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

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Goodlatte To Hold Town Hall Meeting

Bob Goodlatte wants to get together:
Goodlatte announces health care sessions
By Mason Adams, Roanoke Times

U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte announced Wednesday that he will hold a town hall meeting in the Roanoke Valley for constituents to discuss health care reform and other issues.

The meeting, to be held Sept. 3 at Roanoke County's Hidden Valley High School starting at 7 p.m., comes on the heels of "tele-town halls" -- done by phone -- that he's conducting this week. In addition to Roanoke, Goodlatte will also hold town halls in the Shenandoah Valley and the Lynchburg area. [link]
Goodlatte is one of us, so be nice.

It's all those damn Democrats we need to drive into exile.

Quote of the Day

From Investor's Business Daily:

"With opposition growing to their planned takeover of U.S. health care, Democrats have an idea: They'll go it alone without GOP votes. Looks like they'll have to go it alone without the American people, too."

"The Voters' Option," August 19, 2009

Keep An Eye On This One

The least intelligent member of Congress may get a challenger when she comes up for reelection. America can only benefit from the effort:

Fiorina Moves Toward Senate Bid

We wish Fiorina all the best. Our future depends on her.

The Narrative Springs Another Leak

The facts slowly work their way into the mainstream press:
Drop in world temperatures fuels global warming debate
By Robert S. Boyd, McClatchy Newspapers

Washington — Has Earth's fever broken?

Official government measurements show that the world's temperature has cooled a bit since reaching its most recent peak in 1998.

That's given global warming skeptics new ammunition to attack the prevailing theory of climate change. The skeptics argue that the current stretch of slightly cooler temperatures means that costly measures to limit carbon dioxide emissions are ill-founded and unnecessary.

Many scientists agree, however, that hotter times are ahead. A decade of level or slightly lower temperatures is only a temporary dip to be expected as a result of natural, short-term variations in the enormously complex climate system, they say.

"The preponderance of evidence is that global warming will resume," Nicholas Bond, a meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, said in an e-mail. [link]
What these "many scientists" are relying on, however, isn't evidence at all, but grossly unreliable computer models. (Okay, they also rely on Al Gore).

The evidence, fellas, is this:

The Earth warmed for a period of time. It has been cooling for a period of time. This cyclical warming/cooling phenomenon has been occurring for millenia, according to the empirical data collected by actual scientists over the years.

From that evidence reasoned deductions can be made. "Model" those deductions all you want. The facts are still incontrovertible.

A Report Card

This from gunzip is very creative. And ever so devastating:


"When I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely..."
-- Barack Obama, 9/26/2008

"What I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut... I want to go through the federal budget line by line..."
-- Barack Obama, 10/15/2008

Frightening, isn't it?

What grade do we give Obama at this juncture?

We Get Closer To the Truth

Scientific evidence has proven them wrong.

Now we find out that "wrong" was charitable:

Lies Revealed — Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration
By Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney‏, Breitbart

The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.” Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming.

Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.

“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” hesaid,

Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.

The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism.”

Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.

Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization’s practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion. [link]

Emotionalizing issues is one thing (I do it all the time). But making up facts is another. That puts you in a category with Baghdad Bob.

A fitting pair if there ever was one.

Why You Never Trust These People

Unreal: MSNBC edits clip of man with gun at Obama rally to support racism narrative

And So We Bid a Fond Farewell ...

... to hope and change and a new beginning and ...

Who could have predicted this?

Graph courtesy of Gallup, Inc.

Let Me Explain It, Junior


It's a moral imperative when your dictate of conscience calls you to do good with your money. Not with everyone else's:

Obama Calls Health Plan a ‘Moral Obligation’

Meanwhile, you amass your riches.

I'll believe you are operating under a "moral obligation" when you write that fat, juicy check.

Well, That Didn't Take Long

Speaking of moral obligations, remember not long ago when Democrats around the country were argunig that we needed to retreat from Iraq because we had a moral obligation to fight the real terrorists in Afghanistan, the country that was harboring the killers of 9/11?

That was then:

Public Opinion in U.S. Turns Against the War
By Jennifer Agiesta and Jon Cohen, Washington Post Staff Writers

A majority of Americans now see the war in Afghanistan as not worth
fighting, and just a quarter say more U.S. troops should be sent to the country,
according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Overall, seven in 10 Democrats say the war has not been worth its costs,
and fewer than one in five support an increase in troop levels. [link]

In a Gallup poll just a year ago, when asked if the United States made a mistake in sending military forces to Afghanistan, 55% of those same Democrats answered NO.

Now they want our troops out.

Is it any wonder that they are seen as being intellectually vacuous?

This Can't Sustain Itself

Well, at least Obama has stimulated something:

Government Jobs Have Grown Since Recession
By Michael Cooper, New York Times

While the private sector has shed 6.9 million jobs since the beginning of
the recession, state and local governments have expanded their payrolls and
added 110,000 jobs, according to a report to be issued Thursday by the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. [link]

Will the tax revenue collected from these government workers pay for their government jobs?

We Are Not Alone

Nat Hentoff, champion of American civil liberties (and a columnist whom I've always admired), on ObamaCare:
I am finally scared of a White House administration
Jewish World Review

I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover's FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. But now I am finally scared of a White House administration. President Obama's desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) — as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill — decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It's already in the stimulus bill signed into law.

The members of that ultimate federal board will themselves not have examined or seen the patient in question. For another example of the growing, tumultuous resistance to "Dr. Obama," particularly among seniors, there is a July 29 Washington Times editorial citing a line from a report written by a key adviser to Obama on cost-efficient health care, prominent bioethicist Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel).

Emanuel writes about rationing health care for older Americans that "allocation (of medical care) by age is not invidious discrimination." (The Lancet, January 2009) He calls this form of rationing — which is fundamental to Obamacare goals — "the complete lives system." You see, at 65 or older, you've had more life years than a 25-year-old. As such, the latter can be more deserving of cost-efficient health care than older folks.

This end-of-life consultation has been stripped from the Senate Finance Committee bill because of democracy-in-action town-hall outcries but remains in three House bills.

I wonder whether Obama would be so willing to promote such health care initiatives if, say, it were 60 years from now, when his children will — as some of the current bills seem to imply — have lived their fill of life years, and the health care resources will then be going to the younger Americans? [link]
I don't think Obama's children have anything to fear. The Washington aristocracy and its offspring will be allowed to exempt themselves from ObamaCare, no doubt. While the rest of us are forced to live - and die - with it.

My God.

Hat tip to Salt Lick.