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

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Kaine Reverses Himself Again

I think I've got whiplash.

Governor Tim Kaine, after reversing himself on a smoking ban, and after reversing himself on a gun ban, now reverses himself on that driver fees compromise that he agreed to just a few short months ago.

Either his body has been taken over by an alien or the Tim Kaine who presented himself to us in 2005 as a man of the people - a man we could trust - ain't who he says he was.

In today's news:
Kaine: Repeal driver fees
By Jeff E. Schapiro, Richmond Times-Dispatch Staff Writer

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine last night urged scrapping the bad-driving fees that triggered a voter revolt last fall and that further splintered the legislature that will largely shape his legacy over the next two months.

In a surprise start to the symbolic midpoint of his four-year term, Kaine said the penalties -- part of last year's hard-fought multibillion-dollar fix for transportation -- are a flop.

"The abuser-fee idea has flunked with our voters, and we should acknowledge it and move on," Kaine said to enthusiastic huzzahs in his State of the Commonwealth message to a joint session of the General Assembly. (link)
The abuser-fee idea has flunked with the voters? Did I a voter miss a vote?

Or is Kaine letting his decisions be influenced by a handful of citizens, as he allowed to happen with his proposed gun ban, once again?

Since he brought it up, though, how about we put it to a vote? Higher taxes across the board (again) or the fee increase that was put in place to punish habitually dangerous drivers?

I'm willing to go at it.

A Fair Compromise

The editorialists at the Washington Post demand this morning that the state of Virginia ban smoking in restaurants in order to protect "untold thousands of nonsmoking employees and patrons of bars and restaurants around the state."

See "Smoke in Their Eyes."

I continue to demand the right of business owners to decide for themselves (that liberty thingie you may have heard about) how they operate their establishments.

You guys are supposedly "moderates." This should be right up your alley. Why don't we compromise?

How about we demand that nonsmoking employees and nonsmoking patrons of bars and restaurants be banned from ever entering smokers-only establishments around the state?

Would that be unfair?

Think about it.

Quote Of The Day

From James Taranto:
Does it really make sense to pick a president on the basis of whom you'd like to cry into your beer with? This is sad to see because one of the appealing things about Obama is that he never plays the victim by asking for votes because he is black. Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, is not above playing identity politics if that's what it takes to win. "I think I am an agent of change," she said in Saturday's debate. "I embody change. I think having the first woman president is a huge change."
"The Crying Game," Best of the Web Today, January 9, 2008

On Hillary's Win In New Hampshire

Somehow I don't think winning on sympathy is a strategy that makes this USA of ours a better place, but it seems to be what got Hillary Clinton a victory in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday.

Gail Collins, writing in the New York Times, has captured the phenomenon that took place - for better or for worse (in "Hillary's Free Pass"):
... Hillary was a stand-in for every woman who’s overdosed on multitasking. They grabbed at the opportunity to have kids/go back to school/start a business/become a lawyer. But there are days when they can’t meet everybody’s needs and the men in their lives — loved ones and otherwise — make them feel like failures or towers of self-involvement. And the deal is that they can either suck it up or look like a baby.

The women whose heart went out to Hillary knew that it wasn’t rational. She asked for this race, and if she was exhausted, the other candidates were, too. (John McCain is 71 and tired and nobody felt sorry for him.) The front-runner always gets ganged up on in debates. If her campaign was in shambles, it was her job to fix it or take the consequences. But for one moment, women knew just how Hillary felt, and they gave her a sympathy vote. It wasn’t a long-term commitment, just a brief strike by the sisters against their overscheduled world.
It would seem that if you want Oprah to be Commander-in-Chief, you should nominate Oprah.

But what do I know. I'm a man.

We Win Another One

While our increasingly liberal governor (or is he just showing his true colors?) launches a campaign to drive another ill-advised gun law down our throats, America (in this case through the courts) is moving off in the opposite direction:

NRA Wins Big in California State Court of Appeals
NRA press release

Fairfax, VA – The California State Court of Appeals announced today their decision to overturn one of the most restrictive gun bans in the country, following a legal battle by attorneys for the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a previous court order against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

“Today’s decision by the California State Court of Appeals is a big win for the law-abiding citizens and NRA Members of San Francisco,” declared Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist.

In 2005, NRA sought an injunction against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to prevent them from enacting one of the nation’s most restrictive gun bans. NRA won the injunction, but the City’s mayor and Board of Supervisors ignored the court order and approved a set of penalties, including a $1,000 fine and a jail term of between 90 days and six months, for city residents who own firearms for lawful purposes in their own

“We promised our California NRA members in 2005 that we would fight any gun ban instituted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and we haven’t given up that fight,” continued Cox. “Today we see our second win for the Second Amendment against the San Francisco gun ban. We beat them once in court and the City’s attorney appealed based on his personal disagreement with the court’s first decision to overturn the ban. Now we’ve beaten them again. The California State Court of Appeals has upheld the state preemption law.”

Today’s decision came in the form of a 3-0 opinion in favor of the lower court ruling overturning the gun ban.

“This decision is a thoughtful and well-reasoned legal opinion,” concluded Cox. “I'd like to thank our approximately 4 million members, including the hundreds of thousands of members in California, for their continued commitment to protecting our cherished freedoms.” (link)

For the sake of accuracy, the Court of Appeals didn't overturn the ordinance; it sided with a lower court ruling that had previously declared the ordinance to be null and void.
That said, it's a good day.
Let freedom ring.
- - -
Legislators in the state of Georgia are putting things right too. You read the "Second Amendment Protection Act of 2008" and it makes Governor Kaine's efforts to plug that mythical "gun show loophole" seem downright feckless.

It Begins

As it turns out, those nutroots who see a conspiracy lurking in the Diebold electronic voting machines are having a field day with the New Hampshire primary results:

New Hampshire Election Fraud
by Ron Corvus, opednews

I knew it, I knew it, I knew it................I knew it HAD to be election fraud.........let the election season fraud begin.

New Hampshire Election Fraud: Hillary LOST the paper ballot count but WON the optical scan ballot count. Obama WON the paper ballot count but LOST the optical scan ballot count.

2008 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results --Total Democratic Votes:

286,139 - Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008
Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%

Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%

Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%

Machine vs Hand:

Clinton: 4.709% (13,475 votes)
Obama: -2.308% (-6,604 votes) (link)

There you go. It's the machines. The machines ...