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

Saturday, November 06, 2010

I Have a Great Idea!

The Roanoke Times's Tonia Moxley laments the cutbacks - whether real or perceived - of federal funding of higher education.  Get out your Kleenex.

From "Student work study programs stretched to the limit":
Some of Virginia Tech's neediest students will see another avenue of financial support curtailed or cut completely because of reduced federal funding and increased demand.

Some of the 1,228 students employed under Tech's work study program have already seen their benefits end, while others have seen their awards cut nearly in half.
Gosh. What's a destitute university to do?

Hey, I have an idea! How about Virginia Tech tap into its $530,265,930 endowment and shell out a few bucks to those "neediest" students?

No. Can't do that.  The university needs its "rainy day fund" for ... well, God knows what tomorrow will bring. It's "neediest" students - many of whom were made needier by Virginia Tech's perennial increasing of its outrageous tuition charges -  can just go pound salt.

A half-billion dollars sitting in a VT vault and this reporter laments the fact that taxpayers aren't doing enough to support the university's student population.

For the love of God.

Boucher Walked The Plank

And for what?

If there is any one reason for longtime Congressman Rick Boucher's (did I actually refer to him as "Congressman-for-life Rick Boucher" not long ago?) demise on Tuesday, it had to be his vote in favor of that "energy bill" that was devised to bankrupt the coal industry.  You know, the one that he claimed to support only because, if he hadn't, the EPA would have run roughshod over the industry on its own and he felt obligated to do what he could to mitigate the damage.  Or some such nonsense.  Remember?

Ya gotta give him credit.  Despite all reality to the contrary, he defended his defense right up to the bitter end.  So let's acknowledge that much.

(Or did we last Tuesday?)

There were those of us at the time who argued - no, thundered - that, had he any balls, he would have gone into defiance mode and vowed to stop EPA from doing anything that might harm his most loyal constituency in Dickenson, Lee, Russell, Scott, Tazewell, and Wise Counties.  Instead he cut a deal.  And got bounced.

Here's the sad irony: The approach we advocated back then was adopted by We the People and We ultimately crushed the effort to tax and regulate the coal industry into oblivion.  We the People won.  The legislation that Boucher sacrificed his career for died in the Senate, never to be resurrected.

But make note of this: We aren't done by a long shot. It didn't end with Boucher being forced into retirement.  The latest culprit to face the wrath of an aroused public:
EPA policy chief steps down
By Robin Bravender, Politico

One of the Obama administration’s most aggressive officials on global warming regulations is stepping down from her post at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Lisa Heinzerling, the head of EPA’s policy office, will return to her position as a Georgetown University law professor at the end of the year, said EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan.

Within EPA, Heinzerling is one of the more dogmatic proponents of regulating greenhouse gases to the maximum extent possible under the Clean Air Act.

Heinzerling gained fame in the environmental community for her role in helping to win a landmark 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case that gave EPA the authority* to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. At EPA, she’s played a leading role in crafting the agency’s controversial climate policies as Jackson’s senior climate policy attorney and then as the associate administrator of EPA’s Office of Policy.

“I think she’s probably the farthest left and most committed of anyone on the team, with the exception of Carol Browner,” on climate change, said an industry attorney familiar with the agency, referring to the former agency administrator and President Barack Obama’s energy and climate adviser. [link]
Another leftist is sent off to Siberia.  Time to rejoice.

But only for a brief moment.

EPA is chock full of anti-American socialists like Lisa Heinzerling.  All of whom must be driven into exile lest they be allowed to wreak even more havoc on this once-great country of ours.

The passage of Rick Boucher's "energy bill" was the high-water mark of radical environmentalism in this country.  We the People now intend to make it also the environmentalists' Waterloo.

Alas, if only Rick Boucher had had the intestinal fortitude, he would be our congressman going forward.

- - -

* Note: "... a landmark 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case that gave EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions ..."  It still rankles when I think that (lawyer) Boucher claimed to the very end that the Supreme Court mandated that the EPA regulate CO2 emissions.  It never did any such thing.  As this article rightly points out, and as I did on numerous occasions, the Supreme Court granted the EPA such authority.  A huge difference.  We may have no control over the Court and its mandates but we sure as hell have considerable control over an out-of-control agency in the executive branch of the federal government.  And, as history will duly note, we are exercising that control.

And we'll do so again on November 6, 2012.  As sure as the Sun will rise on that day, you can count on our being there to set things right once and for all.

The Two Faces of WaPo

Odd. It wasn't that long ago that the Washington Post editorial page was calling on the government to step in and make things right by the city of Washington D.C..

But now that the Republicans have taken control of the House of Representatives, the Washington Post is calling on the government to butt out of Washington D.C. affairs.

Fascinating how an election can change one's tune so quickly.

Caption of the Day

Offered up by Hot Air:

Obama: "We'd be misreading the election if we thought that the American people would want to see us for the next two years re-litigate the arguments we had for the last two years."

The American people in overwhelming numbers and in a loud and clear intonation on November 2: You're right.  Don't misread our lips: Repeal the last two years.

Hillary In 2020!

Keep hope alive:

She'll only be 93 or so in 2020. A spring chicken. Here's to her.

I Give Her My Wholehearted Support

Maybe the GOP can widen its voting margin in 2012:

We should be so lucky ...

- - -

Given that there are now 60-plus defeated Democrat House members urgently seeking jobs due to Nancy Pelosi’s failed leadership, we welcome her decision to run for House Minority Leader based on her proven ability to create jobs for Republican lawmakers."
-- Ken Spain, National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) communications director --

No Thanks To You

This from the NRA seems so hollow:

"We want to thank the tens of millions of gun owners who actively volunteered for pro-gun candidates and who Voted Freedom First on November 2nd!"

Odd.  I thought the rule adopted by the NRA going into the last election was to endorse Incumbents First.

* Maybe someone there can explain how Tom Perriello's (D-VA5) enthusiastic championing of his vote in favor of ObamaCare with its anti-freedom mandates directed at the American people can plausibly be thought of as having placed "freedom first."  Yet the NRA endorsed him anyway (and, it should be mentioned, with a non-existent 2nd Amendment résumé on his part to boot).   "Freedom First!"  One chuckles.

Democrats & Their Party of Diversity

Never let it be said that the Democratic Party discriminates against really stupid people:

How proud they must be ...

MSNBC Was Wrong ...

... in firing Keith Olbermann for having donated cash to three Democrat campaigns in the last election.

He should have been fired long ago for having poor ratings, with virtually nobody watching his awful, awful show.

But then if NBC set that standard, it would also be firing Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough and Dylan Ratigan and Ed Schultz and ...

Why Does AARP Have ANY Members?

You may remember this headline from the days when ObamaCare was being hotly debated in Congress:

A political calculation that prompted many within the organization to wonder who - if anyone - was in charge of the largest association on the planet organized to protect - or so it seemed - the interests of its elderly membership.

To this day many experts are confounded by the decision, knowing that the bill in question was constructed such that cost savings - what there were of them - would be had through the tightening of outlays to Medicare, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars over time, which in itself is a direct assault on the membership of AARP.

Well, as it turns out, ObamaCare isn't just bad for AARP members.  It's bad for AARP employees too.  This can only be described - under the circumstances - as being absolutely shameful:
Citing health overhaul, AARP hikes employee costs
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press

Washington – AARP's endorsement helped secure passage of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Now the seniors' lobby is telling its employees their insurance costs will rise partly as a result of the law.

In an e-mail to employees, AARP says health care premiums will increase by 8 percent to 13 percent next year because of rapidly rising medical costs.

And AARP adds that it's changing copayments and deductibles to avoid a 40 percent tax on high-cost health plans that takes effect in 2018 under the law. Aerospace giant Boeing also has cited the tax in asking its workers to pay more. Shifting costs to employees lowers the value of a health care plan and acts like an escape hatch from the tax. [link]
This news prompted Doug Powers to write the following headline:

AARP deserved that. Every word of it.

Though those who look to AARP for comfort, support, ... and income didn't.

Dem Strategists Pray For Human Tragedy

James Taranto points out how morbid - and how bloodthirsty - the Democrats can be in their compulsive need to control our country:
How desperate is the president's predicament? Consider this exchange, noted by blogger Ed Morrissey, between MSNBC host Chris Matthews and Democratic pollster Mark Penn:
Penn: The president himself has to reconnect with the people. Remember, President Clinton reconnected through Oklahoma, right?

Matthews: Yeah, because of the bombing down there.

Penn: And the president right now seems removed. And it wasn't until that speech that he reclicked with the American public. Obama needs a similar--a similar kind of event.
The mind reels. What can one say to Mark Penn other than: Be careful what you wish for, because innocent Americans might get it.
The president "needs" to have 168 innocent Americans slaughtered in order to get his mojo back.

My God.

In fact, Obama is presented with a similar kind of "event" most every day.  American lives are being lost in Afghanistan.   Remember Afghanistan, Barry?  At least 650 Americans have been killed there since the president came into office.  Yet he rarely mentions the place.  What a missed opportunity.

Maybe Penn and Matthews mean that Obama needs American women and children to be killed in large numbers.  Yeah, that'll do the trick.

Get back into the sewers, will you?  All of you?

I Love This Stuff

A researcher has discovered (or rediscovered) "the Lincoln column" that was installed in the Capitol on the day Abraham Lincoln was elected, November 6, 1860.  And has photographs to prove it.

See "A Lincoln Photograph – and a Mystery" in today's New York Times.


They Got What They Deserved

Political judges deserve to be treated ... politically.

The Wall Street Journal:
Iowans made a clean sweep of the state Supreme Court on Tuesday, voting to recall all three justices who were up for a retention election. The rout is being played as an unprecedented politicization of state courts. Maybe if judges behaved less like politicians, they'd have less reason to fear recall votes.

Voters were expressing their dismay over a 2009 Iowa court ruling that gave the green light to same-sex marriage. That unanimous decision, which overturned a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, struck voters as an attempt by the seven justices to impose their views on the state. This is precisely the kind of judicial arrogance—finding a right to gay marriage in the state constitution after many decades in which no one noticed it—that the recall election was designed for.

Far from a beacon of judicial independence, the three Iowa justices were fired because they put their own political preferences above their commitment to the law. If judges want to avoid recalls, they should leave social legislation to legislators.
Someone might want to get that message to Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Sotomayor. They can be fired too. It may take some effort, but ...