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

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Laugher of the Day

The Roanoke Times editorial page still believes that there is science behind the effort of the planet's socialists to redistribute the world's wealth through "global warming" legislation.

No, I'm not kidding.

See for yourself: "Climate change deniers ascendant."

Memo to the Roanoke Times: A dead giveaway as to the strength of your position is the cowardly attempt to avoid the premise that was once central to your argument.  Is the globe warming or not?   Or is climate changing, as it has since the beginning of time and will throughout time immemorial?

Want to see the faces of the real deniers when it comes to global ... whatever they're calling it now?

Go here.

That's right (for those of you who clicked the link).  That's the "Comics" section.  Where Dan Radmacher's gang of editorial buffoons ought to be.

- - -

* For the truth about climate science, go here.

Keepin' It Within The Family

This could make for an interesting Sunday in the back pews of the church. As it turns out the Republican nominee to replace Morgan Griffith in the 8th District, Greg Habeeb, and the Democrat nominee for the same seat in the House of Delegates, Ginger Mumpower, both attend the Church of the Holy Spirit on Merriman Road in Roanoke County.

If memory serves, this makes both candidates Episcopalian.

Make of that what you will.

More Reaction To Richard Cohen's Nonsense

First, see my post from yesterday: "Richard Cohen Is An Idiot."

Then read Power Line's John Hinderaker's response - "Who's Ignorant?" - to Cohen's article in yesterday's Washington Post.  In it he writes, first with a quote from the article:
"Why do politicians such as Palin and commentators such as Glenn Beck insist that African Americans go blank on their own history - as blank as apparently Palin and Beck are themselves? Why must they insist that blacks join them in embracing a repellent history that once caused America to go to war with itself?"

Is Cohen seriously saying that the entire history of the United States is "repellent?" I think he means the history of the antebellum South; if so, I've never seen anyone argue that African-Americans should embrace that particular history. But how about embracing a history that includes a Declaration of Independence that represents an unprecedented charter of freedom; a civil war that was fought to make the promises of the Declaration real precisely for the slaves and their descendants--which is to say, Michelle Obama; a free economy that has brought prosperity and independence to many millions, including millions of African-Americans; an honorable role in world affairs without which, without saying more, the world would be a far worse place; and the nation's ongoing efforts, including but not limited to the civil rights movement, to extend the benefits of liberty to every citizen? How dumb is it for Cohen to suggest that there is nothing in America's history of which we should be proud?

Among liberals, it is open season on Sarah Palin, her children, and--as may be the case here, Cohen's writing is characteristically unclear--her parents or grandparents. But is there no limit to the self-indulgent stupidity that liberals can commit, if only Sarah Palin is its target?
"Self-indulgent stupidity."   That pretty much sums up the legacy left to us by the Washington Post's premier columnist.

One can only shake one's head in wonder and amazement.

- - -

James Taranto:
"Palin teases that she might run for president. But she is unqualified--not just in the (let me count the) usual ways, but because she does not know the country. She could not be the president of black America nor of Hispanic America."

Cohen's conception of America is quite different from that of another young politician, who said in 2004: "There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America--there's the United States of America." That, of course, was Barack Obama--though at the time, Mrs. Obama had not yet experienced pride in her country.
Can a black man be president of White America?  Or, for that matter, can Barack Obama be president of Female America?  Or Right-Handed America?

I have to tell you, I get so confused when I read Richard Cohen.

Memo To The Democrats:

It's not too late to see the error of your ways and repeal ObamaCare.

Or continue to defy the American people, continue to follow your leader as he walks the plank, and be relegated to the history books come 2012.

It's not too late. But the clock is ticking.

The Trend In Gun Rights Polling

For the second year in a row, a record-low 44% of Americans say laws governing the sale of firearms should be made more strict, while 42% say gun laws should be kept as they are now. Twelve percent say gun laws should be made less strict.

Americans' support for stricter gun control laws has gradually declined over the last two decades, from 78% when this question was first asked in 1990 to 49% in 2008, and 44% in 2009 and again this year. As support for stricter gun laws has decreased, support for keeping gun laws as they are now has increased, from 17% in 1990 to 42% now. The percentage of Americans favoring less strict gun control laws has remained relatively stable over the last 20 years, and is now at 12%.

These results are based on Gallup's annual Crime Poll, conducted Oct. 7-10 this year. [link]
Here's the way it looks in graph form (you might click on the image to enlarge it):

What I notice, beyond the two most important trend lines, is that one representing those Americans who feel our gun laws should be "less strict."  It has reached the 12% figure.  Again.

The last time it got that high Bill Clinton was president and the 1994 assault weapons ban had been signed into law.  The passage of which drummed a lot of gun-ban politicians out of office and led to the takeover of Congress by Newt Gingrich's Republicans later that year.

We've reached that 12% figure again.  But this time without any draconian effort on the part of our august legislative body in Washington.  This time it has everything to do with Obama.  And with what he might do to our gun rights. (He's the reason why guns and ammo sales have skyrocketed in the last two years as well.) 

It also has to do with the Tea Party movement that has swept the land with its "Don't tread on me!" slogan.

A growing number of Americans want Obama and his minions out of our lives (and away from our "junk").  We arm ourselves just in case the Socialist-in-Chief doesn't get that message.

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
-- George Washington --

Chart courtesy of Gallup.

Expect a Really Really REALLY Tough Response

How is Barack Obama going to react to North Korea's artillery attack the other day on our close ally, South Korea?  He doesn't know yet.  See "Obama condemns N. Korea, plots response." But expect his reply to the commies' naked aggression to be forceful and without equivocation.

My guess is he'll adopt the same strategy that the last Democratic Warrior-in-Chief followed when he was confronted with a belligerent North Korea.  He showered them with gifts.  Nuclear gifts.  And gave them a really REALLY stern warning.

We see how well that worked out.

Now they're back for more.

And Obama's going to give it to them.

Along with a really REALLY stern ...

For The Love Of God

I'm going to borrow this story brought to us by Erick Erickson over at Red State.  It's too good to simply link to.  It's a story about soldiers returning to the USA from Afghanistan.  And their encounter with the now-infamous TSA.

With a hearty thanks to Mr. Erickson:
As the Chalk Leader for my flight home from Afghanistan, I witnessed the following:

When we were on our way back from Afghanistan, we flew out of Baghram Air Field. We went through customs at BAF, full body scanners (no groping), had all of our bags searched, the whole nine yards.

Our first stop was Shannon, Ireland to refuel. After that, we had to stop at Indianapolis, Indiana to drop off about 100 folks from the Indiana National Guard. That’s where the stupid started.

First, everyone was forced to get off the plane–even though the plane wasn’t refueling again. All 330 people got off that plane, rather than let the 100 people from the ING get off. We were filed from the plane to a holding area. No vending machines, no means of escape. Only a male/female latrine.

It’s probably important to mention that we were ALL carrying weapons. Everyone was carrying an M4 Carbine (rifle) and some, like me, were also carrying an M9 pistol. Oh, and our gunners had M-240B machine guns. Of course, the weapons weren’t loaded. And we had been cleared of all ammo well before we even got to customs at Baghram, then AGAIN at customs.

The TSA personnel at the airport seriously considered making us unload all of the baggage from the SECURE cargo hold to have it reinspected. Keep in mind, this cargo had been unpacked, inspected piece by piece by U.S. Customs officials, resealed and had bomb-sniffing dogs give it a one-hour run through. After two hours of sitting in this holding area, the TSA decided not to reinspect our Cargo–just to inspect us again: Soldiers on the way home from war, who had already been inspected, reinspected and kept in a SECURE holding area for 2 hours. Ok, whatever. So we lined up to go through security AGAIN.

This is probably another good time to remind you all that all of us were carrying actual assault rifles, and some of us were also carrying pistols.

So we’re in line, going through one at a time. One of our Soldiers had his Gerber multi-tool. TSA confiscated it. Kind of ridiculous, but it gets better. A few minutes later, a guy empties his pockets and has a pair of nail clippers. Nail clippers. TSA informs the Soldier that they’re going to confiscate his nail clippers. The conversation went something like this:

TSA Guy: You can’t take those on the plane.

Soldier: What? I’ve had them since we left country.

TSA Guy: You’re not suppose to have them.

Soldier: Why?

TSA Guy: They can be used as a weapon.

Soldier: [touches butt stock of the rifle] But this actually is a weapon. And I’m allowed to take it on.

TSA Guy: Yeah but you can’t use it to take over the plane. You don’t have bullets.

Soldier: And I can take over the plane with nail clippers?

TSA Guy: [awkward silence]

Me: Dude, just give him your damn nail clippers so we can get the f**k out of here. I’ll buy you a new set.

Soldier: [hands nail clippers to TSA guy, makes it through security]

This might be a good time to remind everyone that approximately 233 people re-boarded that plane with assault rifles, pistols, and machine guns–but nothing that could have been used as a weapon. [emphasis in the original]
It's worth contemplating that it will be this same "TSA Guy" who will be administering your anaesthesia when you go to visit your granny in the hospital once ObamaCare is fully implemented.  Whether you like it or not.

May God have mercy.  Is this what we've come to?