Quote

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

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Last But Not Least

Happy Turkey Day!

You'd Think He Would Have Learned

All I'm sayin' is, Michael Medved supported John McCain in 2008 because, in part, he was electable.

With 2012 approaching Michael Medved wants you to know that electability matters.  Though he hasn't yet endorsed Mitt Romney.

My guess is, Medved was a big supporter of Bob Dole in 1996 for the same reason.

All were/are so electable.

Fool him once, shame on him.  Fool him twice, shame on him.   Fool him a third time ...

Poster Boy For The 'Occupy' Movement

No, he's not a degenerate.  Or a drug addict. Or a fugitive from justice. Or a rapist.  Or a freeloader.  Or a thief.  Or a professional beggar.  At least as far as we know.  Which sets him apart from all the other members of the "occupy" movement.

But he does appear to be a pathological liar:

Army records at odds with Occupy veteran's claims

He served honorably in the military. Why couldn't he have left it at that?

Some kind of war hero? Did he think no one would check?

The juicy part? He's "a dedicated member of the Occupy Buffalo movement."

And they can have him.

The Verdict Is In. Obama Wasted Our Money.

You'll be hearing this line a lot soon.  Obama and the media will be repeating it ad nauseum as we head into general election season.  "The economy would have been much worse."  Thank God we had him at the helm at the right time, huh?  All those jobs "saved and created."

Mt. Rushmore here he comes.

Or not:
The CBO Quietly Downgrades Obama's $825 Bil Stimulus
Investor's Business Daily editorial

After nearly all the stimulus money has been spent, the Congressional Budget Office now admits it cost more than advertised, did less to boost growth and will hurt the economy in the long run.

In its latest quarterly report on the economic effects of the Obama stimulus, the CBO sharply lowered its "worst case" scenario while trimming many of its upper-bound estimates for stimulus-fueled growth and employment.

The new report finds, for example, that the stimulus may have added as little as 0.7% to GDP growth in 2010 — when spending was at its peak — and created as few as 700,000 new jobs.
Both are down significantly from the CBO's previous worst-case scenario.

The report also lowered the best-case estimate for added growth in 2010 to 4.1% from 4.2%.
In addition, the CBO says the extra infrastructure money didn't boost growth as much as it previously claimed, because states reacted by spending less out of their own budgets on highways.

So in other words, the CBO now says it's possible that the stimulus had virtually no meaningful effect on growth and employment despite its massive price tag.

All this comes after the CBO increased that price tag to $825 billion from its initial $787 billion — a 5% hike.

Adding insult to injury, the new report also says the stimulus will hurt economic growth in the long run because of "the resulting increase in government debt." Each dollar of additional debt, it reports, "crowds out about a third of a dollar's worth of private domestic capital." [link]
Obama will claim that he saved and created five million, ten million, a hundred million jobs.  The truth?  The facts?  We are into the fourth year of the worst, most prolonged recession in American history, one that Obama promised to end three years ago.

Obama's promise has gone unkept.  It's time we unkeep him.

Newt The Compassionate

Savor this moment.  I'm going to be kind and caring toward my fellow man.  And woman.  (Just don't get used to it.)

On the illegal immigration front, Newt Gingrich has a point.  And, in all fairness, the right position when it comes to those illegals who have been here in the USA for many years.

Let's be real: "Send them all back" was, in reality, never an option.  Millions have lived here, raised families here, worked here, contributed here, stayed out of trouble here, and are going to stay here.

That's the reality of it.

First, the alternative.  I listened to another of the contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, Rick Santorum, argue to William Bennett on the latter's radio show yesterday morning the hard-line approach.  Santorum holds that, to be straight with the law, we should be prepared to send back each and all of those foreigners living in this country, no matter how long they've been here.  When Bennett asked about that former Mexican who has lived here for a quarter century, raised kids here (all of whom become American citizens at birth), if Santorum was prepared to separate that person from his or her family and go through the deportation process, the former senator from Pennsylvania was forced to answer yes.  But you could tell from his voice that he didn't want to be there in the conversation, and quickly pivoted to a more generalized discussion of the topic.

I couldn't blame him for feeling defenseless at that moment.

Leaving aside the issue itself, we all need to understand that that is the single-most damaging accusation that Democrats throw at conservatives.  They - we - are cold-hearted sonsabitchas.  And there is no more useful tool in their kit to win over independent voters than that.  Because of that, Santorum will be eaten alive in a general election.

Leaving the mechanics and politics aside, here's reality - like it or not - as articulated by Newt Gingrich:
I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families and expel them. I do believe if you’ve been here recently and have no ties to the U.S., we should deport you. I do believe we should control the border. I do believe we have various penalties for employers, but I urge you to look at the Krieble Foundation plan. The party that says it’s the party of the family is not going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families who have been here a quarter century. I’m prepared to take the heat for saying, let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families.
There is a lot there.  And a lot worth considering.  Newt's points:

1) Protect the borders.  Truly protect the borders (don't play with them - cynically - like George W. Bush and Barack Obama have done).  Stop the flow of illegals into this country.

2) "I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families and expel them."  That's an inarguable fact.

3) Those illegals who sneaked across our borders recently and have no ties to the USA should be sent packing.

4) That which should hit home with every conservative in the land: "The party that says it’s the party of the family is not going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families who have been here a quarter century."

5) "[L]et’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families."

He might have added (6) and (7):

6) Those who - at any time - break our laws - again - no matter how long they've lived here - get sent back.  Family or no, they - like the rest of us - live by our rules.

7) If we are to give them guest worker visas - or some such - they or their spouses have to be workers.  Gainfully employed.  Not leeches (like so many born-and-bred Americans have become).

As for a path to citizenship, there should be none.  They came here illegally.  Nothing will alter that fact.  They want to be Americans, they go back from where they came and do it the right way.

Compassion here is the key.  In heated moments, we can all say, "Hell, yes.  Send all ten million Mexicans back."  But really?  Really?

Newt has taken some flack from the Right for this.  Rush went after him the other day (though mostly as a matter of tactics than for the position itself).  And, of course, all the other candidates have pounded on him, thinking there's an opportunity to gain points with the conservative wing of the Republican Party for his candid appraisal of the American spirit.

Sure we all want illegal immigration to stop.  And we can stop it (though not with doofus remaining in the White House).  But reality - as it pertains to those millions who are already here and who have settled into normal American lives - dictates that we be - dare I say it - compassionate.  And realistic.

- - -

To those who will disagree, I provide food for thought:

Doctrinaire
Adjective: doctrinaire
däktrəˈne(ə)r
1. Stubbornly insistent on theory without regard for practicality or suitability

Noun: doctrinaire däktrəˈne(ə)r
1. A stubborn person of arbitrary or arrogant opinions

That is not who we are. That is who they are.