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

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Don't Hold Your Breath

Surprisingly, the Washington Post took Barack Obama seriously when he said he was going to make spending cuts in order to offset his massive new spending initiatives:
Name Those Cuts

"To make the investments we need," President-elect Barack Obama said Monday, "we'll have to scour our federal budget, line by line, and make meaningful cuts and sacrifices, as well, something I'll be discussing further tomorrow." When yesterday arrived, however, Mr. Obama wasn't much more specific. On one level, that's understandable; it will be difficult enough for the new administration to come up with a detailed budget by the time that is due in February. Yet Mr. Obama is talking about adding hundreds of billions of dollars in federal debt. That is reasonable under the dire economic circumstances, but it is scarcely adequate to couple that with platitudes about eliminating wasteful spending. As Mr. Obama well knows, and as his first-rate new budget director, Peter R. Orszag, understands as keenly as anyone, it will take far more than that to get the nation's fiscal house in order.

Mr. Obama spoke of meaningful cuts, but the example he cited yesterday -- crop subsidy overpayments to millionaire farmers not entitled to receive them -- was especially galling. The supposed amount involved -- $49 million over four years -- is puny in the context of a $3 trillion annual budget. [link]
I heard Nancy Pelosi talk the other day about the need for an economic stimulus and for fiscal restraint. I laughed. That, and Obama's comment here, mean neither he nor Pelosi are serious about the issue.

I'm surprised that the Post got sucked into that campaign fluff and bluster.

- - -

* By the way, the deficit next year, by some estimates, may hit $1,000,000,000,000. That's one trillion dollars more going out than is coming in. Fiscal restraint ...

A Question

Is it unethical for the Roanoke Times to come out with an editorial that denounces the pro-life movement here in Virginia and wholeheartedly supports the efforts of Planned Parenthood to turn a profit off the slaughter of little babies (see "Planned Parenthood a Worthy Investment") without mentioning that the publisher of the Roanoke Times is - or was - a member of the board for Planned Parenthood of the Blue Ridge?

The answer is ... yes.

My Boycott Is Working

As you all know, I'm boycotting Target Stores. And have been now for three Christmases. As a result of the decision some moron of an executive at the retail giant made to ban Salvation Army bell ringers from in front of their establishments nationwide. I haven't spent a dime at Target since that announcement was made back in 2006. And I don't intend to shop at Target until the company changes its policy.

It appears that my boycott is paying off. Target is in a nosedive:
Target profit falls, suspends buybacks

New York (Reuters) - Target Corp posted a nearly 24 percent drop in profit as an economic downturn curtails shoppers' ability to splurge on the discount retailer's trendy wares and make payments on its credit cards.

To navigate the tough environment, Target will conserve cash to protect its liquidity and debt ratings, the company said on Monday.

It is temporarily suspending nearly all of its share buybacks, has cut its 2009 capital spending plan by $1 billion, and is pulling back new store openings at least through 2010. Shares in the company fell 3 percent to $32.03. [link]
Oh, sure. Blame it on the economy.

I know better. My boycott continues.

- - -

By the way, I gave to the Salvation Army the other day when I came upon one of their bell ringers in front of BB&T. My bank. A bank to which I'm becoming very loyal.


While Democrats Dust Off The 'Fairness Doctrine' ...

... which is nothing more than a heavy-handed attempt by government to silence as many conservatives as possible on talk radio, democrats in Canada have come to the realization that they've erred grievously in their ways and are reinstating the God-given right to free speech there:
By Mark Steyn, The Corner, National Review

On Friday I had the honor of addressing the Federalist Society in Washington on the matter of my free-speech travails up north. And, in response to a question on whether the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission were surprised that I'd pushed back against them, I quoted that great line from the Kevin Bacon film Tremors* when the giant mutated killer worms attack Michael Gross and Reba McEntire's well-armed basement and wind up blasted to smithereens: "Looks like they picked the wrong rec room to break into."

The giant killer worms of the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission picked the wrong rec room to break into. Ezra Levant and I and a few others went nuclear on the Dominion's thought police and gave them the worst year of publicity in their three-decade existence. The result is that, earlier this month, over 99 per cent of delegates to the Conservative Party convention voted to abolish Section 13 (the "hate speech" provision) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and a brave principled Liberal, Keith Martin, renewed his private member's motion in the House of Commons to do the same. [link]

Does it strike anyone else as being more than a bit ironic that, while the USA moves rapidly toward a socialistic state and, on the subject of the 1st Amendment, toward a more restrictive view of our right to speak freely (the hammer that is the Fairness Doctrine), the Europeans have rejected socialist governments in France, Germany, and Italy, the EU is now in the hands of titular head Vaclav Havel, a man who is more in the mold of Ronald Reagan than any Republican alive today in this country, and the Canadians are reaffirming the right of the people there to freedom of speech? (!)

What are we doing to ourselves?

- - -

* By the way, Steyn references Ezra Levant. For those of you who don't recognize the name, he's the magazine editor that delivered some of the best television entertainment I've ever witnessed when he went before a government bureaucrat in Alberta and told her to stick her tribunal up her ass (in so many words). If you're interested, you can view it here.

This guy could be my president any day.

- - -

* God help me, I can sit and watch Tremors over and over again. It's that good. Or I'm that demented.

Hillary Unconstitutional?

Well, her husband could give her some pointers on that score but ...

There is a fascinating thesis bring kicked around over at The Volokh Conspiracy among several law professors that essentially finds that the appointment of Hillary Clinton to the position of Secretary of State by Barack Obama would violate the Constitution. It has something to do with the "Emoluments Clause" (Article 1, section 6).

Not being a lawyer, I haven't a clue, but when a learned professor who has written on the subject says, "So, 'Is Hillary Clinton Unconstitutional?' In a word, Yes -- or, to be more precise, a Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be unconstitutional," I pay attention.

You might as well.

Great Stuff

Focus on the Family founder Doctor James Dobson spanks Washington Post's "conservative" columnist Kathleen Parker for suggesting that the Republicans - if they ever want to win an election again - should dump their most loyal proponent: G-O-D.

We Won’t Be Silenced

Good for him.

The World Has Gone Mad

At first, I thought this was some kind of spoof. But no. Welcome to that which passes for an institution of higher learning, circa 2008:

University cancels cystic fibrosis fundraiser because disease only affects white men

For the love of God.

Global Warming Theory Collapses

It's no time to say I TOLD YOU SO, but I TOLD YOU SO:
Scientists urge caution on global warming
By Erika Lovley, Politico

Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.

While the new Obama administration promises aggressive, forward-thinking environmental policies, Weather Channel co-founder Joseph D’Aleo and other scientists are organizing lobbying efforts to take aim at the cap-and-trade bill that Democrats plan to unveil in January.

The global cooling lobby’s challenge is enormous. Next year could be the unfriendliest yet for climate skeptics. Already, House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) has lost his gavel, in part because his peers felt he was less than serious about tackling global warming.

The National Academy of Sciences and most major scientific bodies agree that global warming is caused by man-made carbon emissions. But a small, growing number of scientists, including D’Aleo, are questioning how quickly the warming is happening and whether humans are actually the leading cause.

Armed with statistics from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climate Data Center, D’Aleo reported in the 2009 Old Farmer’s Almanac that the U.S. annual mean temperature has fluctuated for decades and has only risen 0.21 degrees since 1930 — which he says is caused by fluctuating solar activity levels and ocean temperatures, not carbon emissions.

Data from the same source shows that during five of the past seven decades, including this one, average U.S. temperatures have gone down. And the almanac predicted that the next year will see a period of cooling. [link]
That house of cards is finally crumbling. As it was destined to all along.

If only you had listened to reason ...