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

Monday, April 19, 2010

Be a Man

If you want taxes to skyrocket, propose a massive tax increase.  Rather than dream up a new tax to add to the myriad burdens the American people already shoulder.

Here's the truth about the latest fad coming from the Tax-Us-Into-Oblivion crowd, the VAT:
The VAT isn't an easy fix for budget woes
By Robert J. Samuelson, Washington Post

The value-added tax has become the designated panacea for massive federal budget deficits. It's touted by think-tank economists and mentioned by congressional leaders. A VAT could, it's said, raise stupendous amounts of money, which, Lord knows, are needed to cover projected deficits. A VAT is likened to a "national sales tax," so once in place, most Americans would barely notice it -- just as they barely notice state and local sales taxes. How's that for friendly politics? A VAT would also discourage consumption and encourage saving and investment, making America richer in the future. What's not to like?

Does anyone believe that Americans wouldn't notice 16 percent price increases for cars, televisions, airfares, gasoline -- and much more -- even if phased in? As for a VAT's claimed benefits (simplicity, promotion of investment), these depend mainly on a VAT replacing the present complex income tax that discriminates against investment. That's unlikely because it would require implausibly steep VAT rates. Chances are we'd pay both the income tax and the VAT, making the overall tax system more complicated. [link]
I'll hand it to the Roanoke Times editorial team.  They are at least up front about the fact that they want all taxes to be raised.

Unlike those who propose the adoption of the VAT.  They simply want to confuse.  To obfuscate.  To misdirect.  And raise all our taxes in doing so.

Oh, on a related note, you probably heard that "China's economy marches on as growth rate soars by nearly 12%."

That's not an accident.

Let's add the VAT to our lengthy list of tax obligations and see if we can get China's growth rate to 15%, shall we?

When Newspapers Censor The News

And speaking of the New York Times, why are we just now learning from America's most prestigious member of the dinosaur media that ObamaCare is destined to fail?

Ed Morrissey:
Perhaps the New York Times needs to change its well-known motto to All the News That’s Fit to Print … Eventually.  In today’s edition, buried in its Regional section, comes an analysis of the health-insurance reforms imposed by the state of New York over fifteen years ago.  Like ObamaCare, the state required insurance carriers to issue policies to people with pre-existing conditions as a means of making the industry more “fair” and imposed community pricing rather than risk-based premiums.  How did that work for New Yorkers?  About the way ObamaCare critics predicted ...

[T]his problem has unfolded in New York for years.  The premium problem in individual markets — the very kind that ObamaCare requires — were well known to the New York Times.  They had almost a year to report this during the health-care debate before a vote was taken.  Instead, they report it almost a month after Congress passed the bill, and stuck it in the Regional section where national readers might have missed it.  Shameful.
Shameful indeed.

But if these people knew in advance that the key proposals of the Obama health care initiative were doomed to failure, why did the Times so enthusiastically support it?

It makes no sense.

Of course, these are liberals we're talking about.  So making sense isn't generally required.

Don't Try To Understand Environmentalism

It'll just give you a headache.

Who was it said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"?

He must have been thinking of those who see gloom and doom arising out of every natural phenomenon.

You know that volcano that is erupting in Iceland?  In a mountain with the endearing name of Eyjafjallaj√∂kull?  Guess what caused it.

That's right.  Anthropogenic global warming.

NPR and CNN worry that Global Warming may have caused Iceland's Volcano!!!

This is just too bizarre:

Diana Rehm (NPR): We do wonder whether there's human involvement in all of these eruptions, earthquakes, storms ...

Elise Labott (senior State Department producer for CNN): ... and how much global warming has a role in it. You know we've seen a lot of wacky weather but that's just a microcosm for what's happening around the world and how much climate change is contributing to earthquakes and volcanic ash - it's a really good question.

How exactly could global warming cause a volcano to go off?
"Wacky weather."  "A microcosm" for "how much climate change is contributing to earthquakes and volcanic ash."  From the senior State Department producer for CNN.

For the love of God.  Can these people be any more stupid?

You're On Your Own

It would be wise for you Israelis to prepare for the worst.  When the Arabs attack again - and they will - you'll get no support from Obama.

How did it come to this?
The View From Jerusalem
The Wall Street Journal

Imagine that you're an Israeli perusing the past week's headlines. Senior U.S. military officials have told Congress that Iran may be a year away from producing a bomb's worth of fissile material. Efforts to sanction Iran are again bogged down at the U.N., even as the sanctions are watered down to insignificance. And senior Israeli officials now say that Syria has supplied Hezbollah with Scud-D missiles that can hit every city in Israel with a one-ton warhead to an accuracy of 50 meters.

Oh, and now the Obama Administration seems increasingly of the view that Israel is the primary cause of instability in the Middle East. [link]
Well, that's because it is.  Israel's very existence is the cause of instability in the region.  And the Arab countries that surround it have every intention of ending the problem of instability by slaughtering every Jew who lives there.  Just as Adolf Hitler ended his Jewish problem (see "Endl√∂sung der Judenfrage") by killing 6 million European Jews.

No Jews?  No problem.

It's not a matter of if.  It's a matter of when.

And Obama will not lift a finger to end the conflict when it begins, other than to send Hillary to Tel Aviv to browbeat the Israeli government into making more concessions.  Like that's ever done any good.

So you good people are on your own.  You who work to maintain the only western democracy in the Middle East.

You'd do well to lock and load.  And prepare for the worst.

- - -

Richard Baehr:
During the presidential campaign, Obama's defenders in the Jewish community argued that Reverend Wright -- and Ali Abunimah, and Rashid Khalidi, and Bill Ayers, and Samantha Power, and Zbigniew Brzezinski -- really had no role in influencing the president's thinking on Israel and that he was as reliably pro-Israel as, say, Bill Clinton. It has turned out that Obama really is a man of the left, and his position on Israel reflects the dominant thinking on Israel in academia and other elite leftist circles. Israel does not move him (except to anger). But the Palestinian story (or at least the Palestinian narrative of their story) and the sympathy for the perceived weaker party do seem to drive his thinking. Despite the obvious, some Jews, such as Ron Kampeas, continue to carry water for him and parse his words to try to mask the blatant hostility to Israel.

The abandonment of an ally is on display. It is not a pretty picture.
Reverend Wright raises his ugly head again ...