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

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Take It At Face Value

Yeah, they're all a bunch of liars.

But one of them happens to also be president of these United States:
Secret papers reveal Senate 'talks' between Obama and Blagojevich
By Charles Hurt, Bureau Chief, New York Post

Washington -- Sections of court papers filed by scandal-scarred former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich that were mistakenly made public show a deeper involvement by President Obama in picking his Senate successor and call into question the president's public statements on the case.

According to passages in the papers filed Thursday by Blagojevich's lawyers -- which were blacked out under a judge's order but made visible by a computer glitch -- Obama, then president-elect, spoke directly to the disgraced governor on Dec. 1, 2008.

But just one week later -- on the day Blagojevich was indicted -- Obama told reporters flatly, "I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so we were not -- I was not aware of what was happening."

The newly revealed sections also contradict Obama's claims that he never discussed favorable legislative action in exchange for a large campaign contribution with his former neighbor, fund-raiser and key supporter Tony Rezko, who has since been convicted of fraud.

Blagojevich's lawyers charge that Rezko has told the feds that, indeed, he did have such conversations with a "public official." The defense believes the official to be Obama. [link]
Good Lord.  We're going to relive the Clinton presidency.  Lies.  Denials.  Evasions.

Why couldn't Obama have been up front about all this and save himself - and us - from controversy?

Attack The Message

Not the messenger.

I ask you: What would Jesus say?

I understand the sentiment. And I'm very sympathetic.

But I'm not big on trashing God's messengers.

How about we stick to denouncing Islamist extremism, a target-rich environment, and leave it at that?

And Something Else I'm Not Comfortable With

Arizona's new immigration law.

First, let me say, I've no problem with the state deporting every illegal immigrant in its midst.

It's the way the state of Arizona is going about identifying those who should be deported.  If the New York Times can be trusted, the new law "would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally."

A confession: I don't carry immigration papers.

Would I be subject to detention if I were to be found wandering the streets of Tucson?

We all know the answer to that question.  I'm a white boy.

So who would be "suspected of being in the country illegally"?

I think we all know the answer to that question too, mi cholo hermano.

Here's my problem: The effort reminds me of this from the early days of the Nazi reign of terror in eastern Europe:

That's the Star of David badge the man and the woman in the photo are wearing.  The badge that Jews were required to wear to let non-Jews know who was walking in their midst.*  And for later deportation purposes.

That having been said, I sympathize with the people of Arizona and am inclined to give them wide latitude when it comes to solving their out-of-control illegals situation.  For, by all accounts, the situation along the Mexican border and in Arizona's large cities is now utter chaos.  And worse.

I don't walk in their shoes.  And thank God that I don't.

Here's the bottom line: This situation has been forced upon the citizens there.  By the hundreds of thousands of illegals.  By an indifferent Mexican government.  And by an uncaring and unsympathetic Obama administration.

The law may be the only measure that keeps Arizona from descending completely into anarchy.

I just wish American citizens - good, law-abiding friends and neighbors - of Mexican descent weren't caught up in this state of affairs.

* The Nazis were apparently magnanimous to a point.  They didn't require children to wear the Star of David badge.  But then they slaughtered Jewish children in the camps more quickly than their parents, so maybe not.

The End Of This Experiment We Call America

You want to know when the country is certifiably doomed to destruction?

The day Crazy Al becomes Justice Al Gore.

It's every man for himself at that point.

Headline Of The Day

From Andrew Bolt at the Herald Sun:

Another polar rescue must send chills down spines of alarmists

Tom Smitheringale wanted to prove the world was warming. Now he's another alarmist with frostbite. 

Well, no one said these alarmists were all that bright.

Environmentalism's Founding Fathers

On Earth Day we should all hang our heads in shame:
DDT and Population Control
Wall Street Journal

Environmental activists this week marked the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, which happened to fall three days before World Malaria Day. Insofar as Earth Day politics have contributed to today's malaria epidemic, the two events are related.

Earth Day founder Gaylord Nelson, a U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, was a leading opponent of the insecticide DDT, which remains the cheapest and most effective way to combat malarial mosquitoes. Rachel Carson's 1962 book, "Silent Spring," misleadingly linked pesticides to cancer and is generally credited with popularizing environmental awareness. But other leading greens of the period, including Nelson, biologist Paul Ehrlich and ecologist Garrett Hardin, were also animated by a belief that growth in human populations was harming the environment.

"The same powerful forces which create the crisis of air pollution also are threatening our freshwater resources, our woods, our wildlife," said Nelson. "These forces are the rapid increase in population, industrialization, urbanization and scientific technology." In his book "The Population Bomb," Mr. Ehrlich criticized DDT for being too effective in reducing death rates and thus contributing to "overpopulation." Hardin opposed spraying pesticides in the Third World because "every life saved this year in a poor country diminishes the quality of life for subsequent generations." For these activists, malaria was nature's way of controlling population growth, and DDT got in the way.

Today, malaria still claims about one million lives every year—mostly women and children in sub-Saharan Africa. There's no evidence that spraying the chemical inside homes in the amounts needed to combat the disease harms humans, animals or the environment. Yet DDT remains severely underutilized in the fight against malaria because the intellectual descendants of Senator Nelson continue to hold sway at the World Health Organization and other United Nations agencies. [link]
To support the ban on DDT for "environmental reasons" - no matter how wrong-headed the reasoning is - is at least understandable. 

But to support the ban so as to keep the populations of Africa's poorest countries at a manageable level is unconscionable.  Why not just napalm villages and poison the drinking water?  Take all children out back and shoot them?

For the love of God.

It's important to know who mankind's enemies are.  They have names and faces.  See above.

This Is No Way To Run a Country

Missing The Point

I think this gal missed the point:
The GOP Needs Candidates with Backbone
By Karen Karacsony, American Thinker

While recently attending a candidate forum, I heard a prominent Republican candidate answer a question about gay marriage with the declaration, "I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage."


Fellow Republicans, let us be clear: The government has a whole lot to do with marriage. After all, we do not purchase marriage licenses at our local 7-11, but instead receive them from a government office -- and only after governmental officials have received the proper fees and documentation to certify the marriage. [link]
The GOP candidate made the statement that government should not be in the marriage business.

Ms. Karacsony feels compelled to state the obvious in reply: The government is in the marriage business.

Well, yeah.  But should it be?

That was the point the candidate made; the one that was completely lost on the columnist.  One that is, to many of us, a valid one worth discussing.

Government needs to get out of the marriage business.  We license dogs.  Why do we also license unions between men and women?

The only reason I know of is to keep black men from marrying white women.  Do we really want to support that 20th century Jim Crow effort?

Obama Backs Down

At least for now he's trying mightily, because of the harm he's done to relations with one of our closest allies, to keep his anti-Jew, anti-Israel worldview in check. From "W.H. launches Israel P.R. offensive":
“What happened here, is they came to a moment of truth about 10 days, two weeks ago, ‘we have failed. ’Our Middle East policy and posture is in chaos, is in failure, and there is no way to ignore it. And therefore, what do we do about it?’ And they decided, we need to change the posture. They realized they were going down a bad path. So they launched a PR campaign — a blitz — entirely to support the policy.”
If I were Netanyahu I wouldn't put too much faith in this "policy."  After all, it still calls on Israel to cease construction of apartment buildings in a Jewish section of Jerusalem that had never been a point of contention between the Palestinians and the Israelis before, until Obama made it an issue.

No.  Distrust would be my watchword.  Our president with the middle name Hussein feels a kinship with the Muslim "downtrodden."  That won't change because of some in-house opinion poll.