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

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Quote Of The Day

From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:
State leaders aren't letting a little old thing like a half-billion-dollar budget shortfall get in the way of their spending plans.

There's talk of tapping the state's rainy-day fund because tax revenues aren't keeping up with projections.

State leaders raised spending more than 20 percent in the last budget. Now, confronted by a slowdown in revenue collections, all they can talk about is more new programs. Virginia does indeed face a serious shortfall -- not only in revenue but also in common sense.
"Budget Busters," September 16, 2007

Don't Tell Me The Death Penalty Doesn't Deter Crime

This asshole will never kill another child:
Convicted child killer put to death by electrocution in Tennessee
By The Associated Press

Nashville, Tenn. (AP) - A Gulf War veteran from Tennessee who murdered four children with an assault rifle has been executed.

Death row inmate Daryl Holton was pronounced dead at 1:25 a.m. CDT Wednesday.

The 45-year-old Holton had confessed to shooting his three young sons and their half-sister in 1997 in the town of Shelbyville, about 50 miles south of Nashville.

Holton told police he killed the children because his ex-wife had denied him from seeing them. He also said he intended to kill his ex-wife and himself, but instead decided to turn himself in. (
The death penalty. The most effective crime deterrent on the planet.

Yeah. At a Snail's Pace.

This from wvnstv.com is heartening:

Work Progresses on I-77 Tunnels

Expect the next related headline to read:

Human Species Died Out Just As Tunnels Neared Completion

Budget Crisis Can't Be Far Behind

Warner greets thousands at pig roast

He'll Never Understand

Either that, or he simply refuses to admit the truth.

I could bring up so many falsehoods and inaccuracies in Roanoke Times editorial page editor Dan Radmacher's Sunday column ("Bush and the Big Lie") that it would make his head spin. But he's pulled this so many times before, and I've called him on it each and every time, that I'll limit myself to just a few involving the first several paragraphs, and then struggle mightily to digest my breakfast.

Here's how Dan begins his feeble attempt at deception:

"As public disillusionment with the war in Iraq grows ..."


Nine words in and he's already showing his predilection for falsehood. Or, to be charitable, his inability to read. Either that or he's expressing a wish as opposed to facts.

As for the facts, here are the latest - released just three days ago - on that "growing public disillusionment":
Public Gives Bush Slight Reprieve
By John Harwood, The Wall Street Journal

Public discontent with the Iraq war has eased slightly, a new Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll shows, suggesting President Bush may have a little more maneuvering room at a critical point in debates over war costs and troop levels.

... the poll shows an uptick in support for the president's handling of the war as well as a small increase in the proportion of Americans who believe the troop surge is helping and that victory remains possible. (
Is that what a reasonable person would call growing disillusionment? Or is it in fact declining disillusionment?

So much for the first sentence. Let's go to Dan's second:

"The decision to have Gen. David Petraeus testify before Congress on Sept. 10 and 11 was a clear attempt at conflating the conflict in Iraq with the battle against the enemy that struck us six years ago."


This is too juicy. Dan is unknowingly blaming the Democrats in Congress - those who head up the three committees that called for the general's report to be presented to them - of attempting to conflate the two. It was, after all, Dan, the chairmen who made that decision to have General Petraeus testify, not the White House.

On to the third and fourth paragraphs:

"Far less subtle is a $15 million campaign waged by a group of Bush supporters calling themselves 'Freedom's Watch.' The first commercial from the group features a wounded Iraqi vet urging Congress to keep the troops in Iraq. 'They attacked us,' he says as images of 9/11 fill the screen.

No, they didn't."


Yes, they did.

Watch the video he's referring to - below (Dan obviously would rather you didn't). Decide for yourself. Listen carefully to what that "wounded Iraqi vet" (who has a name, by the way - it's John Kriesel) says. His first words are: "Congress was right to vote to fight terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan." He's referring - obviously - to the larger war on terror, not the battles taking place only in Iraq.

Is Dan simply mistaken or is there something more sinister in play here? How is it everything he writes seems to fly in the face of accuracy?

I'll not go on to the other paragraphs in this abortion of a leftist newspaper column. You get the general idea as to the veraciousness of the author.

I will, however, give Dan Radmacher some slack. He at least gets one paragraph right. The thirteenth. It begins:

"I don't know, actually"

Where Jesus Is Now An Afterthought

Because of its sustained effort to be more "inclusive," the Episcopal church continues to implode:

Colorado flock leaves Episcopalian fold
By Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times

Broomfield, Colo. — The exodus from the Episcopal Church continued last week as leaders of another Colorado congregation prepared to split with the increasingly liberal denomination.

The Rev. Charles Reeder is scheduled to preach his last sermon today as rector of the Church of the Holy Comforter here. Then, "Father Chuck" and the church's leadership — including the 10-member vestry and youth ministers — plan to join the growing number of traditional Episcopalians fleeing the embattled denomination.

In this case, the trigger was money. Donations have dropped precipitously since 2003, when the church consecrated its first openly homosexual bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, and agreed to perform same-sex blessings.

John Bosio, Holy Comforter's senior warden, said the 49-year-old parish is now basically insolvent. (link)
Add that to the list of the church's woes. Not only did the hierarchy decide to thumb its nose at the traditionalists within the congregation by ordinating an openly gay bishop, and then demand that the membership accept it or else, now church leaders face a fiscal crisis, a result of the same heavy-handed ruling.

All this over some nebulous notion involving "inclusiveness."

My suggestion to those who don't go to church on Sunday to show their support for some trendy social movement, that who actually go there seeking communion with God, go down the street to the Baptist church. You'll find the Lord there, front and center - where He still reigns supreme.


On second thought ...

Democrats Eat This Stuff Up

Hillary went before the NAACP at a banquet in Charleston yesterday and had the attendees eating out of her hand. She proclaimed her support - 100% one might presume - for the protection of civil rights.

Everyone cheered.

The startling (and amusing) thing is, the woman made no commitments, laid out no plans. She offered nothing but platitudes. And the crowd of rich, liberal black folk gathered before her applauded in wild admiration.

What idiots.

Here's Hillary's civil rights plan:

Clinton Pushes Civil Rights Agenda
By Bruce Smith, Associated Press Writer

North Charleston, S.C. (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, unveiling her agenda to promote civil rights, told an NAACP banquet Saturday that the "scales of justice are seriously out of balance" for black Americans.

Earlier Saturday, the New York senator issued a release in which she said she will focus on the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, including adding to its budget, as part of an effort to "undo the damage done under President Bush."

Clinton said during her speech that too many people are invisible to the nation's leaders.

"You're invisible to the president even when you are on CNN," she said, referring to the survivors of Hurricane Katrina two years ago.

Clinton said her administration would seek to rebuild the Justice Department's traditional role in defending civil rights and to review charges of improper, politically motivated hiring to determine whether any laws were broken.

"We have to believe justice is blind in America," she told the audience. (link)
Seek to rebuild ... Review charges ... Focus ... Promote civil rights. What does all that mean in terms of specifics?

Not a thing.

But the assemblage ate it up anyway.

It's not a matter of actually accomplishing anything with these people (I'm reminded of that silly apology for slavery this same bunch advocated - and received - here in Virginia last spring; oh, and the burial of the 'N' word at the annual convention a month ago). It's about saying the right things. And feeling good about it.

Me? I'll believe this broad is serious about civil rights when she starts defending the right of a public school history teacher to read from the most widely studied book in the history of mankind without threat of government reprisal or fear of imprisonment. I'll believe she's serious when she puts her life on the line for those Christians who want to celebrate the birth of their Lord and Savior on the public square - the one they have part ownership in - at Christmastime. I'll believe she's serious about civil rights when she demands that the people of Washington D.C. be allowed to defend themselves with the most effective means available unavailable to them. I'll believe she's serious when she calls for an end to the infringements placed by government upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Civil rights!

Talk - especially coming from liberals like Hillary Clinton - is cheap. Sadly, that's what some are wholeheartedly willing to accept.

This Is Troubling

One has to wonder on occasion if the New York Times has an editor. Someone who coordinates the message being delivered each day. Someone patrolling for contradictions and inaccuracies.

I'm beginning to think that there is no need to wonder. I think it's painfully obvious that nobody's in charge.

Take a look at two headlines in this morning's paper (on-line version):

First there's this:

Vocal on Iraq, McCain Keeps Quiet on Bush

Then this:

McCain: Bush Was Unrealistic About War

Same paper. Same day. Inches apart.

Good God, fellas. Which is it?

She's Baaaacck

Like that pimple on your butt that just keeps coming back, Hillary is returning with another plan for a socialist takeover of the finest health care system on the planet. I thought we had taught her a lesson when she tried to pull this the last time. Obviously the woman can't take NO for an answer.

The news:

Clinton to Propose Universal Health Care
By Robert Pear, The New York Times

Washington, Sept. 15 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday will lay out a plan to secure health insurance for all Americans while severely limiting the ability of insurers to deny coverage or charge higher premiums to people with chronic illnesses and other medical problems, her aides and advisers say. (link)
You needn't read any further to understand why, if Hillary gets her way, we're doomed.

There are many reasons why our health care delivery system is so expensive. One is that, in terms of the quality of services provided, it is the envy of the world. It is that superior. But that quality comes at a cost. And people like Hillary expect the government - you - to pay for it. No matter the circumstance. No matter the recipient's ability to pay. No matter the viability of the treatment or medicine. Universal coverage. All services to be provided to ALL Americans.

We're already halfway down that road to universal coverage and the price tag is beyond sustainable. But Hillary intends to make it worse by securing all services for all Americans.

In other words, if a Lexus exists, the government must put one in every garage.

Makes sense?

That's how you need to read "a plan to secure health insurance for all Americans while severely limiting the ability of insurers to deny coverage or charge higher premiums to people with chronic illnesses and other medical problems." ALL Americans. ALL illnesses. ALL medications. ALL diseases. ALL treatments. ALL circumstances. ALL paid for by you.

There's not enough money in the treasury. Or in your children's college savings fund.

If Hillary gets her way, one outcome is certain. Certain. The quality of the health care system in this country will decline. Without doubt. Rationing will ensue. Just as much of Europe and Canada are dealing with it today. Health care will be universal and options - treatments and technology - will be limited.

You want to go on a waiting list to get your child's cold medicine prescription from a government doctor?

We can't afford a Lexus in every garage. Despite what this evil person wants you to believe.

Where Is Mark Warner On Anti-Semitism?

As it so happens, the man who would be our next senator lives in a House district represented by an anti-Semite. A crude and meanspirited man by the name of James Moran. Read all about Congressman Moran's (D-Alexandria) latest - an accusation involving Jews and conspiracy - here.

Extreme Mortman has a question someone needs to ask of Mark Warner:
How should Democrats deal with this guy? Here’s a proposal: Ask Mark Warner. He’s running for Senate. If he wins, he’ll surely bump into an AIPAC lobbyist. Ask Warner, who’s represented in Congress by Moran, if he agrees with Moran’s characterization of the wealthy and media-controlling Jews who control AIPAC. His answer should shed some light into both politicians’ core beliefs.
Seems like a fair question. Is it fair to think that we'd ever get an honest answer?