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

Monday, January 31, 2011

How Little They Know About Republicans

Read this, from this morning's Washington Post, and tell me which Republicans come to mind:
So this year Mr. Obama has endorsed two concepts more modest than cap-and-trade and built to appeal to Democrats and Republicans. The first is establishing a clean-energy standard expected to require that American utilities derive a certain amount of the electricity they provide from clean sources - the president mentioned 80 percent by 2035. Last year, Democrats opposed including nuclear energy or natural gas in that mix; Tuesday night, Mr. Obama included both.

If America is to have such a standard, this is the right call. It widens the appeal of the policy to Republicans, but it's also sensible, since nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases and natural gas produces about half the carbon emissions of coal. [emphasis mine]
Let's try to ignore the assumptions built into that statement that greenhouse gases are bad (they aren't) and "carbon emissions" (meaning CO2) are bad (they aren't), and focus on that "it widens the appeal of the policy to Republicans" ditty.

Does the Washington Post truly believe there is a Republican out there who would support a government mandate that 80% of our electricity must come from (mythical) "clean" sources?

Arlen Specter might have.  But he left.  For good. 

And that short, pudgy senator from South Carolina might.  But he's a nitwit.  And he'll be gone next time around as well.


There is not a Republican alive today who thinks it a good idea to foist another government obligation onto an already overburdened America.  None.

You folks at the Post really need to get out more.

While They Prove Themselves Incapable ...

... of protecting their own citizenry, from snow,

So much easier than getting overpaid union workers to get off their fat asses and plow the streets.  So they instead "investigate" private transactions between private individuals all the way across the country.

For the love of God.

Go Easy On Robert Redford

He hasn't been in a decent movie this entire century.  So if Mr. Environment has become a filthy money-grubbing land developer, so as to make a few bucks and pay off some bills, so be it.

I knew his environmentalist schtick was an ... act ... all along anyway.

It's OUR Big Tent Now

A helpful suggestion: You Nelson Rockefeller/George H.W. Bush acolytes in the Republican Party may find surroundings more to your liking over in the Democratic Party.  The times they are a'changin':

It's coming time to decide.  Hop on board the train that will take this country into a prosperous future, or nominate some "electable" fossil in 2012 and witness four more years of Obamanation.

- - -

* Me? I can see myself voting for certain Republicans in 2012. I can also see myself going third-party if others - in the mold of Bob Dole - are nominated.

Don't forget: I'm the guy who voted for Alan Keyes over George W. Bush in 2000.

Remember too: That short-term win - or loss - isn't everything. Moving the nation in the right direction is everything. We're in it for the long haul.

As Mao Tse-Tung once said, "We shall heal our wounds, collect our dead, and continue fighting." 

And there is much fighting yet to be done.

Those Who Can Do; Those Who Can't ...

... teach.

I was reminded of that idiom when I read this:
Low-key W&L law professor Judy Clarke takes on Tucson shooting suspect Jared Loughner's case
By Laurence Hammack, Roanoke Times

Most law students who sign up for Judy Clarke's classes at Washington and Lee University know she has defended some of America's most indefensible criminals:

Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Park bomber. Susan Smith, who drowned her two young sons in a South Carolina lake.

And now, Jared Loughner, 22, charged in the Tucson, Ariz., shooting that left six people dead and a congresswoman critically wounded.

But any aspiring lawyer expecting to hear war stories from the professor is quickly disappointed. [link]
Why might Ms. Clarke be reluctant to talk about those cases?

Ted Kaczynski, with her help, is now serving life with no possibility of parole.

Eric Rudolph, with her help, is now serving five consecutive life terms in prison.

And Susan Smith, with her help, is serving a life sentence in prison in South Carolina.

I'm not all that sure I'd be talking about my ... successful ... efforts on their behalf either.

So Judy Clarke teaches law at Washington & Lee.

Seems right.

But I wonder what prospects her track record foretell for one Jared Loughner?

Maybe the fourth attempt at the "crazy" defense will be a charm.

Charming & Witty

Sarah Palin, the most influential woman on the planet, maintains her sense of humor through it all:
She admits that she "threw a little politics" into her recent TLC reality show by dragging the crew to the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge on the pretense of hunting caribou. Her real purpose? Showing viewers that ANWR is a "barren, desolate, less-than-pristine place"--perfect, in other words, for lots of new oil drilling. "If a caribou needs to be sacrificed for the sake of energy independence," she adds, "I say, 'Mr. Caribou, maybe you need to take one for the team.'" She mentions how some media figures have pledged not cover her at all in February, and says the boycott "sounds good" to her: "because there's a lot of chaos in Cairo, and I can't wait to not get blamed for it--at least for a month." [link]
Oh, did I also mention that she's really hot?

- - -

* Some will try to argue that Hillary Clinton is the most influential woman on the planet. But, as her feckless response to the Egyptian crisis proves, she should have stayed home and baked cookies. Her "influence" would be just as profound.

** A nifty quote:

"Detractors are more obsessed with her than supporters are. And they can’t even explain why they hate her. Ask them about it, and they mumble something about her being stupid. But I’d hook her up to an intelligence test against Joe Biden any day.”

Question of the Day

Dr. Milton R. Wolf:

"The question remains: If Obamacare is such a great law, why does the White House keep protecting its best friends from it?"

Maybe someone in the mainstream press will ask that question of their savior in the White House some day.

Some day before I die of old age, maybe.

Leader of the Free World?

How about Spectator-in-Chief?

Nancy Morgan:
One of the issues raised in the run-up to our last presidential election was the question "Which candidate is best qualified to handle a '3 AM moment'?" America now has a partial answer. It isn't President Obama.

Last Friday was Day 4 of the ongoing protests in Egypt, where tens of thousands Egyptians took to the streets to demand the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak. As the situation reached a flash point, with a mounting death toll and Egyptian tanks in the streets of Cairo, President Obama maintained his silence. Well, not quite. He did Twitter, by proxy.

The world is left wondering what position America, the world's former superpower, will take. The only stance our administration has taken to date is a generic plea for an end to the violence and the oft-repeated call for human rights. Meanwhile, the world teeters on the brink as a global  crisis with profound geopolitical implications for the U.S. continues to unfold.

Obama's 3 am moment has come. And gone. Obama was noticeably AWOL.
Looks like that "community organizer" experience on his résumé wasn't enough, after all, to make this guy qualified to be president.

Who knew?

- - -

Barack Obama on the violence that is rampaging through the streets of Cairo:

"My main hope right now is ... is that violence is not the answer ..."

Return with me to the days of Jimmy Carter.

Good grief.

Quote of the Day

From Betsy M. Galliher:
[The National Organization for Women] is really no different than any other Leftist organization that inevitably descends into cannibalism. Again and again, Leftists prove their goal is no longer liberation, but victimization. There's simply no other way to perpetuate the narrative.

So naturally, there's no worse affront to women -- no greater path to subjugation according to WINO's [jf: Women In Name Only] -- than Sarah Palin. When in reality, the enemy is - the Left's favorite tour de force - Statism.

I can confirm with all the gratitude of a happy, liberated, free, American woman -- Sputnik is launched. Catch up if you can.
"NOW Goes Shark Jumping," American Thinker, January 31, 2011

Say It Ain't So!

Newt Gingrich supports ethanol?  Is that possible?  Does that, then, make him one of them?

There can be no doubt.
Professor Cornpone
Wall Street Journal editorial

The former Speaker blew through Des Moines last Tuesday for the Renewable Fuels Association summit, and his keynote speech to the ethanol lobby was as pious a tribute to the fuel made from corn and tax dollars as we've ever heard. Mr. Gingrich explained that "the big-city attacks" on ethanol subsidies are really attempts to deny prosperity to rural America, adding that "Obviously big urban newspapers want to kill it because it's working, and you wonder, 'What are their values?'"

The real fight is between the House Republicans now trying to rationalize the federal fisc and the kind of corporate welfare that President Obama advanced in his State of the Union.

[T]he ethanol boom ... is the result of decades of deliberate industrial policy, as Mr. Gingrich well knows. In 1998, then Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer tried to kill ethanol's subsidies for good, only to land in the wet cement that Speaker Gingrich had poured.

Yet today this now-mature industry enjoys far more than cash handouts, including tariffs on foreign competitors and a mandate to buy its product. Supporters are always inventing new reasons for these dispensations, like carbon benefits (nonexistent, according to the greens and most scientific evidence) and replacing foreign oil (imports are up). An historian of Mr. Gingrich's distinction surely knows all that. [link]
I know Mr. Gingrich didn't get to where he got without being darn good at political calculation.  And that the road to the White House starts in Iowa.

But with the nation teetering on the brink of collapse, would it be too much to ask for ol' Newt to put the plotting and scheming away and get real about America's problems?  Two of which involve out-of-control government spending and mandates?  Parts of which include the (epic) ethanol boondoggle?

Keep this up and find yourself on the trash heap of history, sir.