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

Monday, January 24, 2011

Nothing Hateful About That

Here's today's lesson on civility.  Offered up by a contributor to the Bristol Herald Courier:
Talk radio proves hate breeds hate

As I listened to the airways repeating the news about the shooting of the Arizona congresswoman and others, I noticed how the reporters tiptoed around one of the major contributors of this tragedy: talk radio.

One of our local radio stations allows these hate spewers, from 9:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. five days a week. Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others spew this hate toward our president. Calling him names like Hitler, and saying he wasn’t born in the USA and hate toward Democrats in general. And the sweetheart of the conservatives speaking about bullets and ballots, and bull’s-eyes over Democrats.

Hate breeds hate. I believe in free speech, but common sense should rule. Unless this type of broadcasting is stopped we’ll continue to hear of these tragedies.
I hate these haters. They need to be banned.

May God have mercy.

The Difference Between Them & Me

Make of this what you will.  I never watch politicians' speeches on TV.  Except for snippets replayed at a later point in time anyway.  While others take them seriously, I prefer to withhold judgment until I find out exactly what they've done, and are doing, rather than listen dreamily and say, after ... promises ... are made, "oh, that would be nice."

Promises that are never - NEVER - kept, of course.

That may explain why some people bought into the Obama hope & change schtick.  They listened and said, "Oh, that would be nice."  I didn't listen and paid close attention to that which he'd actually done in his past.  That probably explains, too, why the "listeners" are so disappointed with him these days and I yawn and say, "I told you so."

Anyway, prepare yourself.  Obama's giving a speech tomorrow night.  And millions will listen.

Me?  I'll be watching reruns of Fantasy Island.  At least the producers had the good sense to improve its entertainment value by including a midget.

I wonder when Obama will think of doing the same ...

* Someone will suggest that I am afflicted by A.D.D.  I prefer to think that my time is of value.

James Webb Is Next To Go

Virginia flirted with liberalism.  For a time.  And we got saddled with Weird James Webb as a result.

That day is gone.

Let's send him back to wherever he came from.

And get back on track.
George Allen to announce Senate bid Monday
By David Catanese, Politico

Former Sen. George Allen will end weeks of speculation and formally declare his candidacy for U.S. Senate in Virginia on Monday, two Republican advisers tell POLITICO.

Allen, who has been making all the moves of a candidate in recent weeks, is expected to blast an e-mail to supporters with a video message before alerting the media.

The announcement comes as no surprise. The former governor and senator has been touring the state to champion a repeal of the health care law, quietly reaching out to state lawmakers and seeking advice from those who guided his earliest campaigns.

Allen’s Monday announcement comes before Democratic Sen. Jim Webb’s own decision about running for a second term. Webb, who bested Allen by fewer than 10,000 votes in 2006, has been silent about a reelection campaign, leaving even some of his closest supporters wondering what he’ll do. [link]
I put chances at "better than even" that Webb won't seek reelection.  His one and only driving impetus in 2006 was to see the war in Iraq ended.  It has.  He has no other reason to be in Congress.  So don't be surprised when he decides to depart.

As for Allen, he doesn't have an unpopular war to defend anymore.  His only enemy in a 2012 contest will be the Washington Post.  He can expect that rag to pull out all the stops in its effort to defeat him.  As it did - to its eternal discredit - last time around.

Here's to George Allen in 2012.  Take it to 'em, big guy.

- - -

The slime mongers begin their assault.  In today's Washington Post:

For the love of God.

Spending Cuts? Start Here.

I'm quickly becoming an Ileana fan:
U.N. funding an early target for House Republicans
By Bridget Johnson, The Hill

A key House Republican is quickly pressing forward with her goals to scale back U.S. funding for the United Nations.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told The Hill that oversight would be a key function of the panel, particularly funding to the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) that is "a waste of taxpayer dollars."

"I'd like to make sure that we once and for all kill all U.S. funding for that beast," she said last month. "Because I don't think that it advances U.S. interests, I don't think that that's a pro-democracy group, it's a rogue's gallery, pariah states, they belong there because they don't want to be sanctioned." [link
Ileana has picked the right target.  What sane person could support a Human Rights Council that sees, of all the human rights abuses being committed around the planet, only those coming from an evil Zionist Israel (I qualify the use of the word "sane" intentionally; that leaves out all the Muslims on the planet). 

But really the entire United Nations is a fat, wasteful, anti-America collection of socialists and thugs.

We should defund the U.N. completely.

But Ileana'a effort will be a good first step.

We Can Cut Here Too

George W. Bush did a lot of things right.  But he, like his father, was a big-government guy.  Thus, his response to the 9/11 attacks amounted to creating a massive new bureaucracy in Washington called Homeland Security and bringing in a federal employee union to take control of airport baggage handling (?).*   Neither response was necessary or justifiable.

Yet here we are.

Anybody remember why we have a DHS?

Answer: So that the FBI would communicate with the CIA.

An executive order wouldn't do.  We needed 10,000 new federal employees to make it happen.

And here we are.

Well, let's get away from where we are.  And kill the damn thing:
Do We Need a Department of Homeland Security or a TSA?
By Art Carden, Forbes

The new Republican House of Representatives took office amidst much fanfare about the US Constitution and respecting Constitutional limits on government. I have suggested that if they are really serious about it, they will start by abolishing the Transportation Security Administration. Not much has changed in the last few weeks. Indeed, we can do without the whole “Homeland Security” charade.

Defenders of the Department of Homeland Security and TSA ask whether we are willing to sacrifice safety and security to avoid being inconvenienced. There is no evidence that this works. I have said it before and I will say it again: the data suggest that if anything, the TSA actually costs lives.

No doubt, there are plenty of people who heartily endorse increasingly-invasive measures employed by the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration because it makes them feel safe. That feeling of safety is an illusion. As Bruce Schneier and others have pointed out, the entire operation is “security theater” that costs us time and money while leaving us no safer. As Wikileaks is showing us, an opaque government saying “just trust us” is not to be trusted. [link]
Make that "grossly expensive security theater."  And we don't have the cash for that kind of entertainment anymore.

TSA is a joke.  And always has been.  As for Homeland Security, truth be known, there's nothing that is being done within its (many) walls that the FBI and CIA can't do on their own.  And if the members thereof occasionally do lunch, efforts will be coordinated and we'll remain safe.  Or at least as safe as we are today.

So, as I've said from Day One, we need to kill the Department of Homeland Security because it's an egregious waste of our hard-earned income.  And TSA can be snuffed along with it.

We're broke, folks.  We can't afford foolishness like that anymore.

* Well, okay, he did go to war against global Islamist aggression as well. I should mention that.

String Him Up!

Wow.  Chicago Bears fans are a surly bunch:
Jay Cutler under attack for leaving Bears' loss with knee injury
By Sean Leahy, USA TODAY

The Chicago Bears defended QB Jay Cutler on Sunday after he came under withering criticism from fans, analysts and even fellow players for having left an NFC title game loss to the Green Bay Packers with a knee injury.

Cutler exited the game, with the Bears trailing 14-0, early in the third quarter. He remained on the sidelines, spending some of the remainder of the game looking sullen in a seat on the bench and some of it standing on the sideline.

Fellow NFL players questioned Cutler's toughness on Twitter during the game, and ESPN analyst and former Super Bowl-winning QB Trent Dilfer called him out after the game.

"You can play this position (QB) hurt," Dilfer said on ESPN. "Some of us have." [link]
Get the impression nobody in Chicago - including his teammates - like the guy?  (I've seen interviews with him on ESPN; I can see why).

But to criticize Cutler for not playing injured?  Wow.