Quote

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

Sunday, June 21, 2009

On Fathers Day

Passing the torch.

Grandfather. Father. Son.

Baseball.

As it should be.

Just Asking

This is a small point. But does this sentence in this morning's Roanoke Times, about that "Aha! moment," the "moment of clarity that people experience and act upon," make sense to you?

"A team from Mutual of Omaha is on a mission to collect stories about the moment the light bulb goes off -- the moment that makes you exclaim, 'Aha!'"

When you exclaim, "Aha!," doesn't the light bulb come on rather than go off? Isn't it when two lovers part ways that the light bulb - or the flame - goes out?

Just asking.

Like Frightened Children

A Roanoke Times columnist is afraid. Afraid of what might happen if bar patrons are packin' iron while they sip their suds.

Like they haven't been for years.

Without incident.

See "Get ready for guns in bars" if you want to know what frightened little children some adults can look like. It's not pretty.

My favorite line:
So next year, with burning cigarettes banned from most restaurants, perhaps the most likely kind of bar smoke we'll see is smoldering wisps that emerge from hot pistol barrels after some permit-holding, gun-hiding patrons get into a face-off.

That is insanity, Virginia.

There's some insanity at work here, to be sure.

So you know, "insanity" has swept through a total of 36 states, states in which patrons are allowed to carry guns into bars every day of every week of every month, wreaking havoc, disgorging carnage, spilling blood, bringing death and ...

Oh.

Wait.

Those 36 states have experienced no significant problems since guns have been allowed in bars.

But Virginia will be different. You can count on that.

Some wiener hiding under his desk at the Roanoke Times says so.

For the love of God.

This Could Have Been Virginia ...

... had Tim Kaine and the Democrats in Richmond not been stopped in their tracks by Morgan Griffith and the Republicans:
The Oregon Travail
Wall Street Journal editorial

The Labor Department reported yesterday that Oregon's unemployment rate soared to 12.4% in May, the nation's second highest after Michigan's 14.1%. What to do? If you're the geniuses in the state legislature in Salem, you naturally raise taxes.

Last week the legislature approved a $2 billion tax hike on personal income and small businesses that haven't already left the state. The highest tax rate on income above $500,000 would climb to 11% -- up from an already high 9%. Oregon will soon boast the second highest income tax rate in the nation, moving ahead of California (10.55%), and only slightly behind New York City (12.6%). Corporations will pay a 7.9% tax on gross receipts, up from 6.6%.

In Oregon, as in so many states this year, lawmakers had to choose between reducing the growth of spending and raising taxes. No contest. So government spending will climb by about $2 billion, or almost 4%, which is on top of a 21% increase in the 2007-08 biennium budget. [link]
In Oregon, the government wins. And the people lose.

Thank God we had saner heads prevail in Richmond in 2009.

But 2010?

Obama's Stimulus Plan Is Working

Actually, Biden has admitted that their effort has been a miserable failure. I wonder when The Magic Man will do the same.

Obama in February:

"I believe that legislation of this enormous magnitude, that by necessity we are moving quickly -- we're not moving quickly because we're trying to jamb [sic] something down people's throats. We're moving quickly because we're told that if we don't move quickly, that the economy is going keep on getting worse, and we'll have another 2 or 3 or 4 million jobs loss this year."

He "jambed" it down our throats anyway.

The economy keeps on getting worse.

We are on target to have another 2 or 3 or 4 million more job losses this year.

The latest:
Unemployment Rate Rises in 48 States
By Justin LaHart and Erica Alini, Wall Street Journal

The unemployment rate rose in all but two states last month, and in eight states it reached the highest level in the 34 years on record.

In 16 states and the District of Columbia, the unemployment rate topped the nation's 9.4%; it was lower in 33 states. The two states with the lowest unemployment rates were North Dakota and Nebraska, whose farm economies have been shielded from job losses.

The national jobless rate has hit a quarter-century high of 9.4%. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and other economists predict the U.S. unemployment rate will keep rising even if the recession ends later this year, since companies won't want to ramp up hiring until they feel certain their own sales and profits are on the rebound and any economic recovery will have staying power. [link]
The question needs to be asked again: What exactly did Obama's stimulus stimulate, besides the mushy brains of his blind, deaf, and stupid followers?

Which prompts another question: Is Obama poised to do for health care and our climate what he's done for the economy?

Finally: Can America withstand the results if he makes the attempt?

The Truth About The Uninsured

George Will has some numbers on those who don't have health insurance:
Almost 39 percent of the uninsured are in five states -- Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, all of which are entry points for immigrants. About 21 percent -- 9.7 million -- of the uninsured are not citizens. As many as 14 million are eligible for existing government programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, veterans' benefits, etc. -- but have not enrolled. And 9.1 million have household incomes of at least $75,000 and could purchase insurance. Those last two cohorts are more than half of the 45.7 million.
Of the remaining 20 million, how many are young, single, healthy males who would be foolish to be paying for insurance since chances are extremely remote that they would ever take advantage of it, and who, because of that, have chosen to opt out?

In the end, we're left with a very small number.

Small enough, George Will suggests, that we simply modify the food stamp program and allow those poor people who qualify to use their debit card to purchase health coverage.

But then that wouldn't pay homage to the Democrats' golden calf - universal coverage. So Obama works to spend trillions instead.

It's sheer madness. And he knows it.

Ouch

Okay, this is hitting below the belt.

You don't ever bring that up.

I like it.

Click on the image to enlarge it.

How Low Can They Go?

I must confess: I haven't watched ABC News - in its various daily iterations - in many years. A conscious decision on my part having to do with the fact that, in my estimation, the network behind it was rabidly anti-conservative and proud of it.

Fine.

As former ABC News anchor Sam Donaldson once said, "If you don't like it, switch channels."

So I did.

Years ago.

But if ABC was a tool of the liberal movement in the early eighties, to the point that people like me chose to boycott its work until it found its objective foundation, what does one make of its current efforts?
ABC Self-Nationalizes For Obama
Investor's Business Daily editorial

As much of the U.S. private sector, including health care providers, resists government takeovers, what a sorry sight to see ABC News leap forward to make itself a propaganda arm of the government.

But that's the story as ABC crosses the line from journalism to advocacy in turning its coverage of health care over to the White House.

This Wednesday, on every show from "Good Morning America" (kicking things off with an interview with the president) to "World News Tonight" (broadcast from the Blue Room) to a prime-time special called "Prescription for America" (and emanating from the East Room), the network will puff the Obama administration's trillion-dollar plan to nationalize U.S. health care.

The all-day, White House-based coverage itself amounts to a nationalization — this one of a major media outlet in support of an administration that will return the favor for access at the cost of objectivity and the public's right to know.

Don't think it isn't. This isn't your grandfather's propaganda. Forget public service announcements. Just as some newspaper ads trick themselves up to look like news stories to enhance their credibility, making a partisan program indistinguishable from the nightly "news" is a propaganda tool in the same vein. [link]
"Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play."
-- Joseph Goebbels

Blue Dog Democrat - A Definition

Blue Dog Democrat: He who professes to be fiscally conservative, vote in favor of monstrously expensive and wasteful legislation, but feels bad about it.

For the love of God.

If The Democrats Get Their Way ...

... your Constitutional rights can be suspended if some bureaucrat in Washington puts your name on a terrorist watch list, whether intentionally or by mistake.

That's what rabidly anti-gun (and anti-Constitution) Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) is working toward anyway.

The outrage in "On Terrorist Watch List, but Allowed to Buy Guns":
... [P]eople placed on the government’s terrorist watch list can be stopped from getting on a plane or getting a visa, but they cannot be stopped from buying a gun.

Gun purchases must be approved unless federal officials can find some other disqualification of the would-be buyer, like being a felon, an illegal immigrant or a drug addict.

“This is a glaring omission, and it’s a security issue,” Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat who requested the study, said in an interview.

Mr. Lautenberg plans to introduce legislation on Monday that would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists. [link] [my emphasis]
Will he also call for those on that list to have their right to counsel blocked? Their protections against illegal searches and seizures? Will he ask that a person's right to due process be suspended? How about the right to a speedy and public trial? Should those accused of being terrorists - without judgment having been passed - be tried and judged behind locked doors? Will he require that the Bill of Rights be considered null and void if a person's name thus appears?

Who does Frank Lautenberg think he is? King? Obama?

In truth he's no different from the rest of us. Just more wrinkled and more senile.

And far too out of touch with those who cherish the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

May he and his kind be stopped before they do irreparable harm.

Now, That's Better

I wonder if those who were arguing that Obama's passive bystander approach to the Iran upheaval was the right approach will now argue that his more aggressive stance is wrong.

Any bets?

As far as I'm concerned, he's listened to all his critics and done the right thing, finally:
Obama calls on Iran to 'stop all violent and unjust actions'
By Ben Smith, Politico

Obama directly addresses the Iranian government for the first time after a day of violence in Iran:

"The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

"... right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness. [link]
It would have been more effective had Obama denounced the current regime and sided with the people who are demanding that their democratic voices be heard. But at least he's gotten off the fence.

Now, take the next step, Barack. If you're intention is to influence history, you have to influence history.

Climate Change?

The fact that proponents calculatingly shifted the emphasis from "global warming" to something totally innocuous - "climate change" (?) - provides evidence enough that the environmental movement is nothing but a fraud. But it now goes well beyond that:
U.S. Government's Climate Con-job
By Paul Driessen, TownHall

Rising sea levels, floods in lower Manhattan, California beaches permanently submerged. Ferocious hurricanes, floods and droughts. Food shortages, epidemic diseases, a quadrupling of heat-wave deaths in Chicago. Aged sewer systems convulsing from massive storm runoff. Wildflowers disappearing from Rocky Mountain slopes and polar bears from the Arctic. Leisure time gone as people struggle to survive.

“Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” is the “most up-to-date, authoritative, comprehensive” analysis ever done on how human-caused warming affects the United States, deadpans Obama “science advisor” John Holdren.

Actually, it’s the most flagrant attempted con-job and propaganda campaign in US history.

If it helps Congress enact cap-and-tax legislation, it will give activists, courts and bureaucrats control over virtually every aspect of our lives. It will enable them to confiscate hard-earned dollars, convert them to payoffs for activists and companies that get on the climate-crisis bandwagon, consign uncooperative companies and scientists to the ash heap of history, and conceal the exorbitant costs of restrictive energy policies – on families, industries, jobs and transportation – until long after the bill becomes law.

The bogus “report” conflates and confuses human activities and emissions with the powerful natural forces that have caused major and minor climate changes and weather anomalies since the dawn of time – from the Carboniferous Period to the Age of Dinosaurs, from the Big Ice Ages and interglacial periods to the Little Ice Age, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, Dust Bowl and countless others. It relies on conjecture, conformist thinking and conspicuous elimination of contrary, skeptical, realist scientists and studies that do not support climate cataclysm conjecture and ideology.

The authors “largely ignored” critical comments to earlier drafts and made the final version “even more alarmist” than infamous UN “summaries” of global warming “crises,” says Joseph D’Aleo, first director of meteorology at the Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Weather Analysis and Forecasting Committee. The report is simply “wrong on many of its claims” and marks “an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA,” D’Aleo concludes. [link]
Should our government be in the business of propagandizing such a critical issue?

If lies and deceit are necessary to sustain the climate alarmists' argument, do they have an argument?