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

Saturday, December 05, 2009

More On That Eminent Domain Travesty In Roanoke

Man, am I glad I voted for Ken Cuccinelli:
Roanoke property dispute near Carilion's Riverside Center stirs call for change among lawmakers
By Laurence Hammack and Mason Adams, Roanoke Times

The condemnation of property in Roanoke without a particular plan for its use has some legislators talking about changing Virginia's constitution.

"It points out the need that we have more work to do," said Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, who was closely involved in tightening eminent domain laws two years ago to make it more difficult for governments to take land.

Cuccinelli, R-Fairfax County, said that when he takes over as attorney general next year, he will support a constitutional amendment to make the changes more lasting.

"This is the kind of thing that constitutions are supposed to protect us from," Cuccinelli said of the recent condemnation of land that sits in the shadow of Carilion Clinic's Riverside Center.

The controversial process took a new turn this week when officials at Carilion said they had no interest in the property, which is currently the site of a flooring business on Reserve Avenue.

Although Carilion said it never included the 3-acre tract in its plans for an office complex and medical school, property owners Jay and Stephanie Burkholder dispute that.

The Burkholders contend that Carilion, which struck a deal with the city 10 years ago to redevelop the area, was the driving force behind the condemnation of their land by the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority.

Glenda Edwards, executive director of the authority, also said it was her understanding that Carilion had expressed an interest in the land within the past two or three years.

A judge approved the condemnation last month, ruling the authority properly found that the area surrounding the Burkholders' property was blighted. The next step is for a jury to determine how much the couple should be paid for their land. [link] [emphasis mine]
If the boundless power of eminent domain isn't frightening enough, the fact that the Roanoke housing authority - and this judge - decreed the Burkholders' property to be in an area that was blighted (as opposed to being a blighted property) and therefore was fair game for seizure should scare you to death.  Even if you have the nicest, best-kept home in the neighborhood, if that neighborhood is deemed to be run-down, you're out on the street should some nameless, faceless bureaucrat deem it so.

Every property in Bland County, Virginia, where I live, falls into that nebulous category. Every one. I and every one of my neighbors are all subject to property seizure.  Or were, had the law not been amended.

This has to stop.  Now.  Or greater damage will be done ... scratch that.  There can be no greater damage inflicted on an American citizen than that which is being imposed upon Stephanie and Jay Burkholder.

American citizens.

- - -

Even the Roanoke Times editorial team - no enemy of Big Government - is astounded that the city is trying to seize this property for no reason.

Dream On

In today's Roanoke Times:

If life is a basic right, isn't a house?

If life is a basic right, isn't a car?

If life is a basic right, isn't a big-screen TV?

If life is a basic right, isn't a bottle of Makers?


Back rubs?

Imodium AD?

Breast implants?

Trips to Aruba?

Why just your doctor bills?  Shoot, these would all contribute to a healthy, happy life.

Food For Thought

Mark Steyn on our new war strategy:
"Our goal in war," wrote Basil Liddell Hart, the great strategist of armored warfare, "can only be attained by the subjugation of the opposing will." In other words, the object of war is not to destroy the enemy's tanks but the enemy's will. That goes treble if, like the Taliban and al-Qaida, he hasn't got any tanks in the first place. So what do you think Obama's speech did for the enemy's will? He basically told 'em: We can only stick another 19 months, so all you gotta do is hang in there for 20. And in an astonishingly vulgar line even by the standards of this White House's crass speechwriters, he justified his announcement of an exit date by saying it was "because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own."
Despite what Obama said back when he was seeking votes, he has no interest in building the nation of Afghanistan.  Or doing anything else with it.  And when that God-forsaken land falls once again under 9th century Sharia law and women are once again stoned to death for the heinous crime of extra-marital sex?  "Hey, let's talk about windmills and stuff."

Think what you will about the need for our presence in Afghanistan.  This is no way to deal with the problem there, no matter what you think.

How Do You Deal With This?

I get really tired of this:
Black in the Age of Obama
By Charles M. Blow, New York Times

A hundred and fifty years ago, Charles Dickens opened “A Tale of Two Cities” with the now-famous phrase: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. ...”

Those words resonated with me recently while contemplating the impact of the Obama presidency on blacks in America. So far, it’s been mixed. Blacks are living a tale of two Americas — one of the ascension of the first black president with the cultural capital that accrues; the other of a collapsing quality of life and amplified racial tensions, while supporting a president who is loath to even acknowledge their pain, let alone commiserate in it. [link]
In reality, those "racial tensions" and that "pain" exist mostly in the minds of racists like Charles Blow.

Why is it every race, ethnic group, and nationality here in this melting pot we call the USA lives in near perfect harmony with each other except one?  Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Indians, Middle Easterners, even African immigrants and black emigres from the Caribbean are doing fine, are accepting, and are accepted.  And they're not whining about how others hate them because of their skin color.  It's only in the warped minds of those who have bought into this bigotry-based-on-skin-tone business that the problem of racism exists.  The rest of us get along just fine.

Memo to Charles Blow:  This shit got old long ago.  Open your eyes.  Put your hatreds aside.  The world is moving at too great a speed for you to be stuck in 1935.  There are literally thousands of black millionaires in this country now and we have a (half-) black president, for God's sake.  We even have black columnists writing for major news publications.   So snap out of it.

Or go away.  Either works for me.

It Was All a Lie

Obama is preparing to jet off to Copenhagen to force an agreement that is intended to end global warming.

Earth to Obama:  Save the carbon emissions.  The problem doesn't exist.

It was a false alarm.

An intentional false alarm.

Remember the research that started it all?  That graph that showed the globe's temperature to be skyrocketing (because humans were spewing fossil fuel contaminants into the atmosphere)?  Here's Michael Mann's now-famous "hockey stick":

Source: John L. Daly

Now that closer scrutiny is being given to the data that contributed to this alarming finding, and now that those who cooked the numbers to make it look as bad as it does have been exposed to the world for being what they are, that graph has been replotted.  Here's what the unadulterated data reflect, adjusting that same chart:

Source: Andrew Bolt.

Quite a difference, yes?

Obama is preparing to jet off to Copenhagen to force an agreement that is intended to end global warming.

A warming that is not taking place.

What in God's name is he doing?

Andrew Bolt: "And still I hear BBC reports on how this is a scandal about nothing, and does not affect the “fundamental” science. Listen to the true denialists"

Click on the images to enlarge them.


Columnist George Will on Climategate and the left's reaction - or non-reaction - to it:

The [Washington] Post learns an odd lesson from the CRU materials: "Climate scientists should not let themselves be goaded by the irresponsibility of the deniers into overstating the certainties of complex science or, worse, censoring discussion of them." These scientists overstated and censored because they were "goaded" by skepticism?

Were their science as unassailable as they insist it is, and were the consensus as broad as they say it is, and were they as brave as they claim to be, they would not be "goaded" into intellectual corruption. Nor would they meretriciously bandy the word "deniers" to disparage skepticism that shocks communicants in the faith-based global warming community.

Skeptics about the shrill certitudes concerning catastrophic man-made warming are skeptical because climate change is constant: From millennia before the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1300), through the Little Ice Age (1500 to 1850), and for millennia hence, climate change is always a 100 percent certainty. Skeptics doubt that the scientists' models, which cannot explain the present, infallibly map the distant future.

The Financial Times' peculiar response to the CRU materials is: The scientific case for alarm about global warming "is growing more rather than less compelling." If so, then could anything make the case less compelling? A CRU e-mail says: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment" -- this "moment" is in its second decade -- "and it is a travesty that we can't."

The travesty is the intellectual arrogance of the authors of climate-change models partially based on the problematic practice of reconstructing long-term prior climate changes. On such models we are supposed to wager trillions of dollars -- and substantially diminished freedom. [link]
Logic and reasoning are turned on their heads when it comes to the issue of global warming. And its proponents are seemingly rational people too.

I don't understand it.  I just don't understand it.

Is This Even Legal?

Oh, my:
Baucus Nominated Girlfriend for U.S. Attorney
By John Stanton, Roll Call

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus’ office confirmed late Friday night that the Montana Democrat was carrying on an affair with his state office director, Melodee Hanes, when he nominated her to be U.S. attorney in Montana.

According to a source familiar with their relationship, Hanes and Baucus began their relationship in the summer of 2008 – nearly a year before Baucus and his wife, Wanda, divorced in April 2009. The Senator had informally separated from his wife in March 2008 and they were living apart when he began dating Hanes, according to Baucus' office. [link]
Let me answer my own question.  Yes, it's perfectly legal.  It's just wrong.  In more ways than one.

But Baucus is a Democrat. So, he gets a pass.

By the way, how's that impeachment trial going for South Carolina's Republican Governer Mark Sanford?

- - -

The crime of prostitution is considered by the law to be, among other things:

"The act of receiving or accepting money or other thing of value pursuant to a prior agreement with any person whereby he or she participates or is to participate in the proceeds of any prostitution activity."

Is accepting the position of U.S. attorney equivalent to accepting money in exchange for giving Max his jollies?  If so ...

What's This?

What an outrage.  This sign was spotted in a storefront window in Whiting, Indiana:


Try to remember, though, that we as a society hold freedom of speech to be perhaps our greatest liberty.  So let's not be too condemnatory of those who hold views that we may not agree with.

And after all, it is just a sign.

You may ask what kind of business would dare post such a sign.


"Owens Funeral Home"

I like it!

This was sent to me by my sister via email.