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

Friday, January 01, 2010

David Broder, Shining Example ...

While the nation reacts in shock and bewilderment to the response Secretary Janet Napolitano had to her Department of Homeland Security actions in the recent Undybomber case - "The system worked" - Washington Post columnist David Broder proves once again that no one can suck up to the Washington establishment as well as he can.

This is absolutely pitiful:
Napolitano's 'no drama' competence shows her potential

Most Americans got their first prolonged look at Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, last weekend. After a passenger on a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam ignited a concealed fuse as the plane approached Detroit for a landing, apparently intending to blow it up and kill all aboard, it fell to Napolitano to take charge of the federal response.

It came as no surprise to anyone who knows her that Napolitano handled the incident and its aftermath with aplomb. In the years I have known her, she has managed every challenge that has come her way with the same calm command that she showed in this instance. If there is anyone in the administration who embodies President Obama's preference for quiet competence with "no drama," it is Janet Napolitano.

I watched as she made the rounds of the morning interview programs on Sunday, laying out what she knew about the would-be terrorist and carefully refusing to speculate about the many matters that were still being investigated. She is being criticized for saying "the system worked," but her part of the response system did work. [link]
"Her part of the response system did work."  Is he completely mad?  Or is David Broder using weasel words to provide cover for our woefully incompetent - our incontestably incompetent - chief terror warrior?

I say that because he uses the words "her part of the response system."  One wonders why.  Her department, as everyone knows, is not a "response system" at all, its "overriding and urgent mission is to lead the unified national effort to secure the country and preserve our freedoms."  Key word being secure.  As in proactively preventing attacks on the homeland.

So this goofy old man knows, the Washington Post is part of the "response system."  NBC Nightly News is part of the response system.  Blogs are part of the response system.  If all we can expect from Janet "Reno" Napolitano is a "response" when terror attacks occur, how 'bout we give her a Washington Post column to voice her idiocy?

The reason we have a Department of Homeland Security - the head of which is Janet Napolitano - is to prevent terror attacks.  In its primary and exclusive task it has failed.  Again.

The response system is in unanimous agreement.  This knucklehead has got to go.

It may not hurt the good folks at the Post to finally send David Broder packing as well.

Excuses, Excuses

The New York Times attempts political cover for its main man:

In truth:

American Opposition May Hinder Plans to Close Guantánamo

Nothing More Need Be Said

Hot Air has the headline.  And the smackdown:

The left has Dennis Kucinich.  We have Uncle Ralphy.  There's certainly no shortage of lunatics in politics.

Ah, The Church Of 'Inclusion'

If you're not gay you need not apply at the Episcopal Church (USA).  This is stunning.  And ever-so-revealing:
The Hypocrisy of the Left
By Robin of Berkeley, American Thinker

I have been looking for God my whole life. I first recognized Him in the black foster parents I worked with who manifested Christ-consciousness.

I then found him four years ago, when my parents died three weeks apart and I was carried by a force stronger than myself. And more recently, as I've gone from left to right, I have discovered him in the many conservatives guiding me, such as AT readers.

Given my spiritual longing, I decided it was time to explore places of worship. Being a secular Jew, my first step should have been a temple. However, the synagogues around here are practically recruitment stations for Obama (aside from the Orthodox ones, but I don't speak a word of Hebrew). So I decided to experience church on Christmas Eve.

Checking out churches online, I found almost none that offered political neutrality. Most heralded their progressive credentials, welcoming the transgendered, but not conservatives.

I was pleased to find an Episcopal church whose website focused on religion, not ObamaCare. I left a message for the priest that I was looking for a church that didn't press a political agenda because I wasn't a liberal.

I received an icy reply from the priest, the Reverend Lucy, who said with barely-contained disgust, "I don't think you should check us out."

Her response left me shaken and angry. I understand that leftists despise conservatives. I have seen that creepy look of pure hatred when I naïvely told a leftist friend about my political conversion.

But an Episcopal priest rejecting me during the holiest time of year? Isn't anything or anyone sacred? [link]
Just another telling example reinforcing the fact that the Episcopal church in this country has gone from being a house of worship to a social movement.  Gay rights, global warming, the world's oppressed, come on down!

Looking for spiritual guidance or healing?  Find somewhere else, toots.  There's no room in the inn.

For the love of God.

A Runaway Favorite

This seems right to me:
Sarah Palin, Man of the Year
By Don Surber, Charleston Daily Mail

2009 was an extraordinary year in which ordinary people did extraordinary things not because they were the easy things to do, but because they were the right thing to do. The people ranged from young Hannah Giles who jump-started her journalism career by donning a hooker’s garb to bring down the racketeer influenced corrupt organization known as ACORN, to Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger III, who culminated the decades of his life that he worked toward airline safety simply by landing an engineless plane on the Hudson River.

Michael Paul Mizzone, a carpenter’s business representative, pulled Josef R. Bruckuf, 82, out of a burning house, severely burning himself in the rescue. Police Sergeant James Crowley refused to buckle under presidential pressure and apologize for arresting a belligerent man. Economist Douglas W. Elmendorf refused to buckle under presidential pressure to cook the books for Obamacare.

The list of such candidates was long as the United States and Canada are nations that still celebrate and nurture rugged individualism. We still produce people like Stephen McIntyre who demand proof before they sign onto the global warming fad.

And lest we forget, the Netherlands gave us Jasper Schuringa, who saved Flight 253. The Dutch have our gratitude.

While each of the finalists was deserving, there can be only one man of the year — Sarah Palin. In the pantheon of people who stood up this year for that which is right, no one else stood taller or looked better. [link]
The more the left throws at her, the nastier their attacks get, the stronger she becomes.  And the more popular.

Sarah Palin - Man of the Year.  I love it.

How Proud You Must Be

I suppose there's something to be said for the fact that Democrats do have some experience with this:

A reminder: 96% of America's black voters went for the Democrat candidate in the last presidential election.


"Thank you, sir.  May I have another?"

A Portent Of Things To Come

The ObamaCare proposal that was recently passed by the United States Senate (with votes of yea from both Senators Webb and Warner here in Virginia) has as its cornerstone a savings plan that involves the reduction - to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars - in Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals.  Fees for service are to be drastically slashed.

Sounds like a plan, right?

Only one problem.  Unless Obama plans to force doctors and hospitals to take in the elderly for treatment - at the point of a gun - those cuts will only make things worse for those among us who need care the most.  Because Medicare isn't paying out enough now to make it worth treating anyone:
Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients
By David Olmos, Bloomberg

Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little.

More than 3,000 patients eligible for Medicare, the government’s largest health-insurance program, will be forced to pay cash if they want to continue seeing their doctors at a Mayo family clinic in Glendale, northwest of Phoenix, said Michael Yardley, a Mayo spokesman. The decision, which Yardley called a two-year pilot project, won’t affect other Mayo facilities in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota.

Obama in June cited the nonprofit Rochester, Minnesota-based Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio for offering “the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm.” Mayo’s move to drop Medicare patients may be copied by family doctors, some of whom have stopped accepting new patients from the program, said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a telephone interview yesterday.

“Many physicians have said, ‘I simply cannot afford to keep taking care of Medicare patients,’” said Heim, a family doctor who practices in Laurinburg, North Carolina. “If you truly know your business costs and you are losing money, it doesn’t make sense to do more of it.” [link]
Now Obama has all the guns.  So he can force the clinic to take in Medicare patients.  Until the clinic folds because it went bankrupt.  Then another bailout will be in order.  Requiring more punitive taxes be raised to pay for it.  Instigating more bankruptcies.  And more bailouts.  And more ...

What a mess.

And Obama is about to make it far worse.

A suggestion: Don't be elderly in these United States.  Your days are numbered.


When you begin to read summaries from all the conflicting studies you immediately get the impression that our understanding of the Earth and its climate amounts to virtually nothing.  The latest:

You know how Al Gore's acolytes in the scientific community have been telling us that a CO2 buildup in the atmosphere is the leading cause of global warming?  Well, it now appears that not only is the globe not warming but there is no buildup of CO2 either.

For the love of God:
No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds
Science Daily

Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters. [link]
This is just another piece of evidence that at best the global warming zealots don't know what they're talking about and at worst they are dead wrong.

I say we alter our way of life (through taxation?) until these geniuses get their story straight.

- - -

Update 01.07.10: I received the following response via email from a scientist who has been studying atmospheric CO2 and thought I needed to amend my post for clarity.  I agree.  His response (in part):

You might wish to revisit your source and your January 1 post entitled "They haven't a clue".  While I grant that the title of the (Geophysical Research Letters) article is confusing, it does state that the carbon dioxide fraction showed little change over the past 160 years of their investigation.  In other words, the percentages of CO2 absorbed by the oceans and land vs. the percentage remaining in the atmosphere remained relatively constant.  However, the absolute amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere did increase over this period.  For example the US Dept. of Energy reports that the amount of CO2 just from the consumption of fossil fuels in US emitted into the atmosphere increased approximately 700 million metric tons between 1995 and 2005 to  a total of 5,972 million metric tons.  Of this total we can calculate that 55% or 3,285 million metric tons of CO2 were absorbed by the oceans and forests while 45%, or 2,687 million metric tons of CO2 remained in the atmosphere.  We can addtionally calculate that the percentage of that the absolute amount of CO2 remaining the atmosphere in 2005 was 315 million metric tons  greater than in 1995 (45% of 700) - a fairly significant increase in just a 10 year period.  We should also note that once resident in the atmosphere, the vast majority of CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for centuries. 

In other words, the more CO2 we put into the atmosphere the more will remain there - and more will be absorbed by the oceans and forests.  It is the absolute amount that matters, not the fractional amount, or percentage.  There is indeed a buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it is building up at an increasing rate.  On a personal note, when I began a five- year period of continuous CO2 atmospheric measurement in the late 60's the average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 312 ppm (parts per million); it is currently 387 ppm, a 25% increase in just 50 years.  It is due to what I have personally observed that I have become concerned and involved. 

However, it is equally important to note that the article that you cited (Science Daily) concludes with the statement that:

"In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades." as you have included.  In other words, article originally published in Geophysical Research Letters, and then abstracted by Science Daily contains the disclaimer that the article is at odds with most recent research which shows that the fraction of CO2 absorbed by the oceans and forests has actually declined by approximately 4% over the last decade.  If this decrease continues over a longer time period it will indeed be a cause for concern.

The Badge Doesn't Give You The Right ...

This, if accurate, is shocking:
Roanoke police actions spark lawsuit
By Mike Gangloff, Roanoke Times

A Roanoke man is suing city police over an altercation with officers that he said began as an argument about his permit to carry a concealed firearm.

Aaron A. Stevenson filed a lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Roanoke alleging that his constitutional rights were violated during a May 6 traffic stop. He named two officers, Chief Joe Gaskins and the city as defendants.

The lawsuit gives this account of Stevenson's encounter with police:

Stevenson was driving along Williamson Road to pick up his daughter from church when Roanoke police Officer Jamie A. Kwiecinski stopped him. Stevenson was given a summons because his registration had expired.

Kwiecinski learned that Stevenson had a concealed carry permit and asked if he had a gun. Stevenson declined to answer.

Kwiecinski called for backup, and Officer Dwight W. Ayers arrived on the scene. Stevenson said the officers ignored his repeated invocation of his right to remain silent, and to have an attorney present during questioning.

The officers pulled Stevenson from his vehicle, the lawsuit said, took the .45-caliber handgun he wore in a belt holster, and put him in handcuffs in the back of a police car. Stevenson said he was threatened with loss of his permit, confiscation of his gun and indefinite detention while police investigated whether he was involved in anything criminal.

Officers never read Stevenson his Miranda rights, the lawsuit said, and Ayers told Stevenson the questioning would stop if he would admit to some criminal action.

As the incident continued, some of Stevenson's co-workers drove past and his employer stopped to see what was happening. The officers asked the employer if Stevenson had mental problems.

Stevenson said the tight handcuffs injured his wrists.

Eventually, Sgt. Sandy Duffey, a police supervisor, said to release Stevenson. [link]
I choose to believe that the information provided by the plaintiff's attorney is wrong.  There's no way the police would have acted in such a heavy-handed and meanspirited fashion.  No way ...

It's Come To This

Happy New Year!

Oh, dear.