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

Sunday, February 07, 2010


The Roanoke Times editorialists this morning - in an effort to feel good about themselves - hop on their high horse once again to whine about the discrimination that is directed toward gay Virginians.  Which is fine.

Tiresome.  But fine.  It's their ink (and bytes).  They can whine all they want.

See "The Easy Bigotry of Inaction."

Here's the only part of this tedious editorial I'll make mention of:
The overt oppression of the majority manifested most plainly a few years ago when voters wrote discrimination into the commonwealth's constitution. They forbade the state from granting or recognizing same-sex marriages.

More pernicious is the easy bigotry of inaction. Because most people are unaffected by laws that discriminate against gays and lesbians, they perceive no pressing need to fix them. They allow Virginia's leaders to eschew change in favor of comfortable discrimination wrapped in notions of tradition and faith.
Translated: Most Virginians - "the majority" - actively codified into Virginia law the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman, and most Virginians - "most people" - are doing nothing to end the discrimination - the inaction thing - that they actively worked to codify.


Are we inactive or active?  I'm confused.

Get the impression these guys are still pissed that the people of Virginia were allowed to actively participate in the formulation of our laws through the amendment process?  It's worth remembering that only 43% of us believed that an amendment to the Virginia constitution banning gay marriage was a bad idea.  A sizable majority - 57% - actively voted it into law.

So shut up with the inaction stuff.  We were active.  They and their kind just don't like what we did.

Here's the way I read this editorial.  The elitists at the Times want a small handful of judges to get active and do what the people of Virginia refuse to do - give homosexuals the right to marry each other.  In other words, to declare part of the Virginia constitution unconstitutional (don't laugh; a few tottering old liberal judges in Nevada declared that state's constitution to be in violation of that state's constitution in 2003).  The boys at the Times don't care if you're inactive - in fact, truth be known, they'd prefer it that way.  They want the courts to be active.

Here's the bottom line:  We the people of Virginia actively chose to ban gay marriage.  Forever.  We'll not revisit that decision.  Whine all you want.

- - -

Precedent!  Precedent!  Odd how that was important to the editorialists just days ago when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned existing law that had to do with campaign finance but isn't mentioned now that they want Virginia law overturned.

Odd indeed.

Dems In Bigger Trouble Than We Thought

There are a few moderate politicians in the Democratic Party.  A few.  Included in that small handful is one Evan Bayh.  I thought.

It appears, though, that the people of Indiana don't agree.  They see him more of an Obama.  Which spells doom for the coolest head in an otherwise hot-headed - and loony - political party:
Bayh a tough sell in Indiana
By Donald Lambro, Washington Times

If you want more evidence of how deep Democratic losses may be in the fall midterm elections, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh's suddenly shaky bid for a third term is Exhibit A.

A few months ago, Mr. Bayh was considered a shoo-in for re-election in the Hoosier state. Now election handicappers have moved him from "safe" to endangered.

Despite Mr. Bayh's once carefully cultivated image as a party moderate, he has lurched left under the rhetorical spell of the Obama presidency and the pressures of the Senate's liberal Democratic caucus.

He voted for the $2.5 trillion Obamacare bill despite strong opposition back home, where polls showed 60 percent opposition. He backed President Obama's $800-billion-plus stimulus bill, which has failed to create the 3.5 million jobs Mr. Obama promised. He supported Mr. Obama's unpopular move to remove terrorist prisoners from Guantanamo Bay and try them in civilian courts.

This was not the sensible, moderate Evan Bayh who once chaired the centrist-leaning Democratic Leadership Council that declared war on the liberal wing of his party. He broke with his state's right-of-center political traditions, and Indiana voters are breaking away from him. [link]
Ouch.  If a moderate Democrat can't win, what's the hope for all those radically liberal Democrats out there?

November could bring election results like this country has never seen before.

There is hope for America ...

You Were Warned

The man's biography, sketchy as it was, demonstrated no leadership skills whatsoever.  And lo and behold, it turns out that Obama has no leadership skills now that he's commander-in-chief.  Who knew?
Democrats chafe as White House wavers on health care bill
By Carrie Budoff Brown, Politico

President Barack Obama has left Democrats as confused as ever about how the White House plans to deliver a health care reform bill this year, after two weeks of inconsistent statements, negligible hands-on involvement and a sudden shift to a jobs-first message.

Democrats on Capitol Hill and beyond say they have no clear understanding of the White House strategy — or even whether there is one — and are growing impatient with Obama’s reluctance to guide them toward a legislative solution.

And some Democrats feel that every time they look to White House for clarity, they hear something different, as though the strategy is whatever the president or his top advisers said that day.

In the past two weeks, since Democrats lost the Massachusetts Senate race, Obama or his top advisers have suggested all of the following: breaking the bill into smaller parts, keeping it together in one comprehensive package, putting it at the back of legislative line and needing to “punch it through” Congress, as Obama himself said Tuesday.

“I’m not sure where the White House is right now,” said Ralph G. Neas, a longtime progressive activist who is now the head of the National Coalition on Health Care. “But I do believe that given everything that has happened, the time has come for more forceful presidential leadership. That is the only way to close the deal. That kind of leadership involves providing more precise guidance to Congress and a clear case to the American people on how this benefits families. The president must step up and wield the power of his office.” [link]
Now that we've gotten to know this guy (something his handlers desperately tried to prevent during the election run), do the words "forceful" and "powerful" describe Obama?  We all know now that he isn't either.  In fact, he's not even a consensus builder.  He's a public speaker with a good jump shot.

So the Democrats look to their small forward for leadership.  And in response he preens.  And gives more teleprompted speeches.  And works to perfect his three-pointer.

As a thought exercise, compare the attributes Obama exemplifies with those made famous by Lyndon Johnson (say what you will about the guy, he got things done).  One was a leader in every sense of the word.  The other ... has great ball-handling abilities.  And enunciation skills that we should all envy.

In these troubled times shouldn't we expect more from the leader of the free world?

Many Democrats are now saying yes.

Headline Of The Day

From Ann Althouse:

Somehow the two caricatures work simultaneously for those who hate her.