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

Saturday, September 29, 2007

Rush Limbaugh On Rush Limbaugh

You mess with the Big Guy at your peril.

Rush Limbaugh: Anatomy of a Smear

Our junior senator, James Webb, comes into the conversation. He swallowed the left-wing/media Kool Aid and embarrassed himself. Again.
* Double-click on the triangle to activate.

I'm Getting Really Confused

Does this mean they are for the war again?
For a Democrat, Options in Iraq Could Be Few
Hopefuls Seen as Unlikely To Effect Rapid Change
By Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post Staff Writer

In their debate Wednesday night in Hanover, N.H., none of the three top Democratic presidential candidates would promise to have the U.S. military out of Iraq by January 2013 -- more than five years from now. (link)
Do you get the impression that these nitwits will still be massaging their position on the war long after it is won?

Senator Webb Makes Headlines

After having been slapped down every time he tried to introduce substantive legislation, Virginia's junior Senator James Webb changed tactics. He rolled out something just this side of a gimme. And makes huge headlines for having done it:

Defense amendment glides through Senate
By Michael Sluss, The Roanoke Times

U.S. Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia and fellow freshman Democrats won unanimous approval Thursday night for a measure creating an independent commission to investigate U.S. wartime contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The amendment creates a bipartisan panel similar to one created by Harry Truman to examine ... (link)
Harry F. Byrd move over.

A note to Michael Sluss: Nice ass-kiss.

What's Up With This?

So I'm looking through the list of senate legislation that had been dealt with yesterday and came across this - the Boxer Amendment. It reads:
Boxer Amdt. No. 2947; To reaffirm strong support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.
Her amendment was rejected 50 to 47 (a 3/5th majority was required for passage).

What red-blooded American would vote against such an amendment (?!), I asked. I know Barbara Boxer is a leftist and - hands down - the least intelligent member of Congress but are those reasons for voting against support for our troops?

In fact, it has to do with the language - the baggage - that came with the amendment. Republicans and Democrats were going at it over that reprehensible MoveOn.org ad that attacked the patriotism of General David Petraeus, and Babs Boxer wanted to cite other attacks on other patriots who had served their country - like Max Cleland (although I don't remember his patriotism ever being under assault) and John Kerry (whose patriotism or lack thereof should be under assault).

Still, to vote against such an amendment - support for the troops - seems ... odd.

Is Hillary Up To This Task?

I keep thinking: She couldn't control her husband's penis, how on earth can she think of herself as Leader of the Free World and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force in history?

If things go right for her, we're most assuredly going to find out. Because this is about to erupt into a major war, and Hillary will (perhaps) have to make some momentous decisions:
Taiwan Plans Missiles Able to Hit China
By David Lague, The New York Times

Taipei, Taiwan — Faced with a threatening military buildup by China, an increasingly outgunned Taiwan is quietly pushing ahead with plans to develop missiles that could strike the mainland, defense and security experts say.

Taiwan successfully tested its first cruise missile with that kind of range this year, one that could send a nearly 900-pound warhead more than 600 miles, to targets as distant as Shanghai, military analysts said.

Some Taiwanese military specialists have argued for decades that Taiwan should develop offensive weapons, including missiles, as a deterrent to the mainland, which has threatened to attack the self-governing island if it moves toward formal independence. The Pentagon estimates that China has deployed 900 missiles across from Taiwan. (link)
Military confrontation is a certainty. And the United States over the years has pledged to come to Taiwan's defense, should the communist Chinese invade.

Is Hillary up to the challenge?

I keep thinking about her husband's philandering and her sheepishly looking the other way ...

A Looming Crisis?

This may be bigger than anyone imagines:
As Prices Soar, U.S. Food Aid Buys Less
By Celia W. Dugger, The New York Times

Soaring food prices, driven in part by demand for ethanol made from corn, have helped slash the amount of food aid the government buys to its lowest level in a decade, possibly resulting in more hungry people around the world this year.

The United States, the world’s dominant donor, has purchased less than half the amount of food aid this year that it did in 2000, according to new data from the Department of Agriculture.

“The people who are starving and have to rely on food aid, they will suffer,” Jean Ziegler, who reports to the United Nations on hunger and food issues, said in an interview this week. (link)
I have unwavering faith that the law of supply and demand will rectify the imbalance that has suddenly been created between the need for grain foods and the inadequate supplies that exist, as a result of so much corn and soy bean production going to the ethanol plants (though it's that same law that has created this mess).

But until more land is cleared and crops are put in, there are a whole lot of the world's poor who may suffer because of a lack of available food.

This could get ugly.

To The Global Warming True-Believers

You're convinced that the theory being pushed by a huge majority of the scientific community - that (a) the planet is warming, (b) human activity is causing it, and (c) the trend can be reversed - is no longer theory but fact.

I'll bet you bought the same snake oil back when the same bunch was hawking their ozone depletion theories.

Well, guess what:

Chemists poke holes in ozone theory

As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change. (link)
Read the whole thing. And learn.

It's probably worth taking a quick trip about now down memory lane.

The ozone hole problem went away (we had been on the brink of global catastrophe then too) as quickly as it surfaced, after Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1990 and we removed R12 refrigerant from our automobile air conditioning systems and replaced it with R134A (which cost five times as much), and we replaced the aerosol that contained chloroflourocarbons in our hair spray cans with other chemicals. The problem with the ozone immediately - miraculously - evaporated (pun intended).

How we eliminated the ozone hole dilemma globally by passing a law in Washington was never adequately explained but ...

Anyway, we now begin to learn that which many of us suspected all along. It was a hoax cooked up by devious and/or incompetent "scientists."

Now, let's go back to your global warming theory ...


I'm thinking of guys like Bill McKibben, who is absolutely certain that man-made global warming is a fact and that neanderthals like me are in denial. I rejected the ozone problem in 1990 too. Bill.

Assuming It's Not Too Late

Another reason to keep the Museum of the Confederacy in tact and move it to Lexington.

To You Wi Fi Users Up In Roanoke

I feel for ya.

You thought you were going to get a reliable wireless signal downtown - for free - only to find out, once it deployed, that it is ... less than reliable?

Well, I hate to sever that already frayed lifeline you're desperately clinging to but that service that has proven to be unreliable probably won't be free for long either.

From Tim Wu:
Where's My Free Wi-Fi?
Why municipal wireless networks have been such a flop.

It's hard to dislike the idea of free municipal wireless Internet access. Imagine your town as an oversized Internet cafe, with invisible packets floating everywhere as free as the air we breathe. That fanciful vision inspired many cities to announce the creation of free wireless networks in recent years. This summer, reality hit—one city after another has either canceled deployments or offered a product that's hardly up to the hype. What happened—was the idea all wrong?

Not quite. The basic idea of offering Internet access as a public service is sound. The problem is that cities haven't thought of the Internet as a form of public infrastructure that—like subway lines, sewers, or roads—must be paid for. Instead, cities have labored under the illusion that, somehow, everything could be built easily and for free by private parties. That illusion has run straight into the ancient economics of infrastructure and natural monopoly. The bottom line: City dwellers won't be able to get
high-quality wireless Internet access for free. If they want it, collectively, they'll have to pay for it.
Read the whole thing. Then decide how much you're willing to pay for the convenience of wireless internet. It's a great concept. Almost as wonderful as this. But "great" never comes cheap. We now await the actual price tag.

The first rule in capitalism: You get what you pay for.

How Times Have Changed

Yet they haven't changed at all.

From Andrew Breitbart:
In liberal Hollywood -- just like in the mainstream media and academia -- the decks are stacked against conservatives and Republicans. We know it.

My father-in-law, Orson Bean, an author, comedian and actor, was once blacklisted as a Communist back in the '50s. Ed Sullivan called him to say he could no longer book him on the show. Fifty years later, and after a sharp ideological metamorphosis, Orson says it's harder now to be an open conservative on a Hollywood set than it was back then to be a Communist.
Narrow-minded bigots have existed throughout my lifetime. When I was young, they included a lot of the virulent anti-communist right among us. Today they're the Hollywood left.

Will anyone come forward in L.A. to challenge this subtle bigotry, to call these people - Sean Penn, George Clooney, Barbra Streisand - out? To shame them, as a handful of brave Americans did Joe McCarthy those many years ago?

Doesn't seem likely ...

And It Goes Back Further Than That

Today's narrow-minded leftist reactionaries can be linked not only to the anti-communist right of the 50's, but also to the lynch mob of the 20's.

From Powerline, on the Duke Rape Case:
When the rape charges arose, [Duke University president Richard] Brodhead's options were to appease Duke's leftist faculty or to grant Duke students the presumption of innocence. The faculty made it clear to Brodhead that he could not do both. At an emergency meeting of the Academic Council on March 30, 2006, Brodhead urged caution and asked faculty to wait for the facts to come out. But the assembled professors, around 10 percent of the arts and sciences faculty, responded with vitriolic attacks against the team.

Knowing that Harvard president Larry Summers had recently lost a faculty no-confidence vote at Harvard, Brodhead made his choice. Shortly after the March 30 meeting with the faculty "lynch mob," Brodhead cancelled the lacrosse season and appointed a “Campus Culture Initiative” to explore issues raised by the case. Three of the four subcommittees were chaired by gang of 88 members. And one of the four student members had sent a nasty and arguably threatening email to the Duke lacrosse coach, a fact known to Brodhead. Thus, Brodhead "got out of jail" with his faculty by, in effect, throwing overboard three student athletes who faced the possibility of 30 years in jail, along with the rest of the lacrosse team and its coach.
This gets to be really frightening. These people are that dangerous.

Who's The Racist?

While Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are flying off to the deep South to get in the middle of a local dispute between teenagers over a tree and whether or not white kids are going to allow black kids to stand under it,* they ignore the blatant - and quite astounding - prejudices of their very own friends.

Today's example, from Jim Geraghty:
Asked about what he could do about "inner-city kids partaking in violence" at the MTV/MySpace Forum yesterday, Democratic candidate John Edwards offered an apocalyptic prediction for young black males:

“We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating — pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.”
It's no wonder liberals like John Edwards want to hand black Americans money and provide them with food, clothing and shelter. They don't think black males are anything other than potential losers (and criminals) in this society and will never amount to anything.

How narrow-minded. How twisted. How sad.

* A good spanking all-round is in order.

Why Just $5,000?

You'll be printing the money, babe. Why not $5,000,000?

Clinton: $5,000 for Every U.S. Baby
By Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writer

Washington (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.

Clinton, her party's front-runner in the 2008 race, made the suggestion during a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus.

"I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home," she said.

The New York senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program or how she would pay for it. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States. (link)
She did not offer an estimate of the cost or how she would pay for it.* In fact, she wouldn't be paying for it. We would. Our children would. Our grandchildren would. Our great grandchildren ...

She's not only dangerous, she's intellectually lazy.


I burst out laughing when I read James Taranto's take on this:
Baby On Board

"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 'baby bond,' from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home," the Associated Press reports. Mrs. Clinton drew applause from at least one lawmaker:

"I think it's a wonderful idea," said Rep. Stephanie Stubbs [sic] Jones, an Ohio Democrat who attended the event and has already endorsed Clinton. "Every child born in the United States today owes $27,000 on the national debt, why not let them come get $5,000 to grow until their [sic] 18?"

Uhh, maybe so they won't owe $32,000 on the national debt?
Unbelievable. And goofballs like Stephanie Tubbs Jones are running things.

May God have mercy.

* At 4 million babies per year, your cost would be $20,000,000,000. Per year.