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

Friday, January 02, 2009

Heads In The Sand

It's interesting that the kids over at the Roanoke Times would write this in this morning's editorial ("Scientists disagree on climate change"):

"The Bush administration has shown little fidelity to science, much less an open mind about the dangers of climate change."

Interesting because they then follow up with this:

"The scientific community is in broad agreement that increasing levels of human-generated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing the planet to warm. They agree, too, that nations must act soon to prevent the worst results, if there is even time left."


Let's look at that "fidelity to science" and who's showing little of it:

Over 650 Scientists Challenge Global Warming "Consensus"

Read it and you'll learn that there is a host - a growing host - of scientists who scoff at global warming theory as it's being forced down our throats. And these are actual climate-and-meteorology-related scientists. Not biologists, chemists or computer technologists. And certainly not politicians who masquerade as learned scientists.

Broad agreement? Only if you have your head stuck somewhere where that climate can't penetrate.

For Those Who Want 'Change' ...

... don't hold your breath. From "Obama Promises Bush III on Iran," John Bolton:

The recent, embarrassing collapse of the six-party talks [with North Korea] starkly underlines how, under Mr. Obama, everything old will be new again. The talks are classic multilateral diplomacy, pursued since 2003 with notable deference to North Korea. There's been about as much engagement with Pyongyang as consenting adults can lawfully have.

The outcome of this Obama-style diplomacy was the same as all prior negotiations with the leaders of the world's largest prison camp. North Korea charged even for the privilege of sitting at the negotiating table, extracted concession after concession, endlessly renegotiated points that had been resolved, and ultimately delivered nothing of consequence in return.

On Iran, also for over five years, Mr. Bush has endorsed vigorous European diplomacy. The Europeans offered every imaginable carrot to persuade Iran to drop its nuclear program in exchange for a different relationship with Europe and America. This produced no change in Iran's strategic objective of acquiring deliverable nuclear weapons. The only real consequence is that Iran is five years closer to achieving that objective. It now has indigenous mastery over the entire nuclear fuel cycle.

The Obama alternative? "Present the Iranian regime with a clear choice" by using carrots and sticks to induce Iran to give up its nuclear aspirations. What does Mr. Obama think Mr. Bush and the Europeans have been doing? Does he really think his smooth talking will achieve more than Europe's smoothest talkers, who were in fact talking for us the whole time?

There's one difference, of course. One factor that Bolton doesn't take into account. That factor? The media.

Just as in the days of Bill Clinton, the press will be salivating over any meaningless gesture that comes out of talks between Obama and __fill in the blank___.

With accompanying photos. Photos are always greatly appreciated.

What again was accomplished at Camp David in 2000? I forget.

But no matter. Clinton, like Carter before him, championed peace in the Middle East. And peace reigned. Right?

At least that's the way it was portrayed until George W. Bush came into office, and then, somehow, it all fell apart. Unilateralism. Disinterest. Heavyhandedness. Stupidity. All of the above. The press.

So Obama will sit down with the Iranians and the North Koreans and flowers will bloom once again. Birds will sing. The Sun will shine. And nothing will change.

Except for one thing. The press will be happy once again. Peace will reign.

With Heads Held High ...

... the men and women of the United States military can now start their journey home from Iraq, knowing that the work they did, the hardships they endured, the triumphs and the tragedies, despite the many naysayers and gloom-and-doomers, despite the efforts of many in Washington, including our soon-to-be president, to bring defeat to our troops in the field, contributed to the successful prosecution of the current phase of the War on Terror.

To those who demanded defeat, a message, from Tom Blumer:
[T]his victory — or, if you must, “the end of the war with Iraqi and U.S. forces firmly in control” — is a major setback for those who worked tirelessly for defeat. At every opportunity, the defeatists employed or extended tactics that had ultimately “succeeded” in bringing about the fall of South Vietnam and Cambodia’s killing fields — but which also led to Carter-era weakness, which finally caused enough disgusted Americans to elect Ronald Reagan.

But this time, they didn’t work. The U.S. has achieved a military victory in a long war against a persistent enemy. What’s more, unlike Vietnam — which was a military victory; Vietnam was lost when our military wasn’t there — this victory is being handed over to a successor administration of the other party.

The defeated defeatists include many senators, congressmen, and elitists in Washington. They include Harry Reid, who said, “I believe … that this war is lost,” in April 2007. They include many members of the incoming administration, up to the president-elect himself. Though the defeatists are in control, they know full well that if they allow Iraq to go the way of Vietnam, this time they will get the blame — and the blow back.

The defeated defeatists include the U.S. and worldwide news media, whose journalistic malpractice in this war could fill volumes of books, and hopefully someday will.

Names too numerous to mention. But Barack Obama's is right up there. As is Reid's. Murtha's. Howard Dean's. Pelosi's. In fact, the names of most every person in a leadership position in the Democratic Party go on the list of shame. Including my United States Senator James Webb.

And yes, the media. From the entire New York Times editorial staff down to the drifting souls at the Roanoke Times; all cried that the war was lost early on. And demanded that we cut and run.

May they now try to live with themselves for having displayed their cowardice - their betrayal - for all to see. It was not a pretty sight.

Again, here's to victory. Let's hope now that Obama doesn't snatch defeat from its jaws.

To Those Who Blame Israel ...

... Charles Krauthammer has a history lesson:
Israel has but a single objective in Gaza -- peace: the calm, open, normal relations it offered Gaza when it withdrew in 2005. Doing something never done by the Turkish, British, Egyptian and Jordanian rulers of Palestine, the Israelis gave the Palestinians their first sovereign territory ever in Gaza.

What ensued? This is not ancient history. Did the Palestinians begin building the state that is supposedly their great national aim? No. No roads, no industry, no courts, no civil society at all. The flourishing greenhouses that Israel left behind for the Palestinians were destroyed and abandoned. Instead, Gaza's Iranian-sponsored rulers have devoted all their resources to turning it into a terror base -- importing weapons, training terrorists, building tunnels with which to kidnap Israelis on the other side. And of course firing rockets unceasingly.

The grievance? It cannot be occupation, military control or settlers. They were all removed in September 2005. There's only one grievance and Hamas is open about it. Israel's very existence.

And now the left in this country - including morons over at Virginia Tech - rises up in shocked disbelief and outrage (feigned?) because Israel retaliates after having to endure the thousands of rockets and civilian deaths.

The Jihadists in Gaza aren't interested in roads, industry, a court system, or civil society - at least not as modern societies recognize it. They want to obliterate Israel. To kill the Jews.

Kill the Jews ...

Say It, Brutha

If I didn't know better, I'd say this was written with numbskulls like those at the Charleston Gazette in mind. A poem, by George Jochnowitz:

A Virtual Dialog

Jihadists: Kill the Jews.

The Left: We understand you. You want an
end to settlements.

Jihadists: Kill the Jews.

The Left: Of course. You want freedom of
movement without checkpoints.

Jihadists: Kill the Jews.

The Left: How poetic your language is.
You want an independent state.

Jihadists: Kill the Jews.

Biting. Pointed. Great stuff.

Quote of the Day

With rumors running rampant in recent days that Bill Clinton may be picked by New York Governor David Paterson to replace Hillary in the Senate ...

Suddenly, Caroline Kennedy Sounds Like an Excellent Choice

She's beginning to grow on me too.