Quote

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

Monday, May 10, 2010

Happiness Is ...

... being surrounded by those you love on your birthday:


They make turning ... 39 a lot easier.

To be with them is to look into my future, generations to come.

The Smoke Nazis Won't Allow It

But Americans who just want to be left alone are going to try to shield themselves from the busybodies anyway:
Private club aims to keep cigar smoking sociable
The Commonwealth Cigar Club offers a comfortable setting for tobacco aficionados.
By Duncan Adams, Roanoke Times

David Meyer leaned back in a leather-upholstered chair and smoked a Davidoff Aniversario No. 3. Seated nearby, Kelly Morrison savored a Davidoff 1000 and Rich Carney a Davidoff Puro D'Oro.

The three lounged and puffed in the members-only Commonwealth Cigar Club one floor above David and Renee Meyer's Milan Tobacconists retail store in Roanoke.

An annual fee of $1,000 and a biometric lock that reads fingerprints offer entry into the not-for-profit club, which formally opened April 16. Cigar aficionados living outside a 50-mile radius pay $500. [link]
A hefty fee and a biometric lock (whatever that is) in an attempt to be left alone and light up.  It's come to that.

Not that either will do any good.  The smoke police - they of the tolerance community - will not tolerate it.

These Guys Crack Me Up

And they do it for a good cause:



Worth watching twice.

'From beacon of change to crabby curmudgeon in less than 16 months . . . .'

Ah, hope and change.

That was then.


Oh.  My.

I think we were supposed to bow down and thank him for destroying our children's future.

Maybe in the next life, pal.

You Think Your Electric Bill Is High Now?

Wait till Wednesday.  The Democrats plan on jacking them up a whole lot more.

In an effort to fight global warming.

Despite the fact that the globe isn't warming.

For the love of God:
Cap-and-Trade Is Back
By Brian Sussman, American Thinker

On Wednesday, Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) plan to introduce legislation designed to inflate the cost of energy, strain family budgets, and decimate America's manufacturing sector -- all in the name of supposedly saving the climate.

My insiders also say the new Kerry-Lieberman proposal will keep the House bill's goal of attaining a 17-percent reduction of greenhouse gases (below their 2005 level) by 2020. Apparently the Senate bill will allow cap-and-trade to hit power companies first, and then within six years include the manufacturing sector.

This is a bill that will cause all of us to suffer great loss.

So where will the 17% cut come from, especially given that (according to U.S. census projections) there will be an additional 30 million people in the United States by 2020? If the cuts are distributed proportionately, the biggest blow will be to electricity production. Since 50 percent of our nation's electricity is derived from coal, that industry and its customers will be hit hardest. Coal plants are going to have to be shuttered. And what will replace that energy resource? Nothing.  [link]
A sentence worth repeating to Congressman Rick Boucher, Democrat, 9th Congressional District, coalfield counties of Virginia:

"Since 50 percent of our nation's electricity is derived from coal, that industry and its customers will be hit hardest."

Make note: He's already voted for this legislation.  He'll be voting only to reconcile his version with this Senate version if it passes. We're almost dead already.

All this to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

These people must be stopped.  Our futures depend on it.

We'll See

If Obama's Supreme Court nominee is anything like his other key appointments, she'll be long on resumé and short on intellect.  And common sense.  We already know she's done little to impress the experts beyond being promoted to lofty gigs in academe:
AP: Elena Kagan is Obama's Pick for the Supreme Court
By Ariane de Vogue, ABC News

President Obama has selected Solicitor General Elena Kagan as his second nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to the Associated Press.

If her nomination is approved by the Senate, Kagen would fill the seat left open by the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens and become the fourth woman ever to sit on the nation's highest court.

Kagan is considered one of the finest legal scholars in the country, dazzling both fellow liberal and conservative friends with her intellectual and analytical prowess but also her ability to find consensus among ideological opposites. [link]

The part of that last sentence that is in bold is what you call editorializing.  In a news item.

In truth:
Kagan ... is a purportedly "brilliant" legal scholar who was granted tenure at the University of Chicago and Harvard, before becoming dean of the latter's law school.

Yesterday, I read everything Elena Kagan has ever published. It didn't take long: in the nearly 20 years since Kagan became a law professor, she's published very little academic scholarship—three law review articles, along with a couple of shorter essays and two brief book reviews. Somehow, Kagan got tenure at Chicago in 1995 on the basis of a single article in The Supreme Court Review—a scholarly journal edited by Chicago's own faculty—and a short essay in the school's law review. She then worked in the Clinton administration for several years before joining Harvard as a visiting professor of law in 1999. While there she published two articles, but since receiving tenure from Harvard in 2001 (and becoming dean of the law school in 2003) she has published nothing.

Her scholarship provides no clues regarding how she would rule on such crucial contemporary issues as the scope of the president's power in wartime, the legality of torture, or the ability of Congress to rein in campaign spending by corporations.
But she is a woman.  And she is probably very liberal.  So, heck yeah!

One sentence from Paul Campos's assessment above should tell you something about this gal's qualifications:

"Yesterday, I read everything Elena Kagan has ever published."

In one day?

Can we go back to that "one of the finest legal scholars in the country, dazzling both fellow liberal and conservative friends with her intellectual and analytical prowess" thingie?

Well, There Is That

This fits the template:


And there is certainly truth to the premise.

But the fact that the Democrat in question, an alleged two-bit crook, should, in a different world, be in prison right now might be part of the equation as well.

Just sayin' ...