Quote

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

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Advice For Adam Light: Pick Your Fights

What's not to like about 38th District Republican Senate candidate Adam Light?

He's right on education.

He's right on guns.

He's right on taxes.

He's right on energy.

Jobs and the economy.

Right to life of the soon-to-be-born.

Best of all, he ain't a damn Democrat like his opponent, Phil Puckett.

Problem is, Adam Light is going to lose in November.

And it won't even be close.

Why?

Because, Adam, sometimes a guy can be too right.

I literally cringed when I heard this radio spot (fashioned as a TV ad as well) going down the road the other day.  It was created and put out by the "Phillip Puckett for Senate" campaign. It is, heartbreakingly, a simple compilation of words spoken by Mr. Light in the past.  (Click on the little arrow to play the video.)*

And grieve with me:





Says Mr. Light: "Things like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, it is time, it is time to start phasing those programs out. We gotta phase 'em out. In all fairness, my end goal would be that."

For the love of God.

Adam.  Adam.

You're running for state Senate.  Social Security?  Medicare?   Any thoughts on Fed policy?  Darfur?  Guantanamo?  NASA?

And of all things that you will have no control over - Social Security?

Social Security?????

First lesson learned in Politician 101: W-I-N.

You're not going to win by attacking a bedrock program like social security, a program guaranteed - whether you like it or not - to every American alive today, in a district that, demographically, skews powerfully toward the elderly, in a district and a country where the elderly vote in disproportionate numbers.

You've now scared the crap out of the largest voting bloc in Southwest Virginia.

Barry Goldwater once said, "I'd rather be right than president."

Who's Barry Goldwater, you ask?

Point made.

Let it be noted for the history books, Barry Goldwater got both his wishes.  He turned out to be right.  And he achieved a landslide for his opponent.

Jobs and prosperity, man.  Depopulation.  Crushing economic depression. Government regulation.  The breakdown of the nuclear family.  Drugs.  Drugs.  Drugs.   And an opponent who votes in favor of a heavier tax burden on business and households at every turn.

Experience - and a lack thereof - will make the difference in this election.

Too bad.  Adam Light is so right on the issues upon which he might have made a difference.

* I run the risk of assuming that the Puckett campaign didn't alter or truncate the recording(s) played here.

Where The Casey Anthony Prosecution Should Have Gone

Everyone in America knows she did it.

They're just not sure exactly what she did.

Or when she did it.

Or why she did it.

Or how she did it.

But they're sure ... she ... did ... it.

Hmmm.

If only the prosecutors in the Casey Anthony trial had adopted the approach the court in Roanoke maintained yesterday with regard to accused murderess Morgan Lockett and her alleged victim, little Aveion Lewis:
Morgan Lockett's charge now second-degree murder
By Neil Harvey, Roanoke Times

The judge in Morgan Lockett's murder and child abuse trial dropped the first-degree murder charge late Monday and ruled the case will proceed with a second-degree murder charge.

The decision means Lockett, 24, no longer faces the possibility of life imprisonment in the death of her son, 2-year-old Aveion Lewis. The maximum penalty for second-degree murder is 40 years in prison.

Roanoke Circuit Court jurors during the trial's fifth day heard testimony from a half-dozen witnesses, including Dr. Christena Roberts, former assistant chief medical examiner, who examined Aveion's body and said the amount of weight he lost in the last months of his life "could potentially be fatal."

But after hearing arguments from defense lawyers and prosecutors, Judge Clifford Weckstein said Roberts "could not exclude other causes of death."

Because Aveion's body was missing part of the head when recovered by investigators in a Roanoke County landfill in January 2010, the cause of death was never determined.

"Were the jury to return a verdict of guilt of first-degree murder, it would be based on Dr. Roberts' testimony," Weckstein said.

The judge cited the Supreme Court of Virginia, which said: "A medical opinion based on a probability is purely speculation."

As a result, the judge said, jurors shouldn't be asked to decide the first-degree murder charge. [link]
As the case turned out to be with Casey Anthony, this Morgan Lockett was surely a very bad mother.  And then some.  She has been shown - beyond a reasonable doubt - to be cruel and abusive as well.  And she probably killed her little boy.  Either that or, at minimum, she allowed conditions to develop that led to his death.

But, as the judge in the Lockett case makes clear, there is insufficient evidence to prove a case of 1st degree murder.

2nd degree?

Perhaps.

Manslaughter?

Probably.

Gross negligence?

Without doubt.

If only those in charge of Anthony's case had been able to get beyond their prejudices, they too would have seen that they didn't have a case of 1st degree murder.  And Casey Anthony would be in prison today.  For something less headline-grabbing.

But no.  She's free as a bird.

Too bad.

ObamaCare In Microcosm

Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney will tell you the health care plan that he crafted in Massachusetts in 2006 is different from ObamaCare.

But the evidence - and there's now lots of it - says otherwise.

Read through "Massachusetts Tries to Rein in Its Health Cost" in today's New York Times and you're struck by two things. (1) How the saga that plays out in Massachusetts mirrors that which is unfolding with regard to Obama's only important piece of legislation - forever known as ObamaCare - and (2) the end-results are shaping up to be identical.

The essence of the story:
After three years of study, the state’s legislative leaders appear close to producing bills that would make Massachusetts the first state — again — to radically revamp the way doctors, hospitals and other health providers are paid.

Those who led the 2006 effort to expand coverage readily acknowledge that they deferred the more daunting task of cost control for another day. It was assumed then that the politics would pit doctors, hospitals, insurers, employers and consumers against one another, and obliterate the fragile coalition behind the groundbreaking coverage law.

Predictably, the plan did little to slow the growth of health costs that already were among the highest in the nation. A state report last year found that per capita health spending in Massachusetts was 15 percent above the national average. And from 2007 to 2009, private health insurance premiums rose between 5 and 10 percent annually, according to another state study.

Yet the plan, which generated fresh attacks on Mr. Romney in a recent New Hampshire debate and a blistering Internet ad by Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, has largely succeeded in providing nearly universal coverage. Only 2 percent of residents and a fraction of 1 percent of children in Massachusetts are uninsured. The law’s popularity has given state leaders added incentive to make it financially sustainable.
With regard to (1), you'll note the colossal spin effort that's going on. The whole reason Romney and all his Democrat buddies in Massachusetts decided to reform the health care delivery system there was to reduce the cost of health care. Now they're saying - and the New York Times is willingly letting them get away with it - well, the primary mission - to provide universal coverage - is a success; now we need to tackle costs.

What?

ObamaCare, launched with great fanfare by the cost-controller-in-chief, somehow, morphed into the same entitlement plan. An extremely expensive entitlement plan. And will do as little as RomneyCare to control Americans' out-of-pocket expenses.

And (2) the end-results: Both ObamaCare and RomneyCare will, in the end, bring on (a) higher health costs for those who won't be getting service for free, and (b) will saddle taxpayers with an entitlement bill - another entitlement bill, impossible to pay.

Mitt Romney will still tell you his health care plan was right for Massachusetts. You decide, based on the evidence obtained, if he's right for America.

I have serious doubts.

The Man Has Pipes

I don't know if it's a qualifier for the highest office in the land, but Herman Cain sure can belt out a song.

Prepare to be fascinated:



Obama doesn't have a prayer.

With Warriors Like These, How Can "Occupy Wall Street" Not Succeed?

When you've lost Howard Stern, you've surely lost Main Street:



Hilarious.

She Chose To Not Participate

We are surrounded these days by members in good standing of the "me generation."  See "Occupy Wall Street" for the most glaring example.

But there are still Americans out there who give of themselves for others.  Some, even, give their entire selves.  So that others may live.

Read "Oklahoma Mother Gives Her Life to Save Unborn Child."

Expect Stacie Crimm to not make NBC Nightly News.

Too bad.  She is one of those rare human beings who truly makes this world a better place.

May God be kind to her in her passing.

Boy, Here's a Shock

The planet spins out of control:

Olympia Snowe breaks from GOP on health care

The author of this ditty, Matt Dobias, informs us that Ms. Snowe is "the most moderate Republican on the Senate Finance Committee."

Code for E-X-T-R-E-M-E-L-Y L-I-B-E-R-A-L.

Anyway, news flash: Olympia Snowe sides with Democrats on an issue.

For the 49,241st time.

Why 'Occupy Wall Street' Is Just Another Reality Show

Much is being made by the mainstream media, and by Democra ... oh, I said that ... about the potent force that is "Occupy Wall Street."  "Occupy Wall Street" being made up of kids who sit each day in their own filth in that park in New York City, shouting for  Wall Street to ... quit doing Wall Street stuff ... are a force to be reckoned with - they think.

Really.

Me?  I tune in for the entertainment value.  And nothing more.

Why?

Because, as a political organization that can bring about change - any kind of change - they're not.

They eschew politics.  They will have no part of it. As Matt Stoller writes in Politico:

"Despite deep suspicions on the right, Occupy Wall Street is not a left-wing electoral force, and the culture of the occupiers is one that profoundly distrusts electoral politics. There were no Obama signs — in fact, no signs supportive of either party."

So why are they there?

To bitch.

And why should I care about that?

Because it's beats "Survivor - South Pacific."  And whatever that show is that has the freaky, grossly overweight transgendered dude/dudess competing in ... a dance competition?  (Okay, that one does have its entertainment value; like a carnival road show.)

Anyway, "Occupy Wall Street" is calling upon all like-minded human beings to join its ranks and drop out of organized, civilized society.

A movement that is going to reshape America's political landscape?

Please, don't make me laugh.

Or, on second thought, do.

Bring on the clowns.

We Can Bite The Bullet Now Or ...

I'm guessing it won't go anywhere but, if we are to get America working again, we need to get more disposable income into the hands of consumers.  And there's no better way to do that than to let them keep what they earn in the first place.

That's why - without seeing all the details - I heartily endorse this economic recovery plan put forth by Congressman Ron Paul yesterday:
Ron Paul proposes $1T in specific budget cuts
By Dan Hirschhorn, Politico

Ron Paul’s opinions about cutting the budget are well-known, but on Monday, he got specific: The Texas congressman laid out a budget blueprint for deep and far-reaching cuts to federal spending, including the elimination of five Cabinet-level departments and the drawdown of American troops fighting overseas.

There’s even a symbolic readjustment of the president’s salary to put it in line with the average American salary.

The plan, Paul said, would cut $1 trillion in spending his first year in the White House and create a balanced federal budget by the third year of his presidency.

“All the current candidates and many in Washington, they sort of talk around [the problem],” Paul said. “A lot of people will say, ‘well cutting a trillion dollars in one year is radical.’ Well, I operate under the assumption that the radicals have been in charge for way too long.”

Many of the ideas in Paul’s 11-page Plan to Restore America are familiar from his staunch libertarianism, as well as tea party favorites, like eliminating the Education and Energy Departments. But Paul goes further, proposing an immediate freeze on spending by numerous government agencies at levels from 2006, the last time Republicans had complete control of the federal budget, and drastic reductions in spending elsewhere. The Environmental Protection Agency would see a 30 percent cut; the Food and Drug Administration would see a 40 percent cut; and foreign aid would be zeroed out immediately. He’d also take an ax to Pentagon funding for wars.

Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps, family support programs and the children’s nutrition program would be block-granted to the states and removed from the mandatory spending column of the federal budget. Some functions of eliminated departments, such as Pell Grants, would be continued elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy.

The federal workforce would be reduced by 10 percent, and the president’s pay would be cut from $400,000 to $39,336 — a level that the Paul document notes is “approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.”

Paul would also make far-reaching changes to federal tax policy, reducing the top corporate income tax rate to 15 percent, eliminating capital gains and dividends taxes and allowing for repatriation of overseas capital without tax penalties. All tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush would be extended.

And like the rest of his GOP rivals, Paul would repeal President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, along with the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law enacted last year. A longtime Federal Reserve critic, Paul would also push a full audit of the central bank, as well as legislation to “strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.” [link]
A good beginning.