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

Friday, January 09, 2009

A Good Ruling

It wouldn't bother me if sexual predators were found guilty in a court of law and sentenced to life in prison - or worse. The key word being LAW. What the federal government was doing to them, however, went well beyond the law. And that ain't right. The feds are not allowed to make it up as they go along. Thus:
Court strikes down sex offender law
By Larry O'Dell, Associated Press Writer

Richmond, Va. (AP) -- An appeals court has ruled that the federal government cannot hold sex offenders in custody beyond the end of their prison sentences.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond unanimously struck down the federal civil commitment law Thursday. The court ruled that the law intrudes on police powers that the Constitution reserves for the states. The 4th Circuit is the first federal appeals court to rule on the issue.

The decision upholds a ruling by U.S. District Judge W. Earl Britt in Raleigh, N.C. The law was challenged by four federal inmates who remained in custody after their prison terms ended because the government considered them "sexually dangerous." [link]
Perhaps every one of these sex offenders deserved long prison sentences - perhaps they deserved to be locked up and the keys thrown away - but it's not up to the federal government (despite what Emperor Barack Obama might think his place in our system is) to decide such matters.

Here's to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Again.

That Ticking Time Bomb

Washington's not-so-well-kept dirty little secret: If it weren't for foreign investments in the United States, particularly in U.S. Treasurys, we'd have become a basket case long before now. So what happens when those investors (think: the Chinese) look at our out-of-control federal government, lose what remains of their confidence, and start pulling their cash?

The Washington Post expresses concern this morning (in "Beyond the Stimulus"):
Mr. Obama acknowledged that "some might be skeptical" of his plan because it would add massively to the already swollen federal deficit. He alluded to "tough choices" but proposed none. Nor was his promise of an "unprecedented effort to eliminate unwise and unnecessary spending" reassuring: As Mr. Obama knows, the deficit would still be immense even if he eliminated all the waste he could find. A truly "unprecedented" effort would be one that attacked the structural threats to the federal government's solvency: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Without some assurance that serious entitlement reform is on the next president's agenda, global financial markets could gradually lose the confidence in America that Mr. Obama said yesterday he is trying to restore.

But on that issue, Mr. Obama has had disappointingly little to say, either during the campaign or since. [link] [my emphasis]
Will the Chinese continue to pour cash into America's ever-more unstable money markets? With federal deficits of two trillion dollars a year - if we're lucky - looming, the answer is no. And when they start taking their piles of cash away, watch those markets crumble. There then won't be enough paper dollars in the world to offset the mayhem ...

Even The NY Times Is Getting Concerned

Since when does the New York Times editorial page care about how government entitlement programs are going to be paid for?

Since Obama came to town, that's when:
Cuddly Welcome for Mr. Daschle

The main thing we learned from Tom Daschle’s confirmation hearing in the Senate on Thursday was that President-elect Barack Obama sure picked the right man to stage manage his health care reforms as secretary of health and human services and as health czar at the White House.The hearing before a Senate health committee was mostly a love-fest ...

Unfortunately, the hearing did not tell us much at all about how the incoming Obama administration intends to pay for its emerging health care programs or how, for all of his smoothness at the hearing, Mr. Daschle will deal with the very real and very big differences his team has with Republicans on this and other vital issues.

He gave no indication of how to pay for all this or how to rein in the escalating costs of entitlement programs, and he was not asked such probing questions by a committee that seems certain to recommend his confirmation. [link]
You can be certain that, when the New York Times starts raising concerns about the cost of Obama's snake oil, there is a sense of foreboding prompting them.

As there should be. This is scary.

Today's Must-Read

Glenn Reynolds:
KARMA: CNN DISSES JOE THE PLUMBER — then has to yank fake video from Gaza. What’s their experience, again? What are their credentials? Oh, yeah. Right. Those. Nice work, guys.
The mainstream media are on a glide path to extinction. Anyone wonder why? Can it come quickly enough? Will anyone miss them, besides Hamas terrorists?

Where Are The Republicans?

Running scared, one must surmise. How else to explain the fact that the only serious opposition being expressed to Barack Obama's monumentally wasteful - and potentially disastrous - "stimulus" plan is coming from fellow Democrats?

Boehner? McConnell? Hello?

This article is revealing. It highlights objections to Obama's plan and those who have grave doubts about it. Sadly, not one Republican is mentioned. So into that void ...
Democrats Raise Doubts Over Obama's Economic Plan
By Greg Hitt, The Wall Street Journal

Top Obama aides, including economic adviser Jason Furman and National Economic Council director-designate Lawrence Summers, hammered out specifics with Democratic congressional leaders, amid hopes for a rapid vote this month, perhaps even by Inauguration Day. But the newly sworn-in lawmakers of the 111th Congress began questioning specifics of the plan, and dashed expectations for a quick vote.

Some of the strongest objections can be found within Mr. Obama's own party. Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) raised doubts Thursday about the job-creating value of Mr. Obama's proposed $500 payroll tax holiday, which he scoffed would only put $20 a week in a worker's paycheck.

Also Thursday, Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) questioned Obama proposal to reward businesses with a $3,000 tax credit for every job they create.

In an interview, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) said he called [National Economic Council director-designate Lawrence] Summers early Thursday to give him a heads-up that there are "some concerns that need to be addressed." [link]
Not to be found is an objection from a GOP'er.

Which means that, while there's some opposition being expressed toward tax cuts (see above), there are no complaints forthcoming regarding the most dangerous part of Obama's half-baked scheme - SPENDING the likes of which this nation has never seen before.

We still have a two-party system, right?

- - -

* You have to go here to find a quote from Senator McConnell:

"We have to address the economic crisis, but we also have to address how much debt we’re going to build up."

And here:

“If they pursue a fair process...and give both sides an opportunity to have input, to have a true bipartisan stamp, he’s likely to get significant support."

For the love of God.


Some more Islamist scum meet their maker:

From ABC News:
Top al Qaeda Targets Reportedly Dead After U.S. Air Strike
By Jason Ryan, Rhonda Schwartz and Megan Chuchmach

Two top al Qaeda officials are believed dead following a New Year's Day drone attack in northern Pakistan, ABC News has confirmed. U.S. officials said Fahid Mohammed Ali Msalam and Sheikh Ahmed Salem Swedan, both on the FBI's most wanted terrorists list, were killed in the CIA strike.

Msalam, who also went by the alias Usama al-Kini, and Swedan were both from Kenya and were indicted in the Aug. 7, 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and for conspiring to kill U.S. citizens. [link]
A going-away gift from George W. Bush to Osama bin Ladin.

1998. I wonder if we'll be as persistent in tracking down terrorist scum going forward, or if we'll decide to be best buds with them. I fear the latter.

Photo courtesy of ABC News and the FBI.

The Bitter Truth

Oh, the irony:
The difference between the Ponzi crimes of Bernie Madoff and those of our Social Security system? There are two: (1) The government prints the money (with nothing - nothing - backing it up) and (2) the government has the guns.

Other than that, Madoff was doing exactly what the U.S. government is doing with your Social Security contributions. Spending them with the expectation that future generations will be (forced to be ...) paying into the plan, to cover that which is no longer there because it's been spent elsewhere.

Madoff goes to prison and the government keeps printing that money. Only in America.