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

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Warner Outrage!

It appears that, according to the definition provided by former Governor Mark Warner at a 1994 fund raising event, 70% of us don't qualify to be Americans. According to this scumbag ...

• ... if you're a member of the Christian Coalition ...

• ... if you're a "right-to-lifer" ...

• ... if you're an NRA member ...

• ... if you're a home schooler (!) ...

• ... you're "threatening to what it means to be an American."

And this guy wants our vote come November 4. If you're a member of, or associate yourself with, any of these targeted groups (despite the fact that the NRA just gave Warner a grade of A for his gun rights advocacy just hours ago; how about that for a slap in the face ...), you vote for him, you're a fool and deserve him.

I'm so outraged by this slimeball that I can't see straight.

Oh, by the way, for those of you who don't believe this can possibly be true, here's the audio. From the horse's mouth ass:

You want my vote now, pal? It'll be a cold day in ...

* YouTube segment provided by JimGilmoreForSenate.com

Eat The Rich

That's the title of a piece that I penned for the Roanoke Times back when I had a weekly column in 2006. In it I wrote:
It has been said, and I believe it to be true, that the key difference between conservatives and liberals is in their attitudes toward the rich. Conservatives work to make everyone someday wealthy. Liberals work to destroy wealth.

As someone once said, "A rising tide raises all boats." This will only happen, though, if there isn't a tidal wave of class hatred sweeping over and capsizing us all.
That baffling hatred of the rich. I've never understood it. How punishing those who "have" will in any way help those who "have not" has always escaped me. In fact, with the tax code structured such that it is, with the rich paying the preponderance of the nation's taxes, with an inordinate share of the revenue now being transferred to the "have nots," I'd think they'd want to cultivate wealth among the upper classes.

But no. They hate the rich. Intense, unadulterated, nonrational, uncontrolled hate.

Interestingly, of all the articles I wrote for the Times, the one that generated the greatest number of responses - and the most vitriol - from readers was that one. Eat the Rich (or "Rising Tide," as some copy editor decided to change it to for publication). That's actually an accomplishment considering I also wrote a piece about gay marriage, which set off another crowd, one that never expects there to be opposition - in print anyway - to that which is certainly to be the way of our future. Or so they think.

But no, it was "Eat the Rich" that engendered the most passion amongst my considerable readership back then. If passion is the right word ...

And, tellingly, my email buddies at the time made no effort to conceal their disdain for the wealthier among us. And for my having defended them. Strange.

I thought at the time of the old Soviet Union and the vengeance that was wreaked upon the rich in the 1930's when the Bolsheviks took control, consolidated their power, and began killing off all those who had previously owned considerable amounts of wealth in the then-defunct Tsarist Russia. The country, in the end, was in ruins with no one having wealth, but there remained a certain satisfaction among the populace that equality had been achieved - everyone was equally impoverished - and that was good. Think Cuba, 2008.

I bring all this up because of a hearing that took place before some Congressional committee yesterday, the key witness at which was former chief executive of Lehman Brothers, Richard Fuld. The purpose of the hearing was (to deflect criticism away from the real cause of the problem - Congressional meddling in the marketplace, and ...) to determine why a massive and powerful corporation like Lehman could have crumbled so quickly. During the hearing, Fuld was treated like dirt, as he expected, I'd guess, with a host of accusations and condescensions tossed his way. Whatever. That's what politicians do these days. It is their substitute for actually getting anything substantive done.

But what caught my eye was at the very end of the (openly contemptuous) New York Times article:
After the hearing — which started before a crowd of journalists and a smattering of protesters, then ended almost five hours later before a half-full room — a weary-looking Mr. Fuld ... left under protection from Capitol Police officers, going to a waiting sport utility vehicle while members of the protest group Code Pink pelted him with insults and called for Mr. Fuld to be jailed.
They came down to the Capitol with the specific purpose of confronting this now-and-forevermore humiliated human being and they "pelted him with insults and called for Mr. Fuld to be jailed." Why? What purpose did it serve? Would his imprisonment prevent other chief executives from making decisions that would end in their ultimate ruin and eternal shame? Aren't personal ruin and public humiliation deterrents in themselves?

How to explain this?

It's that hatred thing. Carting every Wall Street executive - shaved heads, in chains and striped pajamas - off to the guillotine would make these people feel better. Oh, if only they could be tortured on the rack beforehand too! The bastards! And their children! Their children will grow up to be just like them! Off with their heads too!

"They have what I don't and it's not fair. They must die."

I still don't understand the mindset. Hate the Rich. Eat the Rich.

But it ain't going away. And when these people, in their lust for vengeance to be imposed upon the rich, finally have their way and all wealth in this country is destroyed, they'll be satisfied. Their bloodlust will be sated.

And we'll all be none the better off for it.

Baffling. Truly baffling.

Seems Close To Me

I guess it all depends on your definition of the word "particularly."

This explanation in today's New York Times of the Obama - William Ayres relationship is rather revealing. Particularly revealing of the mentality of those at the New York Times, I'd say:
Various reports, including ones in The New York Times, have found no evidence that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers were particularly close, although they have had various points of contact. Mr. Ayers was host of an event for Mr. Obama early in his political career, they served together on a charitable board, and both worked on an educational project financed by the billionaire philanthropist Walter H. Annenberg. [my emphasis]
Well, maybe they didn't share a bed. But doesn't the above - -including the news that Obama had a relationship that called for his answering directly to William Ayres at the Annenberg Project - make their relationship particularly close? Wasn't it Ayres, after all, who threw the first political fundraiser for Obama - the "event" that the Times briefly mentions above - in his home?

To an objective observer, that is, without doubt, particularly close. But then the New York Times and the word objectivity should not particularly be included in the same sentence.

Seems Like a Fair Representation To Me

The Washington Post (in "Dangerous Territory") is upset that John McCain accurately quotes Barack Obama in one of his newly released campaign ads:

The tone is ominous, the shadings dark. "Who is Barack Obama?" asks the latest campaign advertisement from Sen. John McCain. "He says our troops in Afghanistan are 'just air-raiding villages and killing civilians' . . . How dishonorable. . . . How dangerous. . . . Too risky for America."

Here's what Mr. Obama actually said about Afghanistan in August 2007: "We've got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there." The gap between that reality and the McCain ad -- not quite a lie, yet not a fair representation, either -- is where the campaigns seem to be heading with four weeks to go until the election.
Sorry, fellas. It's not just a fair representation; it's a perfect representation of that which Barack Obama said, and meant. You may not like it being brought up, but he said it. Deal with it.

And quit misrepresenting the facts.

Makes Sense To Me

James Taranto on that Associated Press "analyst," one Douglass Daniel, who decided that Sarah Palin's accusations regarding Barack Obama's relationship with William Ayres were somehow racist:
... [I]t seems his claim is that her speech was racist because it somehow called attention to Obama's race.

... [L]et's assume for the sake of argument that an actual racist has the brainpower to puzzle through the complex twists and turns that led Douglass Daniel from the information that Obama pals around with terrorists to the conclusion that Obama is black.

Isn't it a good bet that he already knew?

One wonders what goes through their minds when they write this stuff. It certainly can't be cognitive thinking, whatever it is.

We Can't Criticize the Democrats ...

... for having caused the financial crisis. We're all racists if we do.

For the love of God:
Frank says GOP housing attacks racially motivated
By Glen Johnson, AP political writer

Boston (AP) - Rep. Barney Frank said Monday that Republican criticism of Democrats over the nation's housing crisis is a veiled attack on the poor that's racially motivated.

The Massachusetts Democrat, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said the GOP is appealing to its base by blaming the country's mortgage foreclosure problem on efforts to expand affordable housing through the Community Reinvestment Act.

"They get to take things out on poor people," Frank said at a mortgage foreclosure symposium in Boston. "Let's be honest: The fact that some of the poor people are black doesn't hurt them either, from their standpoint. This is an effort, I believe, to appeal to a kind of anger in people."(link)

Ouch. That hurts, Barney. It pains me every time I'm accused of being a racist.

Let's see. This makes the 4,236,433rd time in my lifetime.

To be honest, it kind of lost its sting a long, long time ago.

Taking It To Him

"Defend Freedom. Defeat Obama":

Our rights will not be signed away by Washington politicians and their puppets. Ever.

Start With My Feckless Congressman

59% Would Vote to Replace Entire Congress

Quote of the Day

From Confederate Yankee:

The ties between Barack Obama and terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn go back over 21 years.

The long and short of it? Barack Obama knew, and knew well, that Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn were terrorists when he met them. He just didn't care.

That seems to fit his pattern, doesn't it?

As Jennifer Rubin puts it:

But this is true of Obama’s entire circle of comrades and associates, of course. He didn’t know who they were, or wasn’t all that close to them, or never happened to be there when their life-long habit of excoriating evil America was demonstrated. It is all of a piece.

Jeremiah Wright. Tony Rezco. Ayres. Osama?

Some Victory

Al-Qaida: US economic crisis equals Muslim victory ...

... the "victors" said from their cave located just this side of hell.