Quote

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

Friday, November 13, 2009

Boucher Gets It From Both Sides

It's tough to be a politician these days.  Good thing the assured wealth makes up for this:
Boucher’s vote draws protesters near his Abingdon office
By Debra McCown, Reporter, Bristol Herald Courier

Abingdon, Va. – Dozens of people lined both sides of Main Street in front of the Washington County Courthouse Thursday for a pair of protests directed at U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher, whose office is across the street.

On one side of the street, a protest staged by the Virginia Organizing Project criticized Boucher’s ‘no’ vote on a health care reform act approved Nov. 7 by the House of Representatives. Protesters said the nation’s health care system needs an overhaul.

“Twenty percent of the people in Boucher’s district have no health insurance,” said Linda Fore, a retired educator from Bristol, Va., and one of the protesters. “That’s unconscionable.”

On the other side of the street, demonstrators from the Tenth Amendment Foundation said they agreed with Boucher’s vote and expressed appreciation for his willingness to vote with his constituents rather than his political party.

“When the government controls my health care, that’s socialism,” said Emma Clark, a retired real estate broker from Abingdon. “I believe we need reform, and I believe we need tort reform and we need less waste, but I don’t think the government can do that.” [link]
It's worth noting that one person quoted above is either lying or is stupid.   That twenty percent of the people in Boucher’s district who have no health insurance do have health insurance.  It's called Medicaid.  Earth to retired educator.

But let it not go unnoticed.  Rick Boucher has riled up the left on this one.

On this day, my next drink is to you, pal.

Coulda Should Woulda

For how many years now have we been subjected to politicians and other experts on the economy tell us that the construction of a new hiking trail here or a new bike path there "could" bring us added prosperity?

A dozen?  Two dozen?

And after the completed construction of dozens of trails and paths here in Southwest Virginia, how efflorescently has prosperity blossomed?

Have y'all seen that first tourist yet?

Well, guess what:
Trail could attract thousands
By Charles Owens, Bluefield Daily Telegraph

Tazewell, Va. — A proposed seven-county trail system could attract as many as 200,000 visitors to Southwest Virginia and add an additional $30 million in new revenue to the local economy, according to a study released Thursday.

The proposed Spearhead Trail system also could create 300 to 500 new jobs for the region within the next 10 years, the report released by the Southwest Regional Recreational Authority concluded. [link]
What horse shit.

It's worth remembering that those who conjured up this flimflammery get paid a tidy sum to do so.  Over and over again.

Let's do the math:

One trail = $30,000,000 in added revenue.
We currently have approximately 145 trails in southwest Virginia.

By my calculation, shoot, Southwest Virginia can now pay off the national debt with its excess prosperity.

But where are we going to find enough residents to take on all those new jobs?

Such the dilemma.  We're awash in wealth and happiness ...

You Can't Make This Stuff Up

The Roanoke Times this morning defends what ain't in Obama's health care bill.  Or wasn't supposed to be, if you listened to all those Democrat politicians.  And to the Roanoke Times.

Those death panels.

Or, as the hair-splitters prefer to call them - end-of-life panels.

Call it whatever they will, the Democrats and the lowlifes who inhabit the Times editorial cesspool favor a panel of government bureaucrats "counseling" those they have a vested interest in seeing die on issues relating to their demise.

End-of-life.  Death.  What's the difference as long as the elderly are dispatched as quickly and as cost-effectively as possible.

Obama, Lincoln. What a Contrast.

A suggestion to those who are ignorant when it comes to history: Don't refer to it.

I was rather bemused, and more than a bit shocked, when I read that the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh had drawn a comparison between Obama's approach to Afghanistan with Abraham Lincoln's leadership in the Civil War.

"Lincoln did not let McClellan write a report on how to win a war against the South."

To those who know the history of the Civil War as well as I do, any comparison is laughable on its face.

There is, first of all, the technical matter.  The detail.  George B. McClellan, commanding general of the Army of the Potomac in the years 1861 and 1862, was expected to write reports for Washington and the president routinely.  And he did, in fact, write a "Grand Strategy" for prosecuting the war against the South (a plan that was adapted from former General-in-Chief Winfield Scott's "Anaconda Plan") (lots of generals; lots of plans).

But beyond that, and the larger point: To put the name Lincoln in the same sentence with that of Obama in the context of war prosecution is a gross disservice to history.

1) Abraham Lincoln, above all else, demanded victory.  Obama, by contrast, is uncomfortable with the thought.

2) Unlike Obama, who gains with each passing day a reputation for indecision, Lincoln was absolutely resolute in his war aims.  A few powerful Lincoln quotes:

"If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."


"The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion."


"In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one."


"Thoughtful men must feel that the fate of civilization upon this continent is involved in the issue of our contest."


"There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one. There is involved in this struggle the question whether your children and my children shall enjoy the privileges we have enjoyed."


"Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy.  Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defense."


"The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me."


I desire so to conduct the affairs of this administration that if at the end, when I come to lay down the reins of power, I have lost every other friend on earth, I shall at least have one friend left, and that friend shall be
down inside of me.


"If I knew what brand of whiskey he [General Grant] drinks, I would send a barrel or so to some other generals."


"The man does not live who is more devoted to peace than I am. None who would do more to preserve it."


"I expect to maintain this contest until successful, or till I die, or am conquered, or my term expires, or Congress or the country forsakes me..."


"It is the eternal struggle between these two principles -- right and wrong -- throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time..."

Obama:

"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur."*

3) If there's a comparison to be made here, it is not between Lincoln and Obama; it's between Obama and General McClellan.  It was, after all, McClellan who was incapable of prosecuting a war in the manner necessitated by events of the day.  He, like Obama today, dithered.  Endlessly.  To the point where an extremely impatient Lincoln wrote the following letter to the man about whom he once said "had the slows":
My Dear McClellan:

If you are not using the army, I should like to borrow it for a short while.

Yours respectfully,

Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln was determined to see the war brought to a successful conclusion.  Obama is reluctant to even call the War on Terror a war lest he offend.

The contrasts between these two men could not be more pronounced.

So, Seymour, do us a favor and never compare Abraham Lincoln to Barack Obama again.  You embarrass yourself in doing so and you offend those of us who admire our greatest president immensely.

- - -

What one happenstance do Obama and Lincoln share?  Both are/were ordering men and women to their deaths.  One for a purpose.  The other?

- - -

* Note, by the way, the fact that Obama is as ignorant of history as is Seymour Hersh.  Hirohito did not attend the surrender ceremony.

Out of Control

In 2007 George Bush oversaw a federal deficit of $161 billion.  For that he should be, and was, excoriated.

Last month Obama's deficit came to $176.36 billion.

That's not a typo.

Last month, the U.S. spent $176.36 billion that it didn't have.

My God.

They're Not Only Dangerous ...

.. they're not all that bright.

On Democrats:
Mayor Daley Blames Fort Hood on Guns, Not Islam
By Clayton E. Cramer

As a number of others have already pointed out, the mainstream media are doing their best to turn a mass murder committed by someone who worshipped at the same mosque as two of the 9/11 hijackers, made repeated attempts to contact al-Qaeda-supportive clergy, and shouted “Allahu Akbar” at the start of the attack into something other than an Islamic terrorist attack.

If this wasn’t such a dreadfully serious matter, it would almost be funny watching Democrats insist that there’s no elephant in the bathtub. Perhaps the most bizarre of these claims is that of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who insists that the core problem behind Fort Hood is that “America loves guns.” [link]
It seems so natural to use the words "bizarre" and "Democrats" in the same paragraph.  These days, they seem to go together like "horse" and "carriage." 

Islamist? What Islamist?

On those who would wish it all away:
Twisted and Nuts
By Jan LaRue, American Thinker

Then there's the "nut" factor. These are the government and media whiz-bangs who feel competent to diagnose an individual who takes the Quran seriously, but are incompetent to spot terrorism.

Bob Schieffer, chief nut expert and host of CBS's "Sunday's Face the Nation," babbled that "Islam doesn't have a majority -- or the Christian religion has its full, you know, full helping of nuts too." 

His guest, Sen. Lindsay Graham, agreed, and after lecturing the rest of us not to overreact, Graham then jumped to this crank conclusion. "It's certainly not about his religion, Islam. It's not about the army; it's not about the war. At the end of the day, I think it's going to be about him."

Yelling "Allahu Akbar" before killing soldiers isn't about his religion? Accusing the army of waging war against Islam isn't about the army? Objecting to the war isn't about the war?

Sen. Dick Durbin from Chicagoland added to the anti-reality frenzy: "How did it happen ... we must remain thoughtful and reserve judgment."

The clueless Durbin is the thoughtless military-basher who had to apologize for comparing our guards at Guantanamo Bay to "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others."

One thing we can conclude from Durbin and the Schieffer/Graham interview is that the media and the Senate have their share of mixed nuts. [link]
What is it about Islam that makes liberals cower?

By the same token, what is it about Christianity that makes them hate their own so much?

Ah, yes.  The Crusades. There were bad Christians doing bad things to innocent people seven hundred years ago.

But Islam is here and now.  Why do they purposely ignore the here and now?

I don't get it.  For the life of me, I don't get it.

A Bit Late, Fellas

I never could figure out why, with their "Republican" United States senator acting too often like his Democrat counterparts, conservatives in South Carolina allowed Lindsey Graham to be reelected in 2008.  The Palmetto State is arguably, after all, the most conservative in the Union.  And Graham ain't.

Well, now, a day late, the party arouses itself from its slumber:
S.C. GOP castigates Lindsey Graham
By Andy Barr, Politico

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham’s decision to work with Senate Democratic leaders on cap-and-trade legislation has sparked a mutiny back home, culminating in an scathing rebuke from the Republican Party in one of the most populous counties in the South Carolina.

In a harshly-worded resolution approved Monday, the Charleston County Republican Party condemned Graham for undermining “Republican leadership and party solidarity for his own benefit” and tarnishing “the ideals of freedom, rule of law, and fiscal conservatism.”

The resolution recited a litany of grievances against Graham beyond his position on climate change legislation.

“Graham has shown a condescending attitude toward his constituents by calling them ‘bigots’ when they opposed his stance on amnesty for illegal aliens,” read one portion of the resolution.

His support for immigration reform and the Troubled Asset Relief Program, as well as his work with the Obama administration on Guantanamo Bay and his reputation as a bipartisan dealmaker, has rubbed many South Carolina Republicans the wrong way. [link]
Better late than never.

Not having a copy of the letter, I have to wonder if it included the word "condemned."  That's rather harsh.

Befitting.  But harsh.

- - -

Ya think all this might be over the top?  That the criticism is undeserved? 

As the saying goes, judge a man by the friends he keeps.

One such friend has this to say about the Judas Goat:

"There is room for bipartisanship on this issue, as Senator Lindsay Graham has demonstrated. It is my hope that other Republicans begin to take their cues from him."

Who sends those warm regards for Lindsey Graham?  None other than the extreme liberal Al Gore.

Cruel

Okay.  This from DESPAIR, INC., is way not cool:


Quite creative though.

Look closely.

Click on the image to enlarge it.