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

Monday, February 22, 2010

Another Lie

"One more misunderstanding I want to clear up -- under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."
-- Barack Obama, September 9, 2009 --

Obama's ‘New’ Health Care Plan Would Use Tax Dollars to Pay for Abortions
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer, CNS News

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama unveiled his plan for health care reform on whitehouse.gov on Monday, but pro-life legislators and advocates said the “new” proposal mostly mirrors the Senate bill and, in particular, would allow for tax dollars to be used to fund health plans that cover abortion.

“The health bill passed by the Senate in December (H.R. 3590) had become, by the conclusion of the Senate amendment process, the most expansively pro-abortion bill ever brought to the floor of either house of Congress since Roe v. Wade,” Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), said in a statement issued on Monday.

Johnson said Obama’s bill will not include the same prohibitions set forth in the Stupak amendment--named after Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.)--which was part of the health care legislation passed earlier by the House of Representatives. Instead, Obama’s bill allows federal funds to subsidize abortions through the structuring of programs and insurance plans. [link]
I'm sure he and his pals in the mainstream press will come up with a perfectly good explanation for the apparent deceit.

Memo To Richmond Democrats:

Don't be stupid.  Or stupider, as the case may be.  What you are trying to pull here in Virginia is already posing disastrous consequences in bluer states around the country.

I'm speaking of unfunded - and grossly underfunded - state pension plans.

First, the news about what the Democrats in Richmond are trying to pull:
Senate budget restores funding
By Bob Lewis and Dena Potter, Associated Press Writers

Richmond, Va. (AP) -- The Senate has proposed a budget that restores funding for education, free medical services and law enforcement by contributing less than expected into the state employee and teacher retirement fund. [link]
So you know, the Senate is controlled by Democrats.

Obviously these small minds haven't been reading the papers.  Here's what that kind of irresponsibility will get you:

In the state of Washington: "Billion dollar headache: Looming pension liability worries state officials."

In New York: "The Empire State's Looming Public Pension Explosion."

California: "The Looming Pension Disaster."

Pennsylvania: "Pennsylvania public school employees' pension fund crisis looming for school districts and state."

Oregon: "Oregon leaders shrug as pension crisis looms."

Illinois: "Illiniois Public Pension Crisis."

How 'bout I just list every state controlled by liberals and make the blanket statement that every one of them is looking at pending fiscal doom.

And Democrats here in Virginia want to bring that train wreck to the commonwealth.

Another really good reason to drive every one of the bastards out of office before they do irreparable harm.

We Don't Know, But Let's Fix It Anyway

You may have read here in the past of that seminal moment in my life when I made the conscious decision to oppose environmentalism with everything in me.  Without going into the details again, it had to do with a United States senator arguing on TV that we had to pass legislation to end some looming catastrophe despite the fact that there was no evidence at the time that a problem even existed or that a catastrophe was in fact impending.  When confronted with that little hurdle, he responded by saying, "We can't wait for evidence.  We must act now.  If we wait for evidence it will be too late!"

I then came to the realization that these people are dangerous.

And speaking of the Washington Post editorial staff:
Climate insurance

The Earth is warming. A chief cause is the increase in greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere. Humans are at least in part responsible, because the oil, gas and coal that we burn releases these gases. If current trends persist, it's likely that in coming decades the globe's climate will change with potentially devastating effects for billions of people.

What's the right response? It seems to us there are two key arguments that can provide some shelter for politicians who want to do the right thing. The first is to acknowledge a level of uncertainty in the predictions and make the case for taking out an insurance policy, as would any prudent homeowner. It's true that we don't know for sure how many degrees warmer the Earth will be, on average, by 2050 or what effect this will have on the ferocity of storms or coastal flooding or starvation-inducing drought. But it's also true that, as the science has progressed, the predictions have become more dire, not less -- and that they are still as likely to be too optimistic as the reverse. If there is action that can be taken, now, to begin to reduce the dangers, why would we not do so? [link]
We don't know.  So let's act.  Sound familiar?

The editorial goes on to demand new taxes on the citizenry (naturally) and a redistributive - and destructive - cap-and-trade regime foisted upon already struggling American industries so as to be able to stop ... well, we're not sure.  But we need to stop it anyway.

Dangerous.  These people are ... admittedly clueless ... and dangerous.

Jimmy Carter Redux

I remember those horrid days when President Carter decided that America was past its prime and that, in order to combat foreign oil, we all needed to turn down our thermostats, put on heavy clothing, and live out our miserable lives in iceboxes.  And then Reagan came along and actually did something about our problems.

Now, 2010:
Millions of Unemployed Face Years Without Jobs
By Peter S. Goodman, New York Times

Buena Park, Calif. — Even as the American economy shows tentative signs of a rebound, the human toll of the recession continues to mount, with millions of Americans remaining out of work, out of savings and nearing the end of their unemployment benefits.

Economists fear that the nascent recovery will leave more people behind than in past recessions, failing to create jobs in sufficient numbers to absorb the record-setting ranks of the long-term unemployed.

Call them the new poor: people long accustomed to the comforts of middle-class life who are now relying on public assistance for the first time in their lives — potentially for years to come.

Yet the social safety net is already showing severe strains. [link]
Obama'a response so far has been to extend unemployment check assistance - again and again - but how long will that go on before it's considered welfare?

What we need in this country are employers.  And existing employers need to be able to keep some of the cash they accumulate - that is currently being sucked up by the government - and be able to reinvest.  And add jobs.

Obama can indeed provide relief.  But not in the form of assistance.  That's been tried for decades - and we are where we are.  He needs to provide relief by unchaining the capitalist spirit that still yearns to be free.

He should.  He won't.

So the Times is accepting of millions being on permanent unemployment lines.  My God.

Another Global Warming Untruth

Another day another discredited scientific study:
Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
By David Adam, The Guardian

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate. [link]
In other words, scientists who are studying potential climate changes haven't a clue as to what those changes might be.

For that reason, can we ask Obama and his band of radicals at the EPA to not alter our way of life until they know what they're dealing with?

- - -

A question: Why does the New York Times continue to ignore this building scandal?

What Business Is It Of Theirs?

The government will get away with it. And most Americans will be accepting. But Obama deciding what a company can charge for its product is just another step toward that socialist state that leftists in this country say isn't happening, and won't happen. The latest nail in our coffin:
Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers’ Rate Increases
By David M. Herszenhorn and Robert Pear, New York Times

Washington — President Obama will propose on Monday giving the federal government new power to block excessive rate increases by health insurance companies, as he rolls out comprehensive legislation to revamp the nation’s health care system, White House officials said Sunday.

By focusing on the effort to tighten regulation of insurance costs, a new element not included in either the House or Senate bills, Mr. Obama is seizing on outrage over recent premium increases of up to 39 percent announced by Anthem Blue Cross of California and moving to portray the Democrats’ health overhaul as a way to protect Americans from profiteering insurers.

Congressional Republicans have long denounced the Democrats’ legislation as a “government takeover” of health care. [link]
Obama will get away with this because we've reached a point in time when we don't care that the government is dictating pricing to the private sector.  Today it's the hated insurance industry.  Tomorrow it's your employer.

A question: If he can restrict pricing, can he control wages as well?

Hello, Richard Nixon.