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

Saturday, January 15, 2011

'We Grieve With You. Send Us a Check.'

Does this strike you as being over-the-top ghoulish?

From the rabidly leftist anti-gun crusaders at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence a fund-raising letter that ... well, it speaks for itself:
Dear Friend,

Now is the time for tears, and to mourn the loss of life. My heart goes out to Rep. Giffords's family and all the victims of Saturday's shooting. Jim and I know all too well their pain. As Jim said on CNN yesterday, "been there, know that."

Now is also the time to ask "why?". Why do these mass shootings continue to happen?

After Jim was shot I asked that question and the answer was clear — because of our weak gun laws. And they are still too weak.

Help us stop another mass shooting.
Make a donation today.
This is a terrible tragedy. Send us cash.

These people know no shame.


Now that Obama has been stymied in his effort to bankrupt the coal industry through Congressional legislation (see "How Cap And Trade Was 'Trashed'"), he has seized upon another way to shut down the coalfields. Through his radical Environmental Protection Agency.

This is frightening in its implications:
Breaking news: EPA vetoes Spruce Mine permit
By Ken Ward, Jr., Charleston Gazette

Word is just coming down that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has vetoed the largest single mountaintop removal permit in West Virginia history.

The move is part of an Obama administration crackdown aimed at reducing the effects of mountaintop removal coal-mining on the environment and on coalfield communities in Appalachian [sic] — impacts that scientists are increasingly finding to be pervasive and irreversible. [link]
For the first time in U.S. history the government has revoked a permit that it had previously issued.  Why?  Because Obama's now in charge.  And Obama has plans for the coalfields that don't allow for the mining of coal.

Here's the best part: The EPA has taken this action so as to "protect Appalachian communities."  Those communities that exist only because coal jobs exist.  Where there will now be no coal mining jobs there will be no Appalachian communities.

But the EPA doesn't care about that.  And the radicals therein don't really give a damn about the people of the coalfields.  It's the boulder-strewn gullies and washes (that are half the time dry as a bone) that are paramount to them.  Over in far-off Washington D.C.

Said Barack Obama on January 17, 2008:

"I haven't been some coal booster."

It shows.

The Republican Party in Washington would do well to shut down the EPA before it wrecks the entire country, as it's now wrecking the impoverished sections of Virginia and West Virginia and Georgia and North Carolina and Tennessee and Kentucky.  Sections completely dependent on the coal industry for food, shelter, and sustenance.

Ban the EPA.  After that We the People will take it from there.  November 6, 2012 can't come soon enough.

- - -

Congressman Morgan Griffith has released the following statement regarding the Soviet government's the United States government's decision to (in effect) ban all surface mining henceforth:
“Yesterday we witnessed another attempt by the EPA to scrap valuable American jobs in the coal fields for no reason. In a time of troubling unemployment rates, I’m outraged that the EPA’s Washington bureaucrats think it’s a good idea to take away good paying local jobs.

“The Spruce No. 1 Mine marks the first time the EPA has ever vetoed a project that was previously granted a permit. This sets a dangerous precedent. If the EPA can grant a permit and then take it away, small businesses and working families are assured of the one thing they don’t need more of – uncertainty.

“The EPA is making it increasingly difficult for the U.S. to tap into its domestic energy resources. The Agency’s decision not only affects families whose livelihoods depend on the coal mines, but it also threatens to raise energy costs for every American. The people of Southwest Virginia sent me to Congress to create jobs and stop the overreach of the federal government. I plan to carefully review the details of this regulation and work with my colleagues to see this misguided decision altered. It’s time that we get Americans back to work and get the EPA out of the way.” [received via email]
You can do something about this, Mr. Griffith. You now have the power. Kill the EPA. Before it kills more American jobs.

And We're Supposed To Rely On 'Scientists'?

If there were ever a good reason to distrust "climate scientists":

Meaning: My Uneducated-Wild-Ass-Guess-o-Meter is as likely to predict the future.

Lest you forget, there are more than a few leftists who want government policy - and taxation - based on this foolishness.

For the love of God.

A Tale of Two Charts

This should make your head hurt.

S&P 500 performance over the last week:

Municipal bonds in recent days:

Both are explainable.

But only one says "the chickens are coming home to roost."

A Much Needed Clarification of the Law

Introduced for consideration to the House of Delegates this session by Delegate Anne B. Crockett-Stark (R-Wytheville) is a constitutional amendment intended to address the worst decision to come out of the United States Supreme Court since Dred Scott v. Sandford - that being the eminent domain ruling in Kelo v. City of New London.  Her bill (HJ 515) reads in summary:
Constitutional amendment (first resolution); taking of private property for public uses. Limits the exercise of eminent domain to the purpose of public use and specifies that, with the exception of takings for the provision of any utility or common carrier service, property can only be taken or damaged where the primary purpose is not private financial gain, private benefit, an increase in tax base or tax revenues, or an increase in employment. No more private property may be taken than that which is necessary to achieve the stated public use. Whenever an attempt is made to take or damage property for a stated public use, the owner shall have the right to a judicial determination that the use is truly public, without regard to any legislative assertion that the use is public.
It's unfortunate that this amendment is even necessary. But it's now necessary what with the old prunes sucking up oxygen on the Supreme Court having decided that the 5th Amendment restriction on government seizure of private property for public use actually means that private property can be seized and handed off to other private entities so that those private entities can make a profit and pay higher taxes to the government that seized the property.  Thus the word "use" in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution has become "abuse."

Here's to Annie B and her attempt to right a grievous wrong.

If only there weren't so many damn Democrats in the state Senate ...

It Was A Stupid Idea Anyway

I'll give Janet Napolitano credit on this one:
Homeland Security Axes Bush-Era 'Virtual Fence' Project
by Jason Ryan, ABC News

The Department of Homeland Security today officially scrapped a Bush-era program designed to use radar technology to detect illegal immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, according to a DHS official and a congressional source.

The project, called "Virtual Fence," was rolled out under the Bush administration in 2006 with much fanfare about how technology could help secure the border. Illegal immigrants crossing the border would be detected by a radar and picked up by remote cameras, which were monitored by border patrol agents.

But numerous internal and Congressional reviews found consistent performance problems with the project's systems, which only spanned 53 miles of the vast U.S.-Mexico border. [link]
This bit of genius came about at the same time George W. Bush dispatched the National Guard to the border (ammunitionless, by the way) to ... count ... the number of illegals that were entering our country under their very noses.

Neither project was really intended to accomplish anything; both were meant to simply score political points.

Lo and behold, neither accomplished anything.  Though neither scored any points either.

So Weird Aunt Janet has axed the "virtual fence."  Maybe now she'll divert the monies unspent to hiring more non-virtual border guards.  And just-as-non-virtual ammunition.

A Violation of the 2nd Amendment?

So what do you think of this bill that's been introduced in the Virginia state House of Delegates by Democrat Joe Morrisey (D-74-Charles County)?
HB 2343 Carrying a handgun while under the influence of alcohol or drugs; penalty.


Carrying a handgun while under the influence of alcohol or drugs; penalty. Creates a Class 1 misdemeanor for any person carrying a handgun in a public place while under the influence of alcohol or drugs and prohibits a person from obtaining a concealed handgun permit for five years following such a conviction. The prohibition applies regardless of whether the person is carrying the handgun openly or concealed with a concealed handgun permit. Current law makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to carry a concealed handgun in a public place while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, but does not speak to openly carrying a handgun while under the influence.
The fine print:
Any person who carries a handgun in a public place, regardless of whether such handgun is carried openly or concealed with a valid concealed handgun permit, while under the influence of alcohol or any other self-administered intoxicant or drug of whatever nature, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Conviction of any of the following offenses shall be prima facie evidence, subject to rebuttal, that the person is "under the influence" for purposes of this section: manslaughter in violation of � 18.2-36.1, maiming in violation of � 18.2-51.4, driving while intoxicated in violation of � 18.2-266, public intoxication in violation of � 18.2-388, or driving while intoxicated in violation of � 46.2-341.24.
In so many words, a person will have broken the law (twice) for having carried a weapon in public while, at the same time, having violated - and having been found guilty of violating - one of those other laws.

Here's my take:

1) The bill was introduced by a Democrat.  So I'm really leery.

2) It seems to make sense except for the fact that ...

3) ... it will be ignored by the drunks and the addicts it is aimed at.  After all, they're drunk and/or on drugs and are oblivious to the world around them.

4) To go along with (3), if all the laws directed at drunks and addicts can't stop them from being drunks and addicts, what good will this one do? What is it intended to prevent exactly?

5) Do we even have a problem with drunks and addicts carrying weapons in public to the point that we need a state law?

There it is.  You decide.