Quote

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

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Hey, Stupid

Man charged in Salem gun show mishap

For the love of God.

Toilets Closed. Riots Ensue.

You conservatives need to think long and hard about cutting government spending. Bad things result.

Really bad things:

Rest area closures hit the region

Oh, the humanity.

We Get Closer To The Truth

Not long ago she was considered "absolutely brilliant."

Today Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen has decided that Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, is "smart" but "lacks intellectual brilliance."

As she becomes better known, she'll soon be "able to put coherent sentences together" but considered "not very smart."

Progress.

Quote of the Day

From Investor's Business Daily:

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates says both our forces and the American people are 'tired' of the Afghan war. What they're really tired of is defeatists put in charge of running wars."

"Tired of Losers," July 20, 2009

I Chuckle

It's so refreshing to read, on rare occasions, the rabidly statist New York Times make arguments in favor of federalism.

I give it a day ...

When Political Correctness ...

... makes fill-in-the-blank headlines.

This one from the New York Times struck me as being a pitiable sign of the times:

New Jersey G.O.P. Candidate Picks Woman as His No. 2

A hint: His running mate is not named "Woman."

Unfortunate, if you ask me.

Kimberly M. Guadagno may be perfectly qualified for the job. In fact, as things stand, she's probably perfectly qualified to be president.

But that doesn't matter.

It's most important that the voters of the state of New Jersey know that she's Woman.

Maybe someday, when we get beyond all this silliness ...

We're Not Alone

If foreign competitors have brought about the collapse of our manufacturing base here in Southwest Virginia, the recession - coupled with that foreign competition - has done the same to the rest of the country.

The following is instructive (even if the New York Times headline is completely misleading):
Obama’s Strategy to Reverse Manufacturing’s Fall
By Louis Uchitelle

If the Obama administration has a strategy for reviving manufacturing, Douglas Bartlett would like to know what it is.

Buffeted by foreign competition, Mr. Bartlett recently closed his printed circuit board factory, founded 57 years ago by his father, and laid off the remaining 87 workers. Last week, he auctioned off the machinery, and soon he will raze the factory itself in Cary, Ill.

“The property taxes are no longer affordable,” Mr. Bartlett said glumly, “so I am going to tear down the building and sit on the land, and hopefully sell it after the recession when land prices hopefully rise.”

Though manufacturing has long been in decline, the loss of factory jobs has been especially brutal of late, with nearly two million disappearing since the recession began in December 2007. Even a few chief executives, heading companies that have shifted plenty of production abroad, are beginning to express alarm.

The United States ranks behind every industrial nation except France in the percentage of overall economic activity devoted to manufacturing — 13.9 percent, the World Bank reports, down 4 percentage points in a decade. The 19-month-old recession has contributed noticeably to this decline. Industrial production has fallen 17.3 percent, the sharpest drop during a recession since the 1930s.

“Bush and Obama,” Mr. Bartlett said scornfully, “one is as bad as the other in terms of manufacturing policy.”

He acknowledged that the recession was the immediate reason for the demise of his family’s business. But what really did it in, he said in an interview, was the competition from less expensive Chinese circuit boards — less expensive, he argued, because the Chinese undervalue their currency and this administration, like the ones before it, lets them get away with it.

“I can compete against Chinese entrepreneurs, and Chinese labor cost is not that big a factor,” he said, “but I cannot compete against the Chinese government’s manufacturing policies.” [link]
At this point, you might ask what exactly Obama's "manufacturing policy" is. It is centered around windmills and solar panels and bullshit like that.

But to the point: "Chinese labor cost is not that big a factor." "I cannot compete against the Chinese government’s manufacturing policies." That's why we have a government that is there to protect us against such foreign aggression.

Or should.

Recession? What Recession?

Things are just peachy here in Virginia.

Well, part of Virginia anyway.

That part closest to the seat of government.

Looking for work?

Uncle Obama Needs You!

Here's a map showing where all the job postings of late are. "The bigger the dot, the more job postings per capita":

Obama is indeed creating jobs. Government jobs. And lots of 'em.

Map courtesy of The Atlantic.

Boo Freaking Hoo

Buyer's remorse is setting in:

How Obama Lost Me

What, is she seeking our sympathy now?

Sorry.

This is the same person of intellect who wrote not too many months ago:

"How did McCain lose me?"

"Lost" (along with derivatives) is the operative word here.

She was lost.
We lost.
She's still lost.

Please. Just go away.

The Bottom Line

You want universal health coverage? Here's what it will do to the federal budget in coming years on the spending side:

Those are projected health care outlays, by the way.

Here's the president, on the record:

"I want to be very clear: I will not sign on to any health plan that adds to our deficits over the next decade. And by helping improve quality and efficiency, the reforms we make will help bring our deficits under control in the long-term." [source]

Well, you can see for yourself "the long-term" above. Federal spending is going to skyrocket.

So. If spending is going to make that steep climb ...

... and the additional spending will be deficit-neutral, as Obama has promised ...

... how's Mr. Magic going to make it all happen?

There is only one possible way.

Go get your wallet. You're about to pay dearly for that which Obama is going to "save" you.

- - -

Another Obama on-the-record pledge:

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

Make it work, magic man.

* It may be argued that Obama could make up the difference by raising tariffs. Can he tax Chinese imports enough to cover the deficit? Would he be that stupid? Stay tuned.
** Chart courtesy of Donald Marron and the Congressional Budget Office.

A Wise Political Strategy

Now that the Republican Party has sent up two particular candidates in recent years* to fill the highest office in the land, the two being "electable," and the two being summarily trounced by Democrat foes who actually stood for something the party base could get excited about**, it might be time for the gurus who made it happen to reflect on that which gets a person elected. As Bob Dole's and John McCain's presidencies have shown, you need something more than electability to get elected. The key word being SOMETHING.

As in STAND FOR SOMETHING.

I've mentioned here before the fact that I - a conservative in good standing - was so put off by the Dole candidacy (why did he run?) that I decided to not vote that particular slot that year. I skipped it all together and moved on to other races.

And you may remember early on last year that I adopted the slogan here on the weblog, "I'd rather open a vein than vote for McCain," because he was the least Republican of all the Republicans who were running for the presidency. But he was the most "electable." Of course, that was just before it was determined that he wasn't.

So, why bring this up now? Sour grapes?

Perhaps.

But there's more.

In order to win, you must get your people to want to go to the polls. If there is no driving force behind one's candidacy (on the GOP side anyway), your candidate is going to lose.

We're now finding - surprise, surprise - that election day 2008, just like election day 1992, was a big put-off for conservatives:
2008 voting rate down as older whites stayed home
By Hope Yen, Associated Press Writer

Washington (AP) - For all the attention generated by last year's presidential race, census figures show the share of eligible voters who actually went to the polls in November declined from 2004.

Census figures released Monday show about 63.6 percent of eligible voters, or 131.1 million people, cast ballots last November. Although that represented an increase of 5 million voters, the turnout was a decrease when taking into account population growth. In 2004, the voting rate was 63.8 percent.

According to the data, more older whites opted to stay home compared with 2004, citing little interest in supporting either Barack Obama or John McCain. [link]
I wasn't one of those who stayed home, but I could have been had there been something exciting happening that day on "The Young and the Restless." There wasn't, so I voted. And then I moved on.

I'm trying to look ahead to 2012 and figure out who it is that the GOP might foist upon us as being the most "electable" but least electable candidate available. Schwarzenegger maybe. Colin Powell. Lieberman!

If they go down that road again, they'll most certainly go down that road again.

And the most conservative candidate out there today? The only one (besides Huckabee, perhaps) who could bring passionate conservatism to the race? The only one who puts fire in the belly? The only one who has a following - legions - that are willing to die for her? She doesn't stand a chance.

She's not "electable."

* Three if we count Bush the Elder, who didn't stand for anything except "Read my Lips," was considered "electable," but managed to win.
* * This isn't to say that either Clinton or Obama meant what they said they stood for. They didn't. But it sounded good and the party faithful ate it up.
*** I don't think I need to take the time to make the argument that "older whites" are the most conservative voting bloc out there, do I?

This Wasn't Supposed To Happen

The thrill is gone. Well, going:
Poll: Less faith in Obama's economic abilities
By Susan Page, USA TODAY

Washington — Qualms about President Obama's stewardship of the economy are growing, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, as Americans become more pessimistic about when they predict the recession will end.

At six months in office, Obama's 55% approval rating puts him 10th among the 12 post-World War II presidents at this point in their tenures.

The findings forecast the rough patch that probably is ahead for Obama if unemployment continues to increase, as the administration predicts. [link]
In response to his plummeting approval numbers, Mr. Wonderful has scheduled another press conference in which he'll try to work some of that hopey changey stuff on us again.

It doesn't seem to be working though.

Maybe Obama should try something else. Like giving up on the socialism thing.

What a Crock

Just days after we learn that recent global temperatures have been normal, and after it was announced that the planet hasn't warmed even a fraction of one degree this century, we get some crackpot releasing a "study" that is preposterous on its face:
Fish are shrinking in response to global warming: study
Breitbart

Fish have lost half their average body mass and smaller species are making up a larger proportion of European fish stocks as a result of global warming, a study published Monday has found.

"It's huge," said study author Martin Daufresne of the Cemagref Public Agricultural and Environmental Research Institute in Lyon, France.

"Size is a fundamental characteristic that is linked to a number of biological functions, such as fecundity - the capacity to reproduce."

Earlier research has already established that fish have shifted their geographic ranges and their migratory and breeding patters in response to rising water temperatures. It has also been established that warmer regions tend to be inhabited by smaller fish. [link]

How much would the water temperature have to rise in order for a fish's fecundity to be affected? 10 degree? 15? The best guess anyone has offered to date is that the planet's atmospheric temperature has gone up a whopping 0.6° C. A change that would not even be noticeable.

And temperatures haven't risen at all since 1998.

But why let facts get in the way of emotion?

Weeeee'rrrrree allll gooinng ttoooo diiiieeeee!!!!!

You may quote me in future studies.

Make Of This What You Will

I received an email response to my blog post of yesterday regarding Alveda C. King's article in the Washington Times having to do with abortion as a form of genocide. A reader writes:
Back in 1984, when I lived in San Diego, I attended a dinner at my (now former) wife's request. We were seated with the Director of Planned Parenthood for California.

I told the woman that I thought that murdering babies was unconstitutional, since it violates the equal protection clause, along with ignoring the rights of fathers. Her response was that Republicans always want it both ways. We do not want to pay for social programs that take care of the millions of unwanted babies born each year, the millions of drug babies born each year and the millions of illegal alien babies that are born and dumped here each year, yet we oppose their (Planned Parenthood's) efforts to kill-off the source of these future burdens on society.

While I was still trying to digest her response, she added the kicker, "Besides, THOSE people multiply like rabbits!" (Note: In California, "Those people" are Latino, but back East, "Those people" are Negro).

Up until that day, I had never considered that there was a racial component to the abortion issue.

In the years since that time, I have managed to see the issue as a, pay now or pay later proposition. One never hears from our conservative, pro-life citizens how they would pay for the millions of people added to our current population. Some insist, as I used to do, that we might be exterminating our next Einstein, along with those crack babies, but statistically that is a long shot.

So this leaves us with the proposition of offering the poor, the drug addicted, the illegals, free abortions, or we must pay for their offspring via the welfare rolls, most likely for the rest of their lives.

This is a gruesome choice and Americans must come up with a a better solution. Those of us who are, or who once were, on the pro-life side of this issue, need to offer a more comprehensive response that includes how society would deal with sixty to one hundred million additional, mostly drug addicted or unproductive, people added to our current three hundred million citizens.

Perhaps blogs such as yours could convey creative alternatives (if you find any) to abortion that will achieve the necessary reduction in welfare recipients, without murdering babies.
* The name of the person who emailed me is being withheld.