Quote

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

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Bluefield Daily Telegraph Gets It Right!

Why couldn't any of the big rags around the country grasp that which the good folks at Bluefield's teeny little paper were able to make of the Tea Party rallies that took place around the country last week?
Tea parties
Bluefield Daily Telegraph editorial

Tens of thousands of protesters staged anti-tax tea parties around the country last week — including gatherings in Charleston and Beckley — to express their frustration over taxes, government spending, federal bailouts and the bad economy in general.

For the most part, the rallies were peaceful — and welcomed. It is always good to see such public participation. More importantly, it is good to know that citizens are taking a keen interest in the actions of the federal government.

Many are concerned — and rightfully concerned — by what appears to be a new era of unprecedented government spending and corporate bailouts. [link]

Unlike those who see the movement as being only about taxes, or about the disaffected Republicans among us, or about neo-nazis, or about sinister corporate forces at work behind the scenes to ruin that which Obama is attempting to build, or about skinheads, or about rednecks, the Daily Telegraph understands that the Tea Party revolution is about regular American citizens rallying against our reckless government being out of touch with the people and in opposition to our politicial leaders doing things that will ultimately destroy our country.

It goes beyond taxes. It's about our very way of life.

Thanks, Bluefield Daily Telegraph.

Good Stuff

Words Well Writ. In this morning's Roanoke Times:
Through the power of his rhetoric, Martin Luther King Jr. led not only his people, black people, out of the invisible bondage forged by America's Jim Crow laws, but his nation onto a path toward racial reconciliation.

So it is dismaying to learn the family of the slain civil-rights leader is charging licensing fees to a foundation for use of his image and words in its fundraising campaign to build a memorial to King on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

The honor is well deserved, but tarnished by heirs who over the years have cashed in on the man's achievements.

The memorial's themes, according to the foundation's Web site, will be "the Man, the Movement and the Message." To which, sadly, the family might add, "the Money." [link] [my emphasis]

Well done. This actually rises to the level of "From On High." A welcome change from the past.

Does the Times have a new editorial writer?

Consider My Conscience Shocked

The Washington Post offers up what has to be its 80th editorial on the practice of waterboarding this morning. See "Shocking the Conscience."

I chuckled throughout.

My only question is: With the excellent results obtained, why isn't waterboarding used more routinely on those terrorists who have vowed to slaughter us all?

Oh, yeah. It's "torture."

So how many of these assholes died or were maimed or disfigured?

0.

How many were made to feel uncomfortable?

Not nearly enough.

Torture. Gimme a break.

Who's Side Is He On?

Lest everyone - including the Commander-in-Chief - forgets, we have men and women in harm's way this morning, fighting to protect the country they love. In coming days, heartrending news will reach us of the deaths of some of them in combat in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Yet they persevere. Heroes all.

Knowing that, am I the only person who was outraged by the fact that Obama sat on his hands and did nothing to defend his country - our country - as foreign dictators attacked us at that meeting in Trinidad last week?

Is there no circumstance that he might confront in which this guy will defend the country he is sworn to protect? Is he on our side?

Our best and brightest are giving their last full measure for us. For the U.S. Their commander didn't lift the first finger.

What's wrong with this picture?

Hmmm

I'm trying to figure out what the motive is behind the New York Times printing this as if it's some kind of shocking exposé:
Lawmaker Is Said to Have Agreed to Aid Lobbyists
By Neil A. Lewis and Mark Mazzetti, New York Times

Washington — One of the leading House Democrats on intelligence matters was overheard on telephone calls intercepted by the National Security Agency agreeing to seek lenient treatment from the Bush administration for two pro-Israel lobbyists who were under investigation for espionage, current and former government officials say.

The lawmaker, Representative Jane Harman of California, became the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee after the 2002 election and had ambitions to be its chairwoman when the party gained control of the House in 2006. One official who has seen transcripts of several wiretapped calls said she appeared to agree to intercede in exchange for help in persuading party leaders to give her the powerful post.

It is unclear when this conversation was supposed to have taken place, but [Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman] were fired from Aipac in March 2005 and indicted a few weeks later. They were charged with violating the World War I-era Espionage Act when they shared with colleagues, journalists and Israeli Embassy officials information about Iran and Iraq they had learned from talking to high-level United States policy makers. [link]
This is unusual in that the person being skewered here is a Democrat. A high ranking Democrat to boot. And the Times, as a rule, never goes after Democrats.

But more importantly, Ms. Harmon did (allegedly) what congresspersons do. She (allegedly) offered to lend a hand and asked for support in return. Beyond that, you'll note the two men around which the story is built - Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman - are not charged with sharing state secrets; they're charged with sharing "with colleagues, journalists and Israeli Embassy officials information about Iran and Iraq they had learned from talking to high-level United States policy makers." They talked openly - Shocker! - to government officials and passed along some of that which they were told. Where's the crime?

This story smells of ulterior motives. Somehow I'm getting the impression that Ms. Harmon has whizzed in someone's Wheaties at the Times and he or she doesn't like it one bit.

Odd.

Obama's Balanced Budget Effort Is a Joke

Did he think this was going to be received well by the American people?
Obama demands 0.0029% budget cut after running up spending
By Ed Morrissey, Hot Air

How can Barack Obama demonstrate his fiscal-responsibility creds after pushing through Porkulus, a pork-filled omnibus spending plan, and a $3.5 trillion budget that far outstrips even the last spending plan from the Democratic-controlled Congress? Demand a big reduction in spending through budget cuts at federal agencies. Obama has done just that — with cuts that amount to a whopping 0.0029% of the budget ...

The cuts that Obama proposes don’t even amount to 1% of the pork Obama signed into law last month in the omnibus spending bill.

This is an insult to the intelligence of fiscal conservatives. If Obama wanted to demonstrate some fiscal responsibility, he could enforce the George Bush executive order instructing federal agencies to ignore pork line items in their budgets. Better yet, he could have honored his campaign promise by vetoing the pork-filled omnibus spending bill, let alone refrained from leaping into the discredited statist spending policies that have been the hallmark of his administration thus far. [link]
To put it in terms Democrats might be able to grasp:
It's an insult.

Put In Different Terms

Harvard Professor Greg Mankiw on Obama's effort to make people believe he's not proposing an enraging budget plan of $3,500,000,000,000 for the coming year (see "Obama To Order $100 million in Budget Cuts") :
Just to be clear: $100 million represents .003 percent of $3.5 trillion.

To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had to be cut? By $3 over the course of the year--approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year.
Three bucks.

Obama is certainly changing government as we know it. It's now become a complete laughingstock.

The Great Divide - There's Them & Us

Senator's husband cashes in on crisis