However, since the last part of the article describes a private moment between Mr. Vincent and President Bush that took place with no one else (or only a few unidentified persons) present, we have no way of independently verifying that portion of the account. (link)
Some people have a problem with others like me who admire men and women who maintain a deep abiding reverence for their Maker and who never lose sight of their (temporary) place on this earth, no matter how powerful and influential they may be. For those wretched souls who have a problem with that, I have nothing but pity.