Quote

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

Monday, August 03, 2009

Obama's Visit a Success

He won over a local resident when he came to Bristol (for a few minutes) last week:

Bristol visit changes resident’s opinion of president

"Resident's." Singular. As in one.

The remainder of the 353,732 of you here in Southwest Virginia stood unconvinced and saw through his hopey changey blather.

I love you guys.

Two Perspectives ...

... on race in America.

Liberal Sally Quinn, in "The Scary, Honest Truth About Race," Washington Post:
Bob Herbert is dead right that "black people are constantly being stopped, searched, harassed, publicly humiliated, assaulted, arrested and sometimes killed by police officers in this country for no good reason." Nobody would question that. No one would deny the appalling discrepancies in the numbers of incarcerated blacks and incarcerated whites. This story is so disturbing to me precisely because I think it mitigates the outrage that blacks must face in this country every day.
Me: The scary, honest truth about race is that your skin pigmentation may be a bit darker than mine. Nothing more.

To liberals like Sally Quinn, it's my attitude that's truly scariest of all.

Reading Between The Lines

Let me translate this (from the slobberingly liberal Washington Post) for you:

Democrats Find Rallying Points on Health Reform, but Splinters Remain

Democrats, here are your talking points when you go out and try to hoodwink your constituents during the summer recess. Memorize them. Deploy them. And get back to us for further instructions when you return.

This Does Not Bode Well

When George Bush was knee-deep in the war in Iraq, every Democrat in Washington was saying we needed to abandon the fight there and concentrate on the more important conflict that raged in Afghanistan. But they never really articulated a good reason why.

Now they're in charge, and the war has been redirected, and a lot of Americans are finally asking:

Why?
Vietnam-stan
More Troops Aren't the Answer
By Ralph Peters, writing in the New York Post

OUR troops in Afghanistan are performing heroically, doing everything we ask of them. But we shouldn't ask them to die without a purpose.

We're floundering in Afghanistan -- confusing techniques with strategy. Not one senior official, political or military, has explained convincingly why we're still there.

Only a few months ago, our "strategy" became the pacification of villages, providing security to the inhabitants and extending the writ of the government in Kabul.

But Afghans see their government as an enemy -- a cabal of thieves grabbing all they can. We're fighting for an Afghan government that won't fight for itself or sacrifice to help its own people.

Our own officers don't trust the Kabul government. Why should Afghans believe us when we promote it? They know what they'll face -- from both sides -- when we leave.

Now RUMINT ("rumor intelligence," the military term for insider scuttlebutt) has it that the new strategy isn't working and, instead of occupying rural hamlets, we'll shift to a newer new strategy of protecting major population centers. [link]
Truth is, the Democrats never had any real interest in Afghanistan, despite what they said during the last election. They don't want us there. They never had. They don't care about terrorists unless they're in commerial airliners heading toward New York City.

So Afghanistan is, to Obama and his ilk, a nuisance. A distraction. A campaign promise that requires their half-hearted attention. A pain in the ass.

And we send our best and brightest young people there to ... do what then? Win? Win what?

George H.W. Bush famously said, "There'll be no more Vietnams." Someone needs to tell that to our commander-in-chief. What we learned from that experience (Obama was doing cocaine at the time so he might be forgiven for having missed the lesson) is this:

Win. Or get the hell out. There is no in-between.

How About We Quit Weighing ...

... and DO SOMETHING BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE:

U.S. Weighs Iran Oil Sanctions if Nuclear Talks Are Rejected

Haven't we talked enough? Haven't we weighed enough?

Of Course It Does

Episcopal Church Picks Gay Priests for Promotion

Well, Emails & Letters Don't Work

It's somehow sad that it's come to this. In a perfect America, constituents should be able to air their grievances and exchange ideas with their representative in Washington. But there is a growing understanding that U.S. representatives these days represent Washington and not those constituents and that congresspersons vote accordingly, no matter what the folks back home think.

So getting in their faces when they make that rare appearance back in the little-people country is all that's available to them.

Just ask this Democrat from Texas Washington:



Say what you will about the unseemly nature of the encounter, I guarantee you Lloyd Doggett got the message. People are mad as hell these days.

As Sure As The Sun Rises

You knew all along this is where he was headed.

Obama when he wanted your vote:



"I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of increase."

Well, he was only joking. Now he sends out messengers with the bad news:
2 Obama officials: No guarantee taxes won't go up
By Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer

Washington (AP) -- President Barack Obama's treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers both sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to lower the federal deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere. [link]
It's just a matter of time.

How many of you believed him when he made that no-new-taxes pledge?

How many of you feel like suckers now?

Why Are Constituents Mad As Hell?

Why do they chase down their elected representatives when the opportunity arises and make them flee the scene?

Because those constituents can't chase down the man they'd really like to get ahold of and make him flee the scene:
How Does a Leftist Govern America?
By Jennifer Rubin, Pajamas Media

Among the many poll figures to rock the Obama team in the last week or so, none may be as telling or as significant as this from Rasmussen:

"Seventy-six percent (76%) of U.S. voters now think President Obama is at least somewhat liberal. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is very liberal, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. This marks the highest finding to date on the question and is a five-point increase in the number who say the president is very liberal from a month ago. … Seventeen percent (17%) of voters say the president is moderate, while only six percent (6%) believe he is conservative."

This was not the image that enabled Obama to win the presidency. Last year he beat John McCain by somehow convincing the public that he was the moderate, the fiscally prudent one, and the voice of “pragmatism” — that catchphrase meant to assure voters the candidate is not an ideologically crazed extremist.

And that is the fundamental problem which Obama now faces. Just as he possessed the most liberal voting record in the Senate (populated by some awfully liberal senators), he has chosen to govern farther to the left than any president since LBJ. So it is not surprising that the public is reeling and registering their disapproval in poll after poll. [link]
You were warned, by the way. None of this should come as a surprise.

Not that that eases the pain and anger.