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

Monday, January 04, 2010

Quote of the Day

It's too bad that journalists are only now coming around to the position that I first argued long ago:
I think [Time magazine] went to the relatively faceless functionary Bernanke mainly not to name Barack Obama. Time, like a lot of its fellows in the wild world of the contemporary U.S. media, is in an awkward place with regards to Mr. Obama. Having devoted so much incense to his remarkable ascendancy, a great swath of his country's press is looking for a convenient and not too noticeable off-ramp while it – shall we say – recalibrates its enthusiasm.

It's an uncomfortable pivot from the audacity of hope to buyer's remorse. Very uncomfortable for those in the media who played the cheerleader for Mr. Obama, who skated by controversies that would have sunk other candidates or abandoned the ruthless investigations they would have pressed on less congenial candidates.

The ferocity they applied to the Republican vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, in contrast with the timidity they brought to his campaign, will in time come to be seen as one of the most shameful episodes in American journalism. Not so much for what they did to Ms. Palin, but for what they neglected to do in examining the candidate for the office that really counted. In some curious way, the U.S. media's bulldogging of Ms. Palin was kind of an inverted compensation for what they weren't doing to him.

Well, the bands have stopped playing for Barack Obama.
From "Why Time passed Obama by."

The contrast between the treatment that was given Sarah Palin and that which was directed at Barack Obama - back when it counted - is the important part of this.  We now know everything there is to know about the former Alaska governor yet - to this day - we know little about the guy who is our president.

But what we do know - what we've come to learn the hard way - we don't like. 

But it no longer matters.  Thanks to the mainstream press, we're stuck with him for three long years.

Hey, She's a Democrat

It's Massachusetts.

She doesn't have to speak to journalists.

She's a shoe-in for election and doesn't need you.

This is almost funny.  A Bay State newspaper whining that the Democrat candidate for senator won't give it ten minutes of her time:
Chasing Martha
Worcester Business Journal editorial

We understand when politicians are busy. We deal with it all the time. After all, talking to journalists can be tedious and repetitive, especially when you’re running for office.

That’s why we wanted to give Attorney General Martha Coakley the benefit of the doubt when her campaign staff was initially stand offish after we approached them about setting up an interview for our story on the race to fill Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat.

But then we were put off several times by her staff. We suddenly got the feeling Ms. Coakley, a Democrat, didn’t want to speak with us, and the media in general.

At the end of the day, it’s disheartening to think that a potential U.S. Senator for the Bay State would be so reticent to speak to the media. All we asked for was a 15 minute interview. What we got was a canned statement at the last minute. By contrast, we were able to set up interviews with her opponents — Republican Scott Brown and Libertarian Joe Kennedy — relatively easily.

So, if you notice the fact that we have no fresh quotes from Ms. Coakley in our page one story, we apologize. It wasn’t for lack of trying on our part. We can only hope that if elected Ms. Coakley is more generous with her time. [link]
She was there during the primary.  But now that she's the Democratic nominee - in Massachusetts - Coakley no longer needs the press.

Speaks volumes.  About her and about Massachusetts.

While the U,N. Works To Stop Global Warming ...

... the planet is experiencing temperatures - of the freezing kind - like it hasn't in decades.  The Drudge Report. Click on the image to enlarge it:

This was predicted, by the way. But it should be added that it wasn't predicted by Al Gore's bunch of hapless/nefarious "scientists."  But by those who have been watching the Sun.

- - -

For additional information, see "2009’s Sleepy Sun Finally Woke Up in December."

It's a Shame We Have To Even Ask

He is our commander-in-chief, after all:
Is Obama Really at War with a 'Network of Violence'?
By William Tate, American Thinker

Unlike most folks, I believe that Barack Obama really was sincere when he said we are "at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred."

Unfortunately, I think Obama secretly was referring to the Fox News Channel.

Obama spent much of his first year in office firing salvos at his own perceived (as compared to the nation's very real) enemies: the few in the media who failed to genuflect to the MSM's new prophet. If his administration had confronted al-Qaeda with the same vigor with which they attacked FNC or Rush Limbaugh, Americans might not have to worry about what's in travelers' underwear.

As to the real "network of violence and hatred" -- he can't seem to bring himself to say Islamic terrorists -- Obama's actions have spoken louder than even his words...although his words were plenty clear. [link]
To our president, the War on Terror is at best a distraction from those issues that interest him, and at worst it's a war that he's ambivalent about - yes, the Islamists are bad because they want to kill our children and grandchildren.  But the USA - with its racist history of hegemony over weaker states (of color) - has brought the terror on itself.  They're bad but we deserve it.

So al Qaeda plots.  And Obama dithers.

Arm yourself.  We're on our own from here.

- - -

It's a shame, too, that this has to be pointed out by a Washington Post columnist who finally reaches the conclusion:

Actually, it was his primary responsibility on Day 1, babe.

Another Fine Mess

This one of colossal proportions:
The Biggest Losers
Wall Street Journal editorial

Happy New Year, readers, but before we get on with the debates of 2010, there's still some ugly 2009 business to report: To wit, the Treasury's Christmas Eve taxpayer massacre lifting the $400 billion cap on potential losses for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as the limits on what the failed companies can borrow.

The Treasury is hoping no one notices, and no wonder. Taxpayers are continuing to buy senior preferred stock in the two firms to cover their growing losses—a combined $111 billion so far. When Treasury first bailed them out in September 2008, Congress put a $200 billion limit ($100 billion each) on federal assistance. Last year, the Treasury raised the potential commitment to $400 billion. Now the limit on taxpayer exposure is, well, who knows?

The loss cap is being lifted because the government has directed both companies to pursue money-losing strategies by modifying mortgages to prevent foreclosures. Most of their losses are still coming from subprime and Alt-A mortgage bets made during the boom, but Fannie reported last quarter that loan modifications resulted in $7.7 billion in losses, up from $2.2 billion the previous quarter.

The government wants taxpayers to think that these are profit-seeking companies being nursed back to health, like AIG. But at least AIG is trying to make money. Fan and Fred are now designed to lose money, transferring wealth from renters and homeowners to overextended borrowers.

Even better for the political class, much of this is being done off the government books. The White House budget office still doesn't fully account for Fannie and Freddie's spending as federal outlays, though Washington controls the companies. Nor does it include as part of the national debt the $5 trillion in mortgages—half the market—that the companies either own or guarantee. [link]
We're out of control.