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

Sunday, November 08, 2009

Here's To Our Congressmen

Well, except for you poor schmucks over in the 5th Congressional District, who will have to put up with Tom Perriello for several more months.

Democrat Tom Perriello voted in favor of ObamaCare last night, in the middle of the night, while you slept.

Don't forget it come election day, 2010.

More on that worm later.

- - -

Let me report with mixed feelings of both delight and of foreboding the facts(s) that ObamaCare passed the House at 11:16 last night, and that both 9th District Congressman Rick Boucher and 6th District Congressman Bob Goodlatte voted NO.

Here's the Roll Call vote.

Goodlatte's vote was expected.  And greatly appreciated.  You folks in Roanoke might react kindly come November.

As for Boucher, what can one say?

He held to his word.

In August, at a town hall meeting in Dublin, he had gone on record as being opposed to the legislation that was working its way through the House, for a couple of important reasons.

He voted in opposition last night for the same.

Here's from a press release yesterday:
On the Affordable Health Care for America Act

Boucher Statement on Health Care Reform Legislation (November 7, 2009)

But reform legislation must ensure that Southwest Virginia residents continue to have access to the high quality health care services now delivered locally.

I intend to oppose the health care reform legislation recently debated by the U.S. House of Representatives for several reasons including the continued existence of disparities in Medicare reimbursements between urban and rural areas under the House bill. Rural areas have traditionally received less under Medicare than urban areas, and while the bill makes some improvements in this regard, I would like to see more done to increase the payments to rural health care providers. Higher Medicare reimbursements would enable the attraction of more doctors to serve our medically underserved region.

I also intend to oppose the bill because of my concern that a government operated health insurance plan could place at risk the survival of our region's hospitals. Most of our hospitals are operated on a non-profit basis for the benefit of the community. While most of their receipts are from Medicare and Medicaid payments, they lose money on each Medicare or Medicaid patient they treat. These programs reimburse hospitals at rates below the actual cost of providing patient care.

The financial viability of our hospitals comes from the payments they receive from privately insured patients. A government operated health insurance plan competing with private insurance will attract patients who are privately insured today, with the result that the hospitals would treat less privately insured patients and lose the critical revenues that are essential to their survival.

A government operated plan would reimburse health care providers at rates approximating Medicare rates, and hospitals would lose money on each of their patients insured under the government plan.

I am concerned that for these reasons the creation of a government operated insurance plan as envisioned in the House bill could result in the closure of hospitals in our region. Families depend on our community hospitals for health care services, and financially healthy hospitals are essential to the health of Southwest Virginians.

Many of our hospitals are financially stressed in normal times, and two hospitals in the district I represent closed for periods of time in recent years for financial reasons. The government owned insurance plan as outlined in the House bill could push many more over the edge. I cannot support legislation that could lead to that result.

I also believe that bipartisan participation is needed on a measure of this scope which affects every American. The best ideas of Democrats and Republicans alike should be drawn upon to fashion the final legislation. That did not happen as the House bill was constructed.

In July, I opposed the health care reform measure when it was considered by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and expressed my concerns at that time. The bill passed by the House did not address those concerns. [link]
He might have also mentioned the fact that he knows he's in deep shit with his constituents right now over the Coal Industry Decimation Act.  But let's not go there.  Today.

For now, let's be appreciative of the fact that Rick Boucher and Bob Goodlatte stood up against the socialist onslaught that is engulfing the nation.  Theirs may have been a lost cause, but their efforts are recognized and appreciated.

- - -

By the way, the vote in favor of destroying America's health care system received one Republican vote - from some nitwit down in New Orleans.

There's always one in the crowd ...

- - -

Socialism aside (did I just write that?), the CBO pegs the cost of this monster between $2.4 trillion and $3 trillion.  Trillions of dollars we don't have.

But who's counting any more?


I don't remember reading this header to a Roanoke Times editorial back when Tim Kaine was elected governor:

Something must have been different about Tuesday's election result.

Hmmm. What could it have been?

Good News

The condition of that Muslim who killed all those innocent people at Ft. Hood on Thursday has improved.

Assemble the firing squad and prop his fat ass against the wall.

We'll have plenty of time to decide whether his shouting "Allahuh Akbar!" while he was executing those thirteen men and women had anything to do with his motive.  After he's been sent to frolic with his seventy-two virgins.

Sorry, Lady ...

... but we conservatives have learned our lesson.  We'll not be bringing up social issues ever again.

You, who thinks we should get into the gay rights thing again, should take your liberal friends' advice and do the same.

We are, as instructed, going to be more pragmatic.

Jobs.  Education.  Health care.

That was your admonition, right?

Gun Control Bureaucracy Doomed?

It's worth noting, in passing, that while America races toward government control of all aspects of our lives, the Canadians, having toyed with the same notion, now flee for their lives:
Gun registry rejected
Langley Times editorial

The first step in getting rid of the boondoggle known as the long gun registry was taken in the [Canadian] House of Commons on Wednesday.

MPs voted to scrap the requirement to register individual rifles and shotguns — a registry that has consumed more than $1 billion, been condemned for its wasteful and reckless spending by the Auditor-General, and pitted urban residents against those who actually use guns as tools for hunting, sport shooting and predator control.

What was equally interesting is that Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has recognized, at long last, that the registry has been deeply offensive to legitimate gun owners. This is a complete about-face from the party that brought in this registry against heated and ongoing opposition. [link]
Canada is, ever so slowly, inching back toward freedom for its citizenry.   As America plummets into the morass of centralized government control.

Give it a few years and we here in the USA will be ruing the day we started down the path that Canadians took two decades ago; the path that led into the abyss out of which our neighbors to the north are now desperately attempting to crawl.

May God bless Canada.

May God help the USA.

Moving the Goalposts

Can they be considered experts if they keep changing their expert predictions?

This (in "What recovery? Unemployment shoots past 10 percent") does not give one warm-n-fuzzies:
Just when it was beginning to look a little better, the economy relapsed Friday with a return to double-digit unemployment for only the second time since World War II and warnings that next year will be even worse than previously thought.

 Economists had not expected the 10 percent mark to come so quickly and immediately darkened their forecasts. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, and Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at MFR Inc., predicted the rate will peak at 11 percent by mid-2010. They earlier had projected 10.5 percent.
"Economists had not expected ..."  Now I remember why I fled in complete bafflement from Economics 101 class in college.  I couldn't tell if I was really in a class on astrology.

Anyway, Obama's experts predicted unemployment would peak at 8%.

It's now at 10.2% and climbing.

"Experts" then predicted that unemployment would peak at 10.5%.

Now that it has hit 10.2% "so quickly," they've adjusted their estimates to 11%.

Until further notice.

For the love of God.

A President Detached From His People

Much is still being made of that brief remark made by President Obama when he learned of the massacre that had taken place on the Ft. Hood Army base on Thursday.  The one in which he expressed condolences right after giving a shout-out to someone nobody's ever heard of and after making a pledge to those in attendance that Indian affairs "were a top priority for us."  An address in which caring Americans might have thought the horrific loss of life might have been a top priority at that moment in time.

But no.  It was tucked in between the politicking and the politicking.

As I mentioned the other day, it seemed, when I listened to his mention of the Ft. Hood tragedy, that his was some obligatory reading of the news.  A totally detached reading.

From a president who seems clearly detached from the people he is sworn to protect and defend.

On that, I'm not alone in that opinion.

Jennifer Rubin (in "Something Is Missing"):
Marc Ambinder, ever the willing recipient of White House spin, ponders, “Is Barack Obama’s cool style of governing fundamentally incompatible with the furnace of modern politics?” This is a variation on the “We are not worthy” sort of punditry, which looks to put blame on the mere mortals who don’t quite get the wonderfulness of the president.

But let’s be blunt, the affected “cool” of the president is getting rather creepy as a style of governance. (Mickey Kaus cops to discovering much the same phenomenon.) This was on display in an unfortunate and highly visible way this week. As Linda and others have pointed out, the president’s bizarrely inappropriate remarks after learning of the Foot Hood massacre left one puzzled, if not downright troubled. He not only didn’t seem to grasp the gravity of the situation; he didn’t seem emotionally connected to the appalling events.

In this regard he is quite different from George W. Bush, who, for all the criticism of his verbal abilities, delivered some of the most moving oratory (on the rubble heap in New York City, at the National Cathedral on November 14, etc.) in recent memory and never failed to impart a sense of his own emotional presence. Tears were often just beneath the surface, and sometimes not even concealed from view. It was not done for affect, nor as a ploy for sympathy. It was simply who he was, and the country could sense his innate decency and his tender affection for his fellow countrymen.

Yes, we expect our leaders, at a bare minimum, to reflect and exemplify values and traits that we would seek in friends — loyalty, kindness, and righteous indignation.
Righteous indignation.  Can you see Obama ever exhibiting righteous indignation when it comes to any tragedy that might befall the United States of America?  Neither can I.

There are times when blather about hope and change just don't cut it.  Too bad we're just now realizing that.

- - -

For a revealing example of what righteous indignation is all about, see "President Bush Speaks at Ground Zero - 9/14/01."

Compare and contrast that with "Fort Hood Tragedy -- Barack Obama Gives Odd "Shout-Out" Before He Comments on Massacre."

The contrast is startling.  Sadly so.

Please. No More Stimulus.

It's bankrupting the country, sending the dollar into the toilet, and building inflation pressures the likes of which we haven't seen in decades.

Oh, and it failed to achieve that which Dear Leader promised:

At what point does our child president admit that his jobs stimulus failed to stimulate the jobs market?

Click on the image to enlarge it.
Chart courtesy of Innocent Bystanders.

Quote of the Day

Say what?

"It’s time to start asking ourselves whether our famous American freedom—in both its liberal and conservative formulations—is not actually a subtle form of dehumanizing tyranny."

Freedom is tyranny.

George Orwell had fun with that formulation exactly sixty years ago.

I thought he'd exposed it as being the twisted mindset of a ruthless totalitarian elite back then.  Apparently the mentality still thrives in the dark recesses of the civilized world.

Watch these people.  They're dangerous.

The Globe Cools. But No Matter.

Like anyone in Washington cares about the facts:

Despite the related trend, expect Congress to pass anti-global warming legislation any day now

Idiots?  Machiavellis?  You decide.

I Think We Know The Answer

Michelle Malkin asks the question we've heard all too often on other circumstances:

Why do we have to read British papers to get Ft. Hood jihadist news?!

The London Telegraph has the bombshell report on Ft. Hood jihadist Nidal Hassan’s ties to the September 11 terrorists.

Read and re-read here for the full investigative piece.

Allahpundit has a full round-up and commentary on the Telegraph’s revelations here.

Question: Why is it that we have to read British papers to get the unvarnished truths about the Ft. Hood Muslim mass murderer?
Why?  Because the American press sure doesn't want to be offending the Muslims among us.

Can't be doin' that.

But why? There is a simple answer.