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

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Roanoke's City Market Gets Clean Bill of Health

There's no mouse poop in the pancakes anymore:

Market food court has good checkup

Now, if they could just do something about the pizza that chews like leather and tastes like cheesy cardboard ...

Just a Bystander

Remember, not long ago, when Congress was going into emergency session to deal with the financial bailout of Wall Street (to the tune of $700 billion)? Remember Obama's response?

"Call me if you need me."

His response to the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children in Mumbai?

"I'm monitoring the situation."

See a pattern here?

The latest:
Obama -- tested and untried
By Tara Wall, The Washington Times

Certainly, an attack of this kind could be predictable by any measure, so too could Mr. Obama's response to it. Some would argue that his cool, measured, "diplomatic" approach to addressing such heinous acts is what's in order. It is the "change" that is needed. Others see it for what it is - an uncertain, novice approach to managing national security.

In a pat response, Mr. Obama said he was "monitoring the situation." Aside from offering condolences, there wasn't much of a condemnation of these ruthless murderers or what they are capable of beyond the India attacks, or just what "monitoring" means.

Mr. Obama's reaction ran in contrast to the direct, succinct and sobering reminder of the evil we face that was offered by President Bush: "The killers that struck this week are brutal and violent. But terror will not have the final word ..." [link]

He's monitoring the situation? That's it? Is he nothing more than a couch potato? In response to one of the worst acts of terrorism since 9/11 Obama has nothing to say?

Tell you what, pal. We'll call you when we need you. In the meantime, just keep making those speeches and continue to enthrall the media. Do what you do best. And let the world burn.

"I'm monitoring the situation." Our community activist-in-chief.

Before You Go Blaming Bush ...

... for the mortgage crisis, a bit of history might be enlightening.

Investor's Business Daily:

In November 2003, ... Bush's top economist, Gregory Mankiw, warned: "The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter for the financial system as a whole." He too proposed reforms, and they too went nowhere.

In the next two years, a parade of White House officials traipsed to Capitol Hill, calling repeatedly for GSE reform. They were ignored. Even after several multibillion-dollar accounting errors by Fannie and Freddie, Congress put off reforms.

In 2005, Fed chief Alan Greenspan sounded the most serious warning of all: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk" by doing nothing, he said. When a bill later that year emerged from the Senate Banking Committee, it looked like something might finally be done.

Unfortunately, as economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute has noted, "the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter."

Had they done so, it's likely the mortgage meltdown wouldn't have occurred, or would have been of far less intensity. President Bush and the Republican Congress might be blamed for many things, but this isn't one of them. It was a Democratic debacle, from start to finish. [link] [my emphasis]

George Bush will be blamed for the collapse anyway. Those who hate him control the press, after all. But the truth is there for all to see.

If you wish to see.

So Who's To Blame For The Mumbai Massacre?

Need you even ask?
Deepak Blames America
By Dorothy Rabinowitz, The Wall Street Journal

If the Mumbai terror assault seemed exceptional, and shocking in its targets, it was clear from the Thanksgiving Day reports that we weren't going to be deprived of the familiar, either. Namely, ruminations, hints, charges of American culpability that regularly accompany catastrophes of this kind.

Soon enough, there was Deepak Chopra, healer, New Age philosopher and digestion guru, advocate of aromatherapy and regular enemas, holding forth on CNN on the meaning of the attacks.

What happened in Mumbai, he told the interviewer, was a product of the U.S. war on terrorism, that "our policies, our foreign policies" had alienated the Muslim population, that we had "gone after the wrong people" and inflamed moderates. And "that inflammation then gets organized and appears as this disaster in Bombay."

Two subsequent interviews with Larry King brought much of the same -- a litany of suggestions about the role the U.S. had played in fueling assaults by Muslim terrorists, reminders of the numbers of Muslims in the world and their grievances. A faithful adherent of the root-causes theory of crime -- mass murder, in the case at hand -- Dr. Chopra pointed out, quite unnecessarily, that most of the terrorism in the world came from Muslims. It was mandatory, then, to address their grievances -- "humiliation," "poverty," "lack of education." The U.S., he recommended, should undertake a Marshall Plan for Muslims. [link]
For the love of God.

I get so tired of dealing with morons like this that I'm reluctant to even expend the necessary energy required to point out that those Muslims committing acts of terrorism are never impoverished or uneducated. Humiliated, perhaps. Humiliated that they live in a society that can't find its way out of the 9th century. Humiliated that their "religion of peace" is viewed - correctly - by the rest of the world as being a religion of hate.

A Marshall Plan for Muslims? Why? So that we can hand them the rope they use to hang us all?

Go away, Deepak. You of all people should be humiliated into silence.

Obama, Meet Reality

It's one thing to look good, be black, and give a rousing speech. It's another thing to actually have to DO something. As Mr. Wonderful is now finding out:

Afghan Strategy Poses Stiff Challenge for Obama

Officials Vow to Act Amid Forecasts of Long Recession

A Team in Need of a [Terror] Plan

Next in line begging for a bailout ... the states

He's soon to wish he only had Jeremiah Wright to deal with.

What's Up With This?

Don't we have plenty of county, state, and federal agencies in this country that can deal with a nuclear attack or "other domestic catastrophe"? Is this an effort in coordination with Obama's soon-to-be civilian national security force (to be known as brown shirts)?

I have a bad feeling about this:
Pentagon to detail military to bolster security
By Spencer S. Hsu and Ann Scott Tyson, The Washington Post

The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.

The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.

There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement. [link]
All those mouths in Washington who whined that Iraq was draining off our military effectiveness will probably be applauding the stationing of American troops in the subways of New York.

But beyond that, what's the real reason for this move?

Enjoying Every Minute Of It

Just think, they save the planet, and party their brains out doing it. Sweet!
UN climate talks to create 13,000 tonnes of carbon

Staging a global forum on climate change is a dilemma, as it adds to the very problem it is trying to solve.

Around 13,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) will be added to the Earth's greenhouse effect from the December 1-12 meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the UNFCCC said.

That estimate is based on a turnout of 8,000 people, but as of Sunday 10,657 people had registered for the talks.

Poland, which is hosting the meeting, "plans to offset the total emissions resulting from the conference once a final calculation has been made," the UNFCCC said.

Under offsets, anyone emitting carbon can invest in a scheme that mitigates the pollution by the same amount.

Typical projects involve reforestation or transferring cleaner technology to developing countries in order to ease their own emissions of greenhouse gases. [link]
It's a scheme, all right. A scheme to mitigate guilt.

Hookers + Booze + Drugs - Carbon Offsets = a bitchin' good time, free of remorse.