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

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

General Ken, Fighting The Good Fight

Well, someone has to stop Obama's rampaging Environmental Protection Agency from destroying what's left of this country.

And Ken Cuccinelli is just the someone to do it:
Va. AG Cuccinelli: ‘The EPA has violated the law here’
By Caroline May, Daily Caller

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is considering challenges this week to the Environmental Protection Agency’s determination that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants and subject to federal regulation.

In addition to suits on the part of a number of companies and business groups, Virginia and 14 other states charge that the EPA violated its own rules by using data from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), rather than internal research, in order to make the initial greenhouse gas endangerment findings. The states also charge that the EPA violated the law by failing to reopen hearings in light of new data.

“It is our view that the EPA has violated the law here,” Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said on a conference call with reporters on Tuesday. “We don’t file lawsuits because we don’t like policies. We only file lawsuits if they break the law, and here the EPA has broken the law by relying on — among other ways — by relying on IPCC data rather than doing its own research.”

Two years ago, Cuccinelli petitioned to have the EPA reconsider its 2009 “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Finding for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act” in light of the release of the Dec. 2009 “Climategate emails” and reports that the IPCC might have manipulated their data.

“We are in court because the EPA has refused to do even that,” Cuccinelli said of the EPA’s failure to consider additional data. [link]
The EPA has done - and is doing - great harm. As evidenced by its ruling that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and, potentially, a threat to the environment. This despite the fact that CO2 is beneficial to nature - the more the better.

General Ken stands up for common sense, the rule of law, and for the human race.*

Here's to him.

* Sorry. I got carried away.

What A Piece Of Work This Judge Is

There are no words ...

A judge has ruled that a man who claimed he was assaulted, choked and roughed up by a Muslim because the assaulted man was perceived as having imprecated the prophet Mohammed deserved to be assaulted, choked and roughed up because of his having blasphemed.  Case dismissed.

Riyadh?  Medina?  Mecca?


Here's something this stupid, stupid judge might want to read:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's assumed this judge went to Islam school.  Did he not attend law school?  If so, was it a law school in this country?

For the love of God.

Here In Bizarro World ...

Reminds me of days of old when it was risky to venture into "Injun territory."

But 2012?  A national park?  In Arizona?

Have we lost our minds?
Ken Hires, an unflaggingly cheerful park ranger dressed in reassuringly normal-looking tan ranger clothes, bounded to the front of the room. Hires is what's called an interpretive ranger, which means he has no law enforcement duties and does not carry a weapon. ("I spent my five years in Vietnam. Enough shooting," he said later.) Hires explained that some law enforcement officers would be hiding in the hills and closely watching the two-hour nature hike, while another pair of armed rangers would follow the tourists closely from the ground. "They'll have M14s at hand," he told the group. "Don't be worried."
"They'll have M14s at hand. Don't be worried." I'd be a little less worried if I had the M14 in hand. Or, better yet, an M4. Along with five or six extra magazines. And infrared. And a few grenades. Maybe an M9 Beretta

Hell, throw in an AT4 or two.  I want to have fun while I'm on vacation.

Don't be worried.  Have a great time.  Enjoy yourselves.  Just hit the ground when the firing starts.  Do not run.  Do not panic.  Should your spouse be wounded, begin life-sustenance immediately.   Leave triage decisions to us.  If our position is overrun, submit willingly.  Chances are good that you'll be killed outright and will not suffer.  Glad you're here.  Hope you have a wonderful time.  America's park system welcomes you.

Who Gets To Decide Who Can Be Aborted?

Well, if nothing else, this takes the abortion debate to the next level:
By Liz Klimas, The Blaze

Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to [sic] should be the termination of a newborn.

Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.” [link]
1. Are these two serious?

2. Do either of them understand the word "ethics"?  Do the words "right" and "wrong" enter into their understanding?

3. "[C]ircumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.” Does that allow - ethically - me to prepare my list of those who should be aborted "after birth"?  "The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk ..."  I consider the authors' position to be one that puts the "family of humankind" at risk.  Is that justification to kill off both of them?

I don't think they want to go there. I really don't.  Mine will be a lengthy list.  They don't want to go there.

Why We Support The Catholics

Read "The Parable of the Kosher Deli."  And stand proudly with those who simply want to be allowed to live by their beliefs.

Or reject your God-given freedom to think, and submit to an all-powerful government.

My Kinda Woman

I'm not all that keen on Mitt Romney.  But I may be willing to bear his wife's children.  If this is typical of her attitude and willingness to speak out:
“All of us in this room know the media loves Barack Obama. They don’t want anyone who has a chance of defeating him.

“I am so mad at the press [that] I could just strangle them! And, you know, I think I’ve decided there are going to be some people invited on the bus and some people just aren’t going to be invited on the bus.”
You go, girl.

A Day To Celebrate

There'll be one less liberal Republican in Washington next year:

Olympia Snowe not seeking re-election

It's a good day.

Now, if the people of Maine haven't lost all their marbles ...

Get Over Yourself

James Taranto heaps derision on the New York Times's token conservative (well, to be accurate, the dude who calls himself a conservative but comes across like the rest of the loons in Manhattan, whose positions and recommendations are little different from theirs).

From "Don't Know Much About History" (scroll down):
New York Times columnist David Brooks, a domesticated conservative, also decries what he sees as the Republicans' recent move to the right. He complains that Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Richard Lugar of Indiana have tacked rightward in the face of potential primary challenges: "It's not honorable to adjust your true nature in order to win re-election." Then he complains that conservatives are too honorable: "Republicans on the extreme are willing to lose elections in order to promote their principles."

The closing paragraph, however, is a classic. Invoking Martin Niemöller, Brooks likens himself to the victims of the Holocaust:

"First they went after the Rockefeller Republicans, but I was not a Rockefeller Republican. Then they went after the compassionate conservatives, but I was not a compassionate conservative. Then they went after the mainstream conservatives, and there was no one left to speak for me."

"No one left to speak for me," whines David Brooks, who speaks for himself twice a week in a column on the pages of America's second most influential newspaper.
So we took out the Rockefeller Republicans (tell it to Mitt Romney) and we took out the compassionate conservatives and we took out the mainstream conservatives.

Who does that leave?

Only those on the LEFT end of the spectrum.

The sooner David Brooks gains understanding of who he is the more his surroundings will make sense to him.

But here's his bigger problem: You can bet your ass that we're coming after him too.

Hear those footsteps, Dave?

Time to be very afraid.

How They Do Frighten So

How anyone could look upon the mess that we call America and want it to remain so is beyond me.  Yet there they are.  Up East.  Out West.  On campus.  This country is on a glide path to implosion and they are happy with it.

So along comes someone who says he's going to change the nation's course.  And how do they react?

Ex-Newsweek Editor: Santorum Poses a 'Fundamental Challenge to the Modern World'

Well, this ex-editor - who is perfectly fine with the way things are - got that right.

His "modern world" is crumbling.  And he doesn't want it altered in any way.

Sad to behold.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Oh, Please

Get over it:

Louis Farrakhan warns of racial hatred that could lead to attempts to kill President Obama

Another slave trader.  Someone who's made a mint talking bad about whitey.

Your sun set about forty years ago, dude. Go away.

Hillary Apologizes To the Taliban ...

... for Republican criticism:

Hillary: These Republicans are inflaming the situation in Afghanistan by criticizing Obama for apologizing

We're still waiting for her to say something about those dead American soldiers.

We're waiting ...

We're waiting ...


It's not only a mess.  It's going to send us into bankruptcy.  And ...

Gallup: 72% of All Americans and 56% of Democrats Say Obamacare Mandate Unconstitutional

Not that the Supreme Court will really take constitutionality into account when it gives Obama's signature piece of legislation its seal of approval.

It Goes Beyond a Groveling Apology

While Americans are dying at the hands of our ally - Afghanistan - our enemies are being released from Gitmo with a warm hug and a kiss.  What is up with this?
Do Not Reward Taliban Treachery
Investor's Business Daily

As the Taliban assassinate U.S. military officers and poison troop chow in Afghanistan, the president secretly plans the release of Taliban prisoners from Gitmo.

Whose side is this commander in chief on? Just days before members of the Taliban took credit for infiltrating the Afghan Interior Ministry and murdering two American officers, the Obama administration was finalizing a secret deal with the terror group.

"If all goes as hoped," reported Reuters, "U.S. and Qatari negotiators will meet soon to nail down final details for transferring Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo prison — a momentous step for President Obama, the Afghan war and perhaps U.S. foreign policy as well."

The deal reportedly includes a political office for the Taliban in Qatar and possible power-sharing for the banned terrorist group in Kabul. What does the U.S. get out of the deal? More treachery and bloodshed. [link]
Expect an apology from Obama for our having warehoused those poor, misunderstood terrorists to be forthcoming.

For the love of God.

Actually, I Can't Either

Why do these guys get so off message, opening the door for flaming liberals to make these statements?

Diane Sawyer 'Couldn't Believe' Santorum Challenged JFK on Separation of Church and State

When I read it, I couldn't believe it either. Why would Santorum pick a fight with an American icon (whether deserving of the title or not) who's been dead for six decades?  Surely it was something Santorum said long ago.  Or his comment about Kennedy was taken out of context.  Or it was misconstrued.

But no.  He meant it.

Focus, man. Focus. You make it too easy for lowlifes like Dianne Sawyer.

Monday, February 27, 2012

Judge a Blog By Its Detractors

Gosh.  I think I should be ashamed of myself.  Or something.

Ever heard the name Gil Mann?

Neither have I.

But apparently he's an avid reader of this weblog.

Or at least it seems that way, he knows me ... so ...well.

Remember the other day when I made mention of the fact that northern Virginia (sometimes-) Republican Dave Albo was denied sex because his wife got her undies in a bunch (respect the imagery) over that legislation pending in Richmond that called for mothers (...)  to obtain an ultrasound before they get their kids snuffed?  (In truth, I only just barely mentioned it.)

Well, this Gil Mann - who is a contributor to (an inexpertly designed) weblog entitled "Rumproast" - there's Strike One - has his thong a'crack too.  And it's happened as a result of his having read my brief mention of Delegate Dave Albo possibly favoring that legislation so as to not have to put up with his (Albo's) wife's sexual-political fanaticism.  Possibly.

So now this Mann character lashes out.  At Albo.  At me.  And even at the master of the weblog world, Instapundit:
Look, I don’t know if this guy [Albo]’s giving us a play-by-play on his change of heart or what, I’m not even sure if the point is that his wife was turned off by the language being tossed around or by the bill itself, but to this viewer it sure as shootin’ comes across as the latter, and what’s more, the state-mandated-rape-o-sphere seems to agree. From On High, the most preposterously full-of-itself wingnut blog I’ve come across since the last time I came across one, merely links to the vid with a reminder that Albo’s a RINO, which I gather is an acronym for Read A Book Once, and it’s also a label conservatives slap on their comrades whenever they feel the need to distance themselves. BTW, here’s the author pic at FOH, caption his, not mine:

That’s another thing I hate about the right. I have to put work into my puerile innuendo, for these guys it’s effortless.

(top post on FOH as of this writing: remember Krystal Ball, that attractive young Democratic congressional candidate in those Rudolph-dildo pictures? Apparently she’s a hypocrite for being against forced trans-V ultrasound while being for wearing something sexy to a costume party. I refuse to link to it on the principle that there’s a picture of Ball and another cute brunette in a schoolgirl outfit being naughty with each other and it’s all terribly prurient and I like to think you people are better than that, plus if you crash the server I won’t be able to see it)

Again, I can’t speak to Albo’s intent, but I consider this a data point in favor of my hypothesis: Instapundit called his wife a whore. So he might not realize his stand-up routine was about how Republicans are destroying their brand with these anti-woman measures, but that’s the nerve it touched.

As for what nerve he touched after his wife went to bed, I don’t wanna know! Unless there’s one I’ve somehow overlooked, in which case he should feel free to e-mail me at tips@gilmann.com, maybe with a scanned thumbnail sketch attached.
Gee. Where to start?

How about here.
[R]emember Krystal Ball, that attractive young Democratic congressional candidate in those Rudolph-dildo pictures? Apparently she’s a hypocrite for being against forced trans-V ultrasound while being for wearing something sexy to a costume party. I refuse to link to it on the principle that there’s a picture of Ball and another cute brunette in a schoolgirl outfit being naughty with each other and it’s all terribly prurient and I like to think you people are better than that, plus if you crash the server I won’t be able to see it.
Cute.  He doesn't want to crash the server by having his many, many readers all link to the photo (that can be found here).

So let me tie that thought to this one: "From On High, the most preposterously full-of-itself wingnut blog I’ve come across since the last time I came across one ..."

I don't know this dude, so I can't speak to his being a "wingnut," (though this small sampling of his work would lead one to believe he's right there with me, in good standing), but when it comes to being full of himself?  Here's a guy who writes for a small-time weblog that, according to Sitemeter, gets all of 1,331 visitors per day, and he's worried that his followers are going to crash Blogger's server(s)?  Blogger with some 28,000,000 unique visitors?  Blogger servers get more hits in minutes than this moron will see all year.

Yeah, I'd be worried about those servers being inundated too.  Why, what might result if all 1,331 readers click in at the same moment?  The consequences might be devastating.

Now who's full of himself?

As to this - "That’s another thing I hate about the right. I have to put work into my puerile innuendo, (sic) for these guys it’s effortless" - I'm here to give him credit.  He got half of it right.   His work certainly sets a standard for puerility.

On a more serious note, though, let me address the condescension.  "State-mandated-rape-o-sphere"?  Can  one remain serious and read something so insensate, so heartless?  I can only imagine how all those hundreds of thousands of women in this country who have experienced the ordeal - brutal, savage, life-altering - feel about the crime committed against them being thrown into the same category as some carnival stunt.  Rape-o-sphere?  And this worm wants to influence the debate?

Rape is not a catch-phrase, dumbass.

Instapundit then gets sucked into it. Somehow. But he's a big boy.  He can defend himself.

As to the photo caption to which he refers, as Confucious said, "If you think in terms of a year, plant a seed; if in terms of ten years, plant trees; if in terms of 100 years, teach the people." Not that this imbecile has the first inkling as to what that means.

Two Questions Worth Asking

The first comes from the New York Times:

Will Scotland Go Its Own Way?

More importantly, to me:

Will Puerto Rico Go Its Own Way?

Regarding the former:
“The Breakup of Britain”? It sounds like a fantasy fiction title. To many people across the world, including the English themselves, it is inconceivable that this deep-rooted United Kingdom, the oldest royal democracy in the world, could split apart.

In the last few weeks, however, official London has panicked over the rising clamor of voices from all over the British Isles suddenly agreeing that the archaic structure of “Great Britain” is overdue for a shake-up — even a breakup.

Nowhere are these voices in better harmony than in Scotland. If “Britain” is more than a word on a passport, why do most Scots now feel their primary identity is not British?
And the latter?

For those not aware, Puerto Rico is not a state. And it's not independent. It's an "unincorporated territory" under U.S. control.

What does that mean?

In part, citizens of Puerto Rico are considered to be American citizens as well, with many of the benefits that accrue. But, not being full-fledged citizens, they don't pay federal personal income taxes.  In that regard, they get a free ride.

Personally, I don't care if they decide to be independent, or decide to become a state within the Union. But they need get off the pot and decide one way or the other.

Or we should decide for them.

What we have in place needs to be fixed. Some day.

They Need To Figure This Out

Blame it on the internet.

Blame it on left-wing bias.

Blame it on Twitter.

Blame it on cable television.

Whatever you blame it on, you folks in the newspaper business had better adjust the business model to accommodate all of the above or you're toast:
Newspaper Ad Revenues Fall to 60-Yr. Low in 2011
By Mark J. Perry, Carpe Diem

The chart above displays total annual print newspaper advertising revenue based on actual annual data from 1950 to 2010, and estimated annual revenue for 2011 using quarterly data through the third quarter, from the Newspaper Association of America. The advertising revenues have been adjusted for inflation, and appear in the chart as millions of constant 2011 dollars. Estimated revenues of $20.7 billion in 2011 will be the lowest annual amount spent on newspaper advertising since $19.5 billion in 1951, exactly 60 years ago.

The decline in newspaper ad revenues to a 60-year low is amazing by itself, but the sharp decline in recent years is pretty stunning. Last year's ad revenues of about $21 billion were less than half of the $46 billion spent just four years ago in 2007, and less than one-third of the $64 billion spent in 2000.

And even when online advertising is added to the print ads, the combined total spending for print and online advertising in 2011 will still only be about $22.6 billion, just slightly more than the $22.5 billion spent on print advertising in 1954. [link]

I've got my list of newspapers about which I will rejoice when they meet their demise.  And a lengthy list it is.  But really?  I'll miss the morning paper when it's gone.

For surely it's going to be gone if someone really smart working in the journalism business doesn't figure this mess out.  And quick.

What? I Missed The Oscars? OMG!

Actually, I didn't miss the Academy Awards extravaganza.  I walked out of the room to read a book after sitting through about twenty agonizing minutes of the pre-Oscar show that had some TV personality interviewing Hollywood types, asking them - if they were female - "Oh, what are you wearing?"  and being told, "Why, I'm wearing Verscace."  Or Armani.  Or  Givenchy.  Or Tortelinni.  Or Squeegy.  Or ...  Kill me.  Just kill me.

I have to tell you, if the host of the show had stood before the microphone and made a crack about "the 1%" in this country, I'd have thrown my shoe at him.

What I watched reeked of pretension.  And self-absorption beyond belief.

So I missed the Oscars.  But maintained my sanity.

So, did that silent film win?  And does anyone outside the Land of Oz care?

- - -

As for the nominees themselves, the best line of the night comes from Hank Stuever of the Washington Post:

"Has there ever been a year where you felt less inclined to make sure you’d seen every best picture nominee?

- - -

Ouch: "The whole night looked like an AARP pep rally."

Grandpa Needs To Go

Can you claim to have representation in Washington if that person who represents you hasn't lived in your state for well over a quarter of a century?  Who's he representing if his only residence has been in D.C. all that time?

Those are questions that Indiana Republicans (and, perhaps, Democrats soon enough ...) are asking themselves:
No Hoosier Homestead for Lugar
By Naftali Bendavid, Wall Street Journal

Sen. Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican in a lively primary fight, is facing a surprising charge: that he doesn't live in Indiana.

Mr. Lugar recently acknowledged he sold his Indianapolis home shortly after his 1976 election to the Senate and bought one outside Washington. It was the only way to keep the family together, he said, because the Lugars couldn't afford two homes.

Mr. Lugar told reporters he isn't sure what address is on his Indiana driver's license. But he said he is confident voters won't hold the issue against him. [link]
Yeah, we've all heard the argument made that a United States senator is "less representative" of his state than a congressman is. Fine. But shouldn't there be some connection other than place of birth?

Lugar seems to think his place of residence doesn't matter. The people of Indiana may soon be saying otherwise:
Richard Lugar, the Grandfather of the Indiana GOP, fights for reelection
By Jonathan Allen, Politico

Connersville, Ind. — Sen. Dick Lugar’s glaring weakness and his enduring strength are one and the same: He’s the grandfather of the Indiana Republican Party.

Nearing 80, Lugar is facing his first serious challenge in decades — a two-step in which he has to fend off conservative state Treasurer Richard Mourdock in the May 8 primary followed by Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly in November if he hopes to win an Indiana-record seventh term. The charge from both camps: Lugar’s a nice man who lost touch with his Hoosier roots somewhere inside the Washington Beltway.

There’s plenty of ammunition for Mourdock to make the case that Lugar has drifted away from conservative orthodoxy, starting with Lugar’s votes for President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court appointments, his one-time co-sponsorship of the DREAM act, which would pave the way for undocumented aliens brought to this country as minors to become citizens, and earmarks. On top of that, Lugar backed the bank bailouts and an auto industry rescue plan that, while vital to the state’s economy, isn’t popular with a large swath of conservatives.

“Clearly, over the years he’s become more of a Big Government Republican,” Mourdock said of Lugar during an interview at a hotel across from the Indianapolis statehouse. “When you’ve been involved in it for 36 years, you are it, it is you, it becomes the answer. Of course it’s the answer, because you’ve put your whole life in it. I don’t see government as the answer to our problems.” [link]
If there's anyone who better represents the "inside the beltway" mentality than Richard Lugar, I don't know who he is.

Frankly, I'm shocked that Lugar considers it no big deal that he hasn't maintained a home in his "home" state for all those years. And I'd be surprised if a lot of Hoosiers didn't feel the same way.

The man lives in Washington. Where he'll stay after being bounced from office.

Let the bounce commence.  It's time he ran for some office there.

- - -

I'm reminded of this Paul Wellstone TV ad from long ago, though the circumstances were different.  He unseated the incumbent he was running against by showing that his opponent was nowhere to be found when it counted.

Lugar?  How often does he have personal contact with a constituent?

Shouldn't that be important in a representative republic?


As only Michael Ramirez can put it.  Click on the image to enlarge it:

Someone needs to be apologizing all right.  And it sure as hell isn't Obama.

Can't Be Havin' This

Half of Virginia's public school students who took the state-mandated Standards of Learning test have failed:

See "Virginia students' math scores plunge."

The manner in which basic algebra and geometry questions were asked have been changed this year, causing the "plunge."

Expect the tests to be scrapped in favor of easier tests.

Education be damned ...

- - -

The call goes forth: Dumb down the test!  And it comes from the Roanoke Times editorial page.  Naturally.



Karzai’s Response to Obama’s Apology: Put U.S. Troops on Trial and Punish Them

How about we do what Newt says and leave Karzai with a pat on the back and a fond farewell.

That Was Then, This Is Now

Four years ago: "Yes, We Can!"

Now: "We've gone through three of the toughest years this country has gone through in my lifetime."

Four years from now?

Do we really want to find out?

It All Becomes Clear

Now I understand why she was such as lousy governor.  She ain't all that bright:

Current TV's [and former Michigan governor, Jennifer] Granholm: 'Blaming the President for High Gas Prices is Like Blaming Rudy Giuliani for 9/11'

That makes absolutely no sense.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

The Roanoke Times Is a Joke

Don't take it from me.

Take it from the editorial page editor of the Times.

From Christina Nuckols, said editor, in "Wilder silent as his legacy takes a bullet," we learn that she called up former Governor Douglas Wilder in order to get him to pitch in to help keep in place that moronic "one-handgun-a-month" law that he had pushed through the legislature many years ago; the one that was intended to stop Virginia guns from flowing into New York City; the one that stopped zero guns from flowing into New York City in all its many years on the books.

A revealing exchange:

Nuckols: "I look forward to you turning on the heat like only you can do."

Which was followed by: "A raspy laugh exploded from the receiver, and the line went dead."

Perhaps ol' Doug saw the whole escapade as having turned out to be one big joke too.

Not that such things deter crusaders like this Nuckols woman from pressing onward - Don Quixote style - in their never-ending quest to get that first handgun blocked from flowing out of the Commonwealth and into the hands of a gang member up in the big city.

Some day, by God.  Some ... day ...

Obama Has a Lot To Apologize For

But Americans protecting Muslims' sorry asses in Afghanistan, at great risk to themselves, ain't one of them.

Add this to the many reasons that I find Barack Obama to be annoying.  And anti-American.

Remember November.  Remember November.

Banner courtesy of Patriot Depot.

On Hollywood & Its Agenda

I was reading an article on NewsBusters this morning about that overly stupid talk show host on MSNBC, Ed Schultz.  In it he is reported to have made the following claim, in defending Hollywood producers and their penchant for making too many movies that America has no interest in seeing, but that make the liberal crowd on the Left happy:

"The only agenda Hollywood has is making money."

Which hardly explains all the flicks that Hollywood churned out in the Bush years that depicted evil and/or messed-up American soldiers in - and coming out of - the Iraq conflict.  None of which made money.  But were appreciated by tiny movie-going audiences in Manhattan, Madison, and Malibu.

You remember the flicks:

"Stop-Loss."  "Body of Lies."  "Conspiracy."  "Green Zone."  "In the Valley of Elah."  "Lions for Lambs."  "The Messenger."  "Badland."

Or maybe you don't remember them.

Then I got to thinking.

I watched the tail-end of another "war movie" yesterday afternoon on TV.  A highly successful flick when it was in theaters.  But it wasn't about American soldiers killing Muslim terrorists.  Or about killing anyone else for that matter.

The movie?

"Battle Los Angeles."

The enemy?


Box office gross?

$36 million its opening weekend.

Total gross?


Its theme?  A handful of United States Marines (and one cute female Air Force enlistee - this is Hollywood, after all) kill a whole slew of badass extraterrestrial monsters and proceed to save the entire freaking world.

Think of it as "Guadalcanal Diary" without anyone on this planet being shot.  Or offended.

One wonders.

What if some courageous (suicidal?) Hollywood producer had taken the script from "Gung Ho" (1943) and adapted it to the remarkable story - yet to be adequately told - about the United States Marine Corps' sweeping victory in the largest battle to take place in Iraq against the terrorist insurgency?

I don't know, maybe he could have called it "Operation Phantom Fury."

Might that producer have achieved a return on his investors' dollars?

We'll never know.

"The only agenda Hollywood has is making money."


The Washington Post Asks.

I answer.

Can the Republican party survive its billionaires?

As easily as the Democratic Party "survives" its.

George Soros? Who's he?

Well, he's a nut.  But he's a Democrat nut, so he doesn't count.

Ya gotta love the Washington Post and its deep thinkers.

Liberal Mentality Manifests

This is beyond bizarre:
Dad arrested over daughter's gun drawing
Sun News

Police arrested a Kitchener, Ont., father outside his daughter's school because the four-year-old drew a picture of him holding a gun.

Jessie Sansone told the Record newspaper that he was in shock when he was arrested Wednesday and taken to a police station for questioning over the drawing. He was also strip-searched.

"This is completely insane. My daughter drew a gun on a piece of paper at school," he said.

Officials told the newspaper the move was necessary to ensure there were no guns accessible by children in the family's home. They also said comments by Sansone's daughter, Neaveh, that the man holding the gun in the picture was her dad and "he uses it to shoot bad guys and monsters," was concerning.

Police also searched Sansone's home while he was in custody. His wife and three children were taken to the police station, and the children were interviewed by Family and Children's Services.

Sansone's wife, Stephanie Squires, told the newspaper no one told them why her husband had been arrested.

"He had absolutely no idea what this was even about. I just kept telling them, 'You're making a mistake."

Several hours later, Sansone was released without charges. [link]

Bring it down.  Bring it all down.

Makes Sense To Me

Something to ponder:
Question: Is Sex Work?

A U.S.Marine Colonel was about to start the morning briefing to his staff. While waiting for the coffee machine to finish brewing, the colonel decided to pose a question to all assembled. He explained that his wife had been a bit frisky the night before and he failed to get his usual amount of sound sleep. He posed the question of just how much of sex was "work" and how much of it was "pleasure?"

A major chimed in with 75%-25% in favor of work.

A captain said it was 50%-50%.

A lieutenant responded with 25%-75% in favor of pleasure, depending upon his state of inebriation at the time.

There being no consensus, the colonel turned to the PFC who was in charge of making the coffee and asked for HIS opinion?

Without any hesitation, the young PFC responded, "Sir, it has to be 100% pleasure."

The colonel was surprised and as you might guess, asked why?

"Well, sir, if there was any work involved, the officers would have me doing it for them."

The room fell silent.

God Bless the enlisted man.

- - -

* I might note that the same applies to my line of ... work. Occasionally someone will ask me where I work and I reply, "I don't work; I manage."  Same deal.

An Interesting Factoid About The Brady Campaign

Has the most anti-gun organization in America run its course?  From the NRA we learn:
On a side note, we noticed that the Tides Foundation gave $125,424 to the Brady Campaign and its affiliate, the Brady Center, between 2004 and 2009. But with no contributions in 2010, we wonder whether someone at the Foundation’s grant office had a look at Brady’s previous scorecards and realized that even when you’re wasting someone else’s money, there has to be a limit.
No numbers are out yet for 2011.  But it's possible that one of the leading contributors to Sarah Brady's silly cause has gotten tired of seeing its funds flushed down the commode.

One wonders what took the folks there so long.

In any case ...

"Occupy Wall Street" came and went.

The climate socialists are in hiding.

The Brady Campaign is more the Facebook page than the movement.

And we got us an election coming up in November.

Life is good.

It Wasn't Supposed To Be This Way

I get so confused.  Aren't these the people who go nuts every time a mosquito or rat is killed by a human being?

Documents: PETA kills more than 95 percent of pets in its care

Rats and mosquitoes, I guess, can thank their lucky stars that they aren't recognized by these crazy women as being ... pets.

Now This Is a Defensible Position

Noun: Atheism ey-thee-iz-uhm
1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God

- - -

My question: What evidence do atheists have that there is no God?

My answer: They have none.

Doesn't that, then, put them in the same category as those who believe in God, without evidence, but through faith?

Of course it does.

Though they'll never admit it.

Well, except for this one, lone honest atheist:

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

Now that's a proper answer for one who believes in a doctrine but has no evidence to back it up.

Dawkins doubts that God exists.

That's at least respectable.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Feminists Never Were Serious

We can argue about how smart they are.

But ...

MSNBC's Krystal Ball: Virginia Abortion Law Is "Rape" 

Rape? Really? Tell it to those women who have learned what rape really is - first hand.


- - -

You may not remember this Krystal Ball, by the way.  Go here and learn all about how serious this poster girl for feminism is: "Democrat candidate 'outraged' after her raunchy party photos surface on the internet."

Still don't recognize her?  This Democrat candidate for congressperson up in northern Virginia?

That's her on the right.

A state law is rape.

And people take her kind seriously.

Really, Ellen?

I watched a brief portion of "The Ellen Degeneris Show" the other day.  A portion of that portion included a video clip of some drunken hill jack from backwoods America who manufactures his own moonshine and was blasted out of his mind.  Oh, and he even talked like a hill jack too.

Ellen had great fun belittling the guy.  Her audience laughed and laughed.

Ellen.  Heaping derision on someone's lifestyle choice.


I'll bet she didn't even see the problem with her bigotry and condescension.

I Think He's Figured It Out

Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.

How about we prevent drilling off the East Coast?

And the West Coast?

And in the Gulf?

And how about we cut off oil drilling leases?

And permits?

And increase EPA emissions standards?

And nix the XL pipeline out of Canada?

And force oil refineries to close?

By God, he did it.  We're just like Europe.

Headline of the Day

Pelosi 2008: Bush to Blame for High Gas Prices; Pelosi 2012: Wall Street to Blame for High Gas Prices

Now I Know Why He Wanted To Support The Bill

David Albo, Virginia Lawmaker, Says Wife Wouldn't Have Sex Because Of Transvaginal Ultrasound Bill

* For those who don't know him, David Albo is a RINO from Fairfax County.

Now They Want An 'American Tax'?

They breathe. Thus they should pay higher taxes. Such is the rationale:

Geithner: 'Privilege of Being an American' Is Why Rich Need Higher Taxes

Good grief.

Speaking of Bold

Cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood, after what's been read about the power that America's leading abortion provider carries in Washington?  Can it be?

It be:

Texas to administration: Never mind your threats, we’re cutting Medicaid to abortion providers 

Obama won't let this pass. He can't. Planned Parenthood owns him.

This is shaping up as a real battle. One all states should join.

There is a simple solution to this impasse, by the way.  Planned Parenthood could simply get out of the abortion business.  It's just a tiny part of its portfolio anyway.  Isn't that what they keep telling us?

Say What?

Good grief:

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley said Friday that his decision to support a same-sex marriage bill, which cleared the state Senate and is expected to be signed into law, was made after considering the children of gay parents.

Surely he could have come up with a better excuse than that. Want to try again, big guy?

Who Would Have Guessed

Big Surprise: Obamacare’s Pre-Existing Condition Plan Costing Twice as Much Per Enrollee as Originally Estimated

A Bold Promise

This is the sort of thing one didn't do in years past if one wanted to be president.  Promise to roll back future benefit opportunities for current voters?  Unheard of.

Yet here he is:
Romney would raise eligibility age for Medicare
By David Espo, AP Special Correspondent

Detroit (AP) — Four days before critical primary elections, Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney outlined a far-reaching plan Friday to gradually delay Americans' eligibility for Medicare as well as Social Security.

Romney said the shift, as people live longer, is needed to steer the giant benefit programs toward economic sustainability.

Romney said his proposals for Medicare and Social Security would begin in 2022, meaning no current or near-retirees would be affected. He also said he favors adjustments to curtail the growth of future benefits for the relatively well-to-do, so "lower-income seniors would receive the most generous benefits." He had described his Social Security proposals previously.

Beginning in 2022, Romney said, "we will gradually increase the Medicare eligibility age by one month each year. In the long run, the eligibility ages for both programs will be indexed to longevity so that they increase only as fast as life expectancy."

Under current law, the age for collecting full Social Security benefits is gradually rising from 65 to 67. Medicare is available at age 65. In both cases, the age is set in law, and Romney's suggestion that it be tied automatically to increases in the life expectancy of Americans would mark a major change. [link]
When pinned down in the past, Barack Obama would mumble something about how we had to "do something" about Social Security and Medicare in order to keep them from breaking the bank. But he's done nothing.

With control of both the House and the Senate in January, perhaps Romney - if elected - will be able to set both programs right.

Friday, February 24, 2012

And Then There's His Batty Wife ...

... who spoke to a gathering of the also-filthy--rich in Cincinnati about how tough it is to be poor in America.

And she probably didn't feel one bit odd about doing so.

When 'All-out War' Meant ...

... all-out war.

September, 2001, George W. Bush, following the 9/11 attacks: "When [the terrorists] struck, they wanted to create an atmosphere of fear. And one of the great goals of this nation's war is to restore public confidence in the airline industry.

"It's to tell the traveling public: Get on board. Do your business around the country. Fly and enjoy America's great destination spots. Get down to Disney World in Florida. Take your families and enjoy life, the way we want it to be enjoyed." [source]

December, 1941, Franklin Roosevelt, following the attack on Pearl Harbor: "No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.

"I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

"Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

"With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God."

Different enemy. Different era. Different resolve.

We know how the "home front" changed after 9/11. The airport baggage handlers and screeners were federalized. And ... that was about it.

But in 1941?

Look at how quickly things changed between Pearl Harbor and two years on*:

A transformation the likes of which the world has never seen.

Who, you might wonder, were all those 6,900,000 new workers - most of whom went into "war industries"?


A circumstance that would forever change America.

An era when total war meant total war.

* Source: Time magazine, July 20, 1942, pg. 68.

** Estimated future changes as predicted by the government.

Where The Federal Gov't Can Do Good

I have occasionally written that I so wanted to be a libertarian in decades past, but that, every time I listened to one espouse his views on the role the government should have in our lives, I walked away scratching my head, trying to understand the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist (the non-bomb throwing kind).

Conservatives?   We believe in government.  Limited government.  The boundaries of which include a responsibility related to this:
Feds plan to spend $51.5M on 2012 Asian carp fight
By John Flesher, AP Environmental Writer

Traverse City, Mich. (AP) — The Obama administration will spend $51.5 million this year to shield the Great Lakes from greedy Asian carp, including first-time water sampling to determine whether the destructive fish have established a foothold in the lakes, officials said Thursday.

Officials released an updated strategy that also includes stepped-up trapping and netting in rivers that could provide access to the lakes, as well as initial field tests of scents that could lure carp to where they could be captured. An acoustic water gun that could scare carp from crucial locations will be tested near a Chicago shipping lock some want closed because it could serve as a doorway to Lake Michigan.

"This strategy builds on the unprecedented and effective plan we are implementing to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes while we determine the best long-term solution," said John Goss, Asian carp program director for the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

With this year's money, the federal government will have spent $156.5 million over three years in the fight against bighead and silver carp, imported from Asia decades ago. They have migrated up the Mississippi River and its tributaries including the Illinois River, where they've advanced to within 55 miles of Lake Michigan.

The carp eat massive amounts of plankton — tiny plants and animals at the base of the aquatic food web. Scientists differ about how widely they would spread in the Great Lakes, but under worst-case scenarios they could severely damage the $7 billion fishing industry. [link]
A national concern requiring a national effort.

An effort that effective government action should be there to lead.

Until Nancy Pelosi takes charge again and millions of taxpayer dollars are diverted to Asian carp mambo dancing training and biodiversifying exercises.

Limited, effective government. It is possible. Not under present circumstances, but it is possible.

Obama Is Saddened

Two American military personnel were killed yesterday by an Afghan soldier who acted - apparently - in retaliation, after it was learned that NATO authorities had been caught burning korans in a town dump.

Obama felt sorry.

For the korans.

For God's sake.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Governor Bob Agrees With Me

It pains me (well, mildly) to go against the conservative tide here in Virginia.  But when they go too far, I find myself in the unenviable position of having to bitchslap those who otherwise think and act like Reagan Republicans.

I wrote the other day (see "Ever Wonder Why Feminism Died?"):

"They [meaning America's aged and not-all-that-bright feminists] couldn't leave well enough alone and make the sane argument that the Virginia law is the kind of intrusive government mandate that conservatives regularly argue against, though conservatives here, oddly, support government intrusion when it comes to ultrasounding for fetuses."

Meaning: Conservatives don't do such things. Liberals do. So back off.

Well, look who else is uncomfortable with Virginia Republicans pushing for government-mandated invasion of privacy:
McDonnell, Virginia Republicans back off mandatory invasive ultrasounds
By Anita Kumar and Laura Vozzella, Washington Post

Richmond — A controversial bill that would require women to get an ultrasound before an abortion is now in doubt after Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell diluted the measure Wednesday by making it optional in many cases.

The legislation initially sought to require ultrasounds, which early last week prompted opponents to raise concerns over the procedures’ potentially invasive nature. In many cases, the ultrasounds would require a vaginal probe to establish gestational age.

On Wednesday, citing concerns over that intrusiveness, McDonnell (R), an abortion opponent who had repeatedly said he would sign the bill, asked state lawmakers to amend the measure. House members approved the governor’s amendments, but the bill’s Republican sponsor in the Senate said she would try to pull the measure for the session.

“Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state,” McDonnell said in a statement. “No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.” He did not comment further. [link]
I'll not comment further either, except to say to those who put this legislation in motion:

I understand your heartfelt concern and motivation. I too hate the thought that more babies will be killed in Virginia's Planned Parenthood slaughterhouses today. But you can't let that thought, that concern, destroy everything else you hold dear. 

We will win this fight against abortion by winning the hearts of the Commonwealth's women, not by the government requiring that probes be sent up vaginas.

We will stop Planned Parenthood. And we'll do it in such a way as to not sacrifice all our guiding principles in the process.

To life!

* I should note, this story appears in the Washington Post. So it may be a complete fabrication. Assess its veracity with that understanding.

Journalists Shilling For Obama

Well, it's true his lips never moved.

But beyond that?

Take a look at what passes for journalism these days:

"In any case, Obama himself never 'told America' that his plan 'would hold unemployment below 8 percent,' as Romney claims. This was merely a staff report about a generic stimulus package, not even Obama’s own plan."

That's from the Washington Post's "fact checker," believe it or not.

Writes Glenn Kessler, in so many words: Obama's staff in 2009 delivers to the nation a report that unemployment would not exceed 8% if a government "stimulus" were injected into the economy, but because Obama himself never personally "told" us unemployment would never exceed 8%, Romney is lying for saying otherwise.

Don Surber responds:
Zombie lying for Obama

Childishly, the promo in the Washington Post Online for Glenn Kessler’s story read: “Romney’s zombie bogus jobless claim.”

Glenn Kessler called Mitt Romney a liar for accurately quoting Barack Obama.

According to Glenn Kessler, this is what Mitt Romney said: “Three years ago, a newly elected President Obama told America that if Congress approved his plan to borrow nearly a trillion dollars, he would hold unemployment below 8 percent.”

Romney tells the truth. The fact-checker is the man without facts.
Rather than the squabble being about "facts," the real bone of contention is whether Obama's lips moved when his administration promoted the idea that an economic "stimulus" would keep unemployment under 8%. On that point Kessler would be right. Obama never said such a thing.

But "said" isn't the word that Romney used either. It was "told." Romney:

“Three years ago, a newly elected President Obama told America that if Congress approved his plan to borrow nearly a trillion dollars, he would hold unemployment below 8 percent.”

Kessler claims that Obama never told us that.

Making Kessler's statement untrue.

Here's the definition(s) of the word "told" that I found in my trusty dictionary (maybe Kessler should obtain one; it might save him a modicum of embarrassment).  "Told" derives from the word "tell":

1) Express in words. (Making Kessler's contention fact-worthy.)

All well and good. But ...

2) Let something be known.

Did Obama let his administration float the now-laughable claim that he could keep unemployment where he never kept it?

Without doubt.

Making the Washington Post's "fact checker" factually wrong.

I learned a long time ago that a person viewed by his friends and neighbors as being a fool is one thing. But to put boneheaded declarations in writing for all the world to see makes that same person known globally as being an idiot. Not a slick move.

Glenn Kessler? The world now knows ...

The Question Every American Is Asking

The price of gas is going through the roof.  Ditto utility bills.  Millions are out of work.  Others have taken part-time jobs just to survive.  Taxes are outrageous and are wasted in breathtaking volume.  Our government is awash in debt, teetering on the brink of collapse, and Washington doesn't care.

And what's the question at last night's debate that the American people the liberal media want answered?

"Since birth control is the latest hot topic, which candidate believes in birth control, and if not, why?"

Birth control.

"The hot topic."

In the bathroom stall at Democratic National Committee headquarters.  And in the halls of CNN Central.

But out here in the real world?

For the love of God.

In Their Dreams

Typical Politico: "GOP fears rise over 2012 tone, message."

In truth?  Politico fears rise over 2012 GOP message.

Romney Has a Plan

If one accepts the notion that we need to reduce taxes in order to increase taxes - or to reduce marginal tax rates that will boost investment and economic growth, which will then produce more tax dollars flowing into government coffers, to be clear - then one's heart gets to pounding when reading Mitt Romney's latest tax/economic proposal.  Here's the nut of it, as it appears in his Wall Street Journal op/ed, "A Tax Reform to Restore America's Prosperity," this morning:
First, I will make an across-the-board, 20% reduction in marginal individual income tax rates. This bold stroke reduces the tax on the next dollar of income earned by all taxpayers. It also reduces tax rates for the many businesses that pay at individual rates and employ the majority of private-sector American workers, thus driving significant increases in hiring and wages.

Second, I will reduce the corporate tax rate to 25% from 35%, transition from a world-wide taxation system to a territorial one, and make the R&D tax credit permanent. These steps will unleash significant domestic investment, attract more foreign investment, and make the U.S. economy competitive with others around the globe. They will not only spur significant job creation, but also raise wages for American workers.

Third, I will promote savings and investment by maintaining the low 15% rate on capital gains, interest and qualified dividends, and eliminate the tax entirely for those with annual income below $200,000. These low tax rates will create powerful incentives for Americans to save and invest, while encouraging business investment and economic growth.

Fourth, I will take long overdue steps to correct failures in the tax code. I will abolish the death tax, whose primary effect today is to foster elaborate schemes for transferring wealth. I will also repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was intended to make the code simpler and fairer but has accomplished precisely the opposite.

Fifth, I will bring stability to the tax code by making these changes permanent. People and businesses should not live in perpetual uncertainty, waiting to see what changes the annual partisan battles in Washington will make to what they owe. One recent study estimated that simply returning policy certainty to pre-Obama levels could create 2.5 million jobs in less than two years.
Take this to the bank. If that plan gets adopted by Congress in its entirety (not a pipe dream considering the fact that the GOP is poised to take control of the Senate and keep its majority in the House), America will see that turnaround that Barack Obama promised years ago and ... promises ... still.

I'm not a big Romney supporter, but put me down as a supporter of his tax plan.

Global Warmists Are Lashing Out

Their belief system has been wrecked.  Everything they staked their reputations on has been exposed as being a sham.  They're reeling.  Disoriented.   Perplexed.  Preoccupied. And pissed.

And so they launch vicious, indiscriminate, ridiculous attacks:
LAT Editorial: Climate Skeptics Want Teachers to 'Lie ... in the Classroom'
By Tom Blumer, NewsBusters

On Monday, the editorial board at the Los Angeles Times was so mad that they fell victim to a corollary of Godwin's Law (he who mentions Hitler or the Nazis has automatically lost the argument) by the third paragraph.

What has them so upset? The very idea that K-12 classroom instruction might not teach human-caused global warming and the need for massive and radical government intervention in the marketplace to deal with it as established, irrefutable facts. In their fever-swamp view, the battle is between "credentialed climatologists around the globe" and "fossil-fuel-industry-funded 'experts.'" The editorial's language is so over at the top it makes one legitimately wonder how anyone who doesn't toe the line on climate change can remain employed anywhere at the Times.

What the Times editorialists really want is for the opinions of the hordes of credentialed skeptics, including sixteen highly respected scientists who have written two op-eds which have appeared in the Wall Street Journal this year (today's is here) to be kept out of the classrooms.

Remember this brainwashing advocacy the next time anyone associated with the Times tells us that what the education system should be doing is teaching "critical thinking." It's obvious that they don't really believe that. What they want is for their lies to be the only thing children hear and learn the classroom. [link]
Remember, a few years ago, when Al Gores' epic drama, "An Inconvenient Truth," was being shown in classrooms around the world? Now that much of that which Gore presented as fact has turned out to be fiction, would the really smart people at the Times be opposed to its showing in schools in the future?

Here's the deal: The editorialists at the Los Angeles Times have lost their minds.

Because they're losing the debate.

And so they rant.

And it ain't pretty.

Amusing. But not pretty.

Why? They Already Own Them.

Former DNC Chairman Looks to Buy Philadelphia's Two Major Newspapers

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Peter Gleick Fits The Mold

It somehow seems fitting.  To many of us who have followed the ongoing "global warming" debate - such as it has been allowed to be a debate by the open-minded Left in this country - the theory that took on a life of its own and - somehow - became a social and political movement (call it "global warming" or "climate change " or "hey, we got weather") is based on a fraud.  Manipulated (and discarded) data.  Wild, unfounded, now-discredited computer models.  Ever ... evolving ... predictions of certain planetary doom.  Obfuscations.  Recriminations.  Plotting.  Deceiving.

A fraud.

Now we find out that one of the theory's/movement's leading proponents, Peter Gleick, is himself a fraud.

See "Peter Gleick Confesses to Obtaining Heartland Documents Under False Pretenses."

And be ashamed for the scientific community.

- - -

As for the Heartland Institute, its leadership knows how to deal with fraudsters:
Statement by The Heartland Institute on Peter Gleick Confession

"Earlier this evening, Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views.

"Gleick's crime was a serious one. The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety.

"An additional document Gleick represented as coming from The Heartland Institute, a forged memo purporting to set out our strategies on global warming, has been extensively cited by newspapers and in news releases and articles posted on Web sites and blogs around the world. It has caused major and permanent damage to the reputations of The Heartland Institute and many of the scientists, policy experts, and organizations we work with.

"A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage.

"In his statement, Gleick claims he committed this crime because he believed The Heartland Institute was preventing a "rational debate" from taking place over global warming. This is unbelievable. Heartland has repeatedly asked for real debate on this important topic. Gleick himself was specifically invited to attend a Heartland event to debate global warming just days before he stole the documents. He turned down the invitation.

"Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source. This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick.

"We hope Gleick will make a more complete confession in the next few days.

"We are consulting with legal counsel to determine our next steps and plan to release a more complete statement about the situation tomorrow. In the meantime, we ask again that publishers, bloggers, and Web site hosts take the stolen and fraudulent documents off their sites, remove defamatory commentary based on them, and issue retractions."  [link]
It would be sweet irony if the Heartland Institute, under attack in recent days for being "exposed" as getting its funding from right-wing (think Big Oil and the Koch Brothers!) slugs, obtains funding in the future from left-wing zealots like Peter Gleich and his Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security through the court system and a successful defamation suit.

Here's to the Heartland Institute and a successful scorched earth* legal crusade.

- - -

"A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage." Get your wallet out, big guy.

- - -

This speaks volumes.  Until days ago Peter Gleick was chairman of the Taskforce on Scientific Ethics.

Hilarious.  In a shaming sort of way.

- - -

Megan McArdle (herself a global warmist): "Gleick has done enormous damage to his [she means "our"] cause and his own reputation, and it's no good to say that people shouldn't be focusing on it. If his judgement is this bad, how is his judgement on matters of science? For that matter, what about the judgement of all the others in the movement who apparently see nothing worth dwelling on in his actions?"

Second thoughts, Megan? Suddenly concerned about the company you keep?

 - - -

* I love words!

Who Says We Don't Honor Them With a Parade?

No, you'll not see our Iraq War veterans respected by the mayors of New York City, Baltimore, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, or Philadelphia - Democrats all* - with parades down their cities' main thoroughfares.

But that's not to say that America isn't honoring them with showers of affection as our brave troops return triumphant from a long and costly - and victorious - war.

Via Michelle Malkin - a video capturing the mightiest fighting force ever known to humankind receiving a hero's welcome on their return from the front:

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
  -- John Stuart Mill --

Here's to those who have proven themselves to be better men - and women - than the mayors -scoundrels, lowlifes, and worms all - of all those cities.

* New York's mayor is Michael Bloomberg.  Like I said ...

He's Risen Above His Office

Can you imagine any other governor in the country putting together a video like this?

Chris Christie - the slayer of dragons, union officials, and news media types - has become larger than life.*

* Figuratively and literally.  Someone needs to tell him to lay off the Krispy Kremes.

What, Americans Aren't Fleeing Fast Enough?

Good God:

President Obama's 2013 budget is the gift that keeps on giving—to government. One buried surprise is his proposal to triple the tax rate on corporate dividends which, believe it or not, is higher than in his previous budgets.

Want to collect those higher taxes, Barack?  You might, then, want to stop downsizing the Navy.  You're going to need it if you're going to pry those dollars out of the hands of America's wealthy former citizens who have moved to the Caymans.

- - -

By the way, I'd love to hear our president square that plan with this one:

Obama to propose lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percent

What, he wants to lessen the burden on corporations but triple it for those who might earn dividends from them?

The Obama years will be characterized by historians as being years of profound chaos brought about by executive ignorance.  Those years will certainly include 2012.

- - -

What Obama is too stupid to grasp: From the article, "Obama's Dividend Assault":

"Keep in mind that dividends are paid to shareholders only after the corporation pays taxes on its profits. So assuming a maximum 35% corporate tax rate and a 44.8% dividend tax, the total tax on corporate earnings passed through as dividends would be 64.1%. "

Who wouldn't want to get a piece of that action by risking their entire worldly savings on an investment in a corporation with an effective tax rate - if all goes well - like that?

Singapore, here our money comes!

- - -

Obama could learn the lesson the Brits are learning right now.  He won't but he could:
50% tax rate 'failing to boost revenues’
London Telegraph

The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.

Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate. The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad. [link]


What do you want to bet, the geniuses at the Washington Post can find a distinction to make here:

WashPost Runs Cartoon Depicting Drunken Bishop, Refused to Run Strip by Same Artist Mocking Muhammad

I'll do their work for them.  Here's my reasoning: Christians are generally a peace-loving people. They wouldn't drive over to Washington D.C., drag the editors of that rag out into the street, and cut the heads off of those who have no problem blaspheming God.

I guess their reasoning cowardice is understandable after all.

Comedy Central

[Obama spokesman] Jay Carney: Hey, Obama didn’t cancel the Keystone pipeline, Republicans did

Kaine Want Virginia To Be California

A fiscal basket case, in other words.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has weathered the Bush/Obama economic storm better than any other state in the Union.  Especially those that had been - and in the case of California, still are - burdening their citizens with exorbitant taxes that stifled any opportunity for growth.  Democrat states.  Illinois.  Michigan.  Oregon.  Rhode Island.

So what does Senate candidate Tim Kaine propose that the Commonwealth do to take it to the next level?

Kaine: Be like Illinois and Michigan and Oregon and Rhode Island - and California - and raise taxes.

And like the United States of America, a nation in fiscal peril.

Because high taxes made life so swell for the people living in those states of chaos and despair.

We don't need any more Kaines in Washington.  The city that made the mess America find itself in is full of them.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

About Obama's 99%

The little woman sure ain't livin' like one of 'em:

Well it has been a whole month! Just weeks after 17-day Hawaii vacation Michelle hits the slopes with daughters on Aspen ski trip

Remember that next time Obama talks bad about the rich.  He knows well that to which he speaks.

Oh, I Forgot

Yesterday was "President's Day."

I ask: How did you celebrate it?

If you're like me, you didn't.

If you're like 95% of America, you didn't.

But if you "work" for the government, or you work at the bank, you celebrated President's Day by ignoring it, taking the day off from work, and doing stuff that you do every other day you have off.

Someone suggested long ago that President's Day is a holiday.

Coulda fooled us.

Memo To Scientists:

You're not God.

From this morning's Wall Street Journal, "Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming":

"Trenberth et al. tell us that the managements of major national academies of science have said that 'the science is clear, the world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible.' Apparently every generation of humanity needs to relearn that Mother Nature tells us what the science is, not authoritarian academy bureaucrats or computer models."

Today's class of climate scientists, in particular, need to relearn that lesson.  In going up against Mother Nature, they have proven themselves to be totally outmatched.

Stick to the science, fellas.  Leave the wild-ass guessing and prognosticating to the politicians and the oracles.