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

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Why Didn't Obama Think of That?

The Roanoke Times offers up some advice to our child president with regard to that Supreme Court vacancy that is soon to occur.  How much time do you suppose it took them to come up with this:

Like there's even a remote possibility that he won't.

Don't you fellas have some slavery editorial to pump out? Or one of your signature monotonous screeds on other pressing issues of the day?  Like macaca?

Put a liberal on the court. Groundbreaking.

Slavery Existed?

I chuckle when I  read left-wing deep-thinkers rant about the fact that a day went by without a discussion another obligatory hand-wringing over a way of life that was killed off by force of arms long, long ago.  A wrong that was righted way back when, but still needs to be righted ...

Somehow, liberals tell us, if we don't give it its due every freaking day, we might forget that it was ever a part of our past.

Read Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson's lament.

Then try your best to go about your day.

Quote of the Day

The New York Times, believe it or not, on that ObamaCare bill that we were told would make our lives so much better:

"The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?"

Well, we know that most of them didn't even read it before they voted for it. So it's fair to assume that they didn't know what was in it. We also know that many of the members of Congress have admitted that they wouldn't understand it if they had read it.

We've all heard Obama tell us that his health care legislation will be good for us. Any bets on whether he's read the damn thing?

It Wasn't Supposed To Be Like This

As word gets out, and as the American people learn of the harm that Barack Obama has inflicted upon the world's finest health care delivery system, opposition to the plan grows.

If only we'd remained blissfully ignorant, right, Barack?
Support for Repeal of Health Care Plan Up To 58%
Rasmussen Reports

Three weeks after Congress passed its new national health care plan, support for repeal of the measure has risen four points to 58%. That includes 50% of U.S. voters who strongly favor repeal.

Forty-seven percent (47%) of voters believe repeal of the health care bill will be good for the economy. Thirty-three percent (33%) disagree.

Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans and 54% of voters not affiliated with either major party favor repeal. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Democrats are opposed. Republican support for repeal is up eight points from a week ago, while Democratic opposition is down seven. [link
And there's an election coming up.

My my my my my,

A Picture Speaks a Thousand Words

The display of subservience seems to be appropriate under current circumstances.

Like I Said

This recession is different.  Not just because it has gone on, and has cut much deeper, than any previous downturn.  It's because a lot of the jobs lost are lost forever.  To China. 

And if that's not bad enough, borrowing money is going to become - and remain - a whole lot more expensive proposition.

CNBC reporter Rick Santelli seems to agree:
Years from now, way more than just one year in my opinion.  I think that The Wall Street Journal article today kind of touches what I and many believe and that is a lot of the jobs lost aren't coming back and a lot of the unemployment has to do with things like education and skills that aren't fixed overnight. And when you talk about interest rates, listen, I'm going to keep it simple. You asked me where I thought it would be. I think it's a two-tier issue. I'm assuming the economy is going to be mediocre for many years, three to five, meaning 2 percent to 3 percent growth is going to be good. If it gets better than that, I think interest rates will rush up much more aggressively in 2011.
We're on shaky ground.  And that ground is only going to get more unstable over time.

Like I Said II

It's easy to accept Barack Obama's decision to have American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki assassinated.  After all, the man is a terrorist (al-Awlaki, not Obama), right?  It's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of la...

Oh, wait.

It hasn't been proven.  He's not even been tried.

So we're going to kill the man based on CIA evidence?

Shall we bring up the WMD debacle?

It appears that I'm not alone in my fear of our government taking on the role of assassin when it comes to American citizens some head of state doesn't like (though the mainstream press doesn't give a damn, oddly).

Mark Hemingway:
In March of last year, New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh dropped a bombshell that a "covert executive assassination ring" had been run out of Vice President Cheney's office.

Despite Hersh's unreliability, his suggestion Cheney was assassinating people at will was dutifully parroted by the activist Left and receptive members of the media.

This week President Obama publicly ordered the assassination of a U.S. citizen, Muslim Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Unlike Hersh's scurrilous charge, this presidential directive is a matter of record -- not a wild rumor.

Make no mistake: al-Awlaki is a bad guy. He's been definitively linked to the 9/11 hijackers, and more recently the recent Fort Hood massacre, not to mention the failed underwear bombing plot this past Christmas.

But he's also a U.S. citizen, and thus entitled to basic constitutional protections. So where are the denunciations of Obama's extraordinary decision from those who spent eight years decrying Bush and Cheney's wartime expansion of executive power?

Bear in mind that Obama's administration has repeatedly tried to extend constitutional protections to noncitizens accused of terrorism. Underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was arrested and mirandized within an hour of his plane landing, despite the fact he's Nigerian.

Similarly, the Obama administration has repeatedly pushed to give a civilian criminal trial to 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed even though he is Kuwaiti national.

if it becomes accepted the president can publicly assert his power to kill U.S. citizens, we're setting a truly dangerous precedent. It's not that I expect Obama to cavalierly kill people -- but I worry about what future presidents might do. [link]
I know it's an exercise in futility but I'd like to know where in the Constitution the American people empowered the government to kill American citizens without due process.  I've looked and looked and looked.

Back when our founding fathers were trying to figure out just how we were going to govern ourselves, then-future president John Adams (in 1780) made it clear to everyone that ours would be "a government of laws and not of men."  That principle has worked out pretty well over the centuries.  How 'bout we stick to it and tell Obama to back off.  We didn't grant him the authority to kill us with an executive order.