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

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Virginia Tech Vindicated?

A jury in a civil case recently found Virginia Tech to have acted in a negligent and untimely manner when Cho Seung-hui started killing people on its campus back in 2007.    The Roanoke Times, as a result, promptly and conspicuously excoriated the university in an editorial for not offering up an apology to the parents and loved ones of the victims.

I wonder if that same Roanoke Times will offer an apology of its own now that Tech has been found to have acted properly in the matter.  From the office of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli:
Virginia Tech wins Clery Act appeal

Richmond (March 30, 2012) – In a decision released late yesterday, the chief administrative law judge of the U.S. Department of Education found that Virginia Tech had complied with federal law in its response to the initial April 16, 2007, shootings on campus, and as a result, he vacated the $55,000 in fines that had previously been assessed against the university by the U.S. Department of Education.

The fines had been imposed under the federal Clery Act, which imposes certain conditions on colleges and universities, including requiring them to issue timely warnings to their campuses when certain crimes are committed on campus and certain other conditions are met. The judge found yesterday that the act applied to the initial shootings of two students at Virginia Tech on April 16, but also found that the campus-wide e-mails issued by Virginia Tech’s emergency policy group were sent in a timely manner and met the act’s warning requirements.

“While we will always mourn for those who lost their lives on that terrible day in 2007, we are pleased the judge recognized that Virginia Tech's response fully complied with the law,” said Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, whose office argued the appeal for the school. “We have maintained from the beginning that Virginia Tech’s notification to the campus community met all of requirements of the Clery Act, and we are glad the judge agreed. For us, this appeal was not about the fines as much as it was about the arbitrary way the U.S. Department of Education tried to apply the law against a school that responded reasonably while an unforeseen and unprecedented crime was occurring on campus.”

The judge's decision can be found here.
So a jury - after having listened to heartbreaking stories from parents offered as testimony in a trial having to do with technical matters relating to Virginia Tech's response time - finds the university negligent. And awards the loved ones a boatload of money.

And a trial in which those same technicalities were litigated - minus the anguished renderings from loved ones - found VT to have acted properly.

From the judge in the latter case:

"Administrative Judge Ernest Canellos determined that university actions on the morning of April 16, 2007, after the shootings in Ambler Johnston residence hall, satisfied the requirements of the “timely warning” provision of the Clery Act. 'This was not an unreasonable amount of time in which to issue a warning. …. if the later shootings at Norris Hall had not occurred, it is doubtful that the timing of the email would have been perceived as too late.' said Canellos."

Is there an apology due someone here? I don't see it.

And We Wonder Why We're Struggling

How did we get to this point?

On April 1, Japan will cut its corporate tax rate to 36.8% from 39.5%. As it does, the U.S. will officially have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, with average combined federal and state profit levies of 39.2%.

Is it any wonder that America's corporations are (allegedly) shifting profits overseas?  Profits that could be creating jobs here in the U.S.?

Is it any wonder that the standard of living for the Middle Class in this country is declining?

President Obama - to his credit - has called for reducing corporate taxes (when he's not lambasting American corporations for making a profit) (though he's yet to submit a bill to Congress that reduces their tax burden).  He'd better follow through with his wish - soon - or we'll all be looking to the Chinese for a handout.


The sweet smell of vindication is in the air this morning.

From Instapundit:
KEITH OLBERMANN: The Incredible Shrinking Man.

Funny, but wasn’t it supposed to be Limbaugh going off the air?

UPDATE: Reader Michael Harlow writes: “You’ll hear a lot more in the press about Rush Limbaugh losing sponsors than you will about Keith Olbermann losing his job.” True.
We'll miss not having Olbermann around to ridicule.

But there is a certain orgasmic delight in seeing Rush grow in strength and reach at the same time his arch enemy - that darling of the whacked-out Left - Keith Olbermann is sent off to the retirement home.

Ah, sweet payback.

Why Democrats Must Be Crushed

Biden: Hey, how about a global minimum tax?

Friday, March 30, 2012

Regardless Whether We Win Or Lose ...

... we win.  David Rivkin on ObamaCare and its demolition before the Supreme Court:

"We have already won in the sense that the entire court's attention was on the Constitution's structural limitation on governmental power. That's the ultimate indictment—not just of ObamaCare, but of everything this administration has done."

Besides the fact that Obama's signature piece of legislation was going to drive the cost of health care through the roof, besides the fact that it was going to destroy the finest health care delivery system ever devised by humankind, besides the fact that our president and his minions repeatedly lied to us about that which constituted his "Affordable Care Act," he, they, and it came very close to taking away what's left of our freedom.  Freedom to choose.  Freedom to live our lives without government intrusion.  Freedom to prosper.

Though I have some doubt about Rivkin's assertion that "the entire court's attention was on the Constitution's structural limitation on governmental power" - after all, three members of that court, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan seemed more preoccupied with cheerleading and excuse-making for the Obama administration than with any constitutional question - all, in all, we made progress in the debate - finally we're having this debate! - over the damage being done to our liberty by an ever more intrusive government.

Here's to David Rivkin and those who made it possible.

This Is As Close As They Come To An Argument

And it's shamefully inarticulate.

And nowhere in it is one going to find the word "Constitution."

The worst part?  It comes out of the mouth of a Supreme Court Justice.

Stephen Breyer:
I look back into history, and I think if we look back into history we see sometimes Congress can create commerce out of nothing. That's the national bank, which was created out of nothing to create other commerce out of nothing. I look back into history, and I see it seems pretty clear that if there are substantial effects on interstate commerce, Congress can act.

And I look at the person who's growing marijuana in her house, or I look at the farmer who is growing the wheat for home consumption. This seems to have more substantial effects.

Is this commerce? Well, it seems to me more commerce than marijuana. I mean, is it, in fact, a regulation? Well, why not? If creating a bank is, why isn't this?

And then you say, ah, but one thing here out of all those things is different, and that is you're making somebody do something.

I say, hey, can't Congress make people drive faster than 45 -- 40 miles an hour on a road? Didn't they make that man growing his own wheat go into the market and buy other wheat for his -- for his cows? Didn't they make Mrs. -- if she married somebody who had marijuana in her basement, wouldn't she have to go and get rid of it? Affirmative action? [link]
Is there some kind of principle being set forth or reinforced? Is this man's babble even comprehensible?

What in God's name is this old fool even doing sitting in judgment on the highest bench in the land?

Where Does This End?

I knew it was a mistake when Obama took sides in the Trayvon Martin tragedy.  The predictable follow-on:

"The parents of two British students murdered in Florida have criticised President Barack Obama for his lack of compassion over their son's deaths."

These white parents are asking why their white children - murdered by a black teen - in Florida - are less important in the eyes of the president of the United States than is a black teen murdered by an Hispanic man.

Good God.  Can we stop with all this?

It's More Than a Piece of Paper

The most startling aspect of the ObamaCare extravaganza that is taking place before the Supreme Court (it is still ongoing, with a final rendering expected in June)? The fact that liberals in this country - even those who sit on the Court - don't give much attention to the document that binds us to one another. As strange as that seems. Call it ...
Constitutional Contempt
By W. James Antle, III, American Spectator

The issue goes far beyond health care. For decades, members of the elected branch of the federal government have barely pretended to adhere to the document to which they swear an oath. They do not consult the Constitution when they seek to accomplish their policy goals. They do not recognize its clear limits on their power.

While liberals have been most comprehensive in their rejection of enumerated powers, preferring instead to use the Constitution as a battering ram against Christmas trees in the town square, this constitutional amnesia has been a bipartisan affliction. It manifested itself among the center-right policy wonks who toyed with the individual mandate since the 1990s. It was seen in the unchecked growth of government even when Republicans are in power.

Even advocates of relatively activist government in the context of the times believed that constitutional amendments were necessary to prohibit such obvious economic activities as slavery and the sale of alcoholic beverages. Defenders of the health care reform law did not even bother to cite evidence that the people who ratified the Constitution intended to delegate to the federal government the powers the Obama administration claimed.

The American republic was founded on the idea that the federal government possesses only the powers granted to it by a supermajority of the people and the states. Ratification of the Constitution and its amendments is the process by which that supermajority gives its consent. This once-basic notion of governance was relegated to the fringes. It is now returning to the mainstream.

Obama's solicitor general was caught flat-footed not because he lacks legal skills. He is part of a political culture that has never thought seriously about the Constitution, has never thought that our masters in Washington need to beg the people for any permission beyond their vote every two to six years, and has regarded the doctrine of enumerated powers as a pre-New Deal relic. The Washington conventional wisdom has long been rooted in constitutional contempt.

Chief Justice John Roberts may yet be reluctant to overturn a major act of Congress by a narrow 5 to 4 vote. Anthony Kennedy could get out of bed tomorrow and decide that the individual mandate is the greatest thing since Roe v. Wade.

But no matter how the Court rules, the bedrock assumptions of constitutionally limited government have returned to the mainstream of American political discourse. The Constitution is back. If we can keep it. [link]
It comes down to this: Why do we have a Constitution? And how does it reconcile with ObamaCare? Justice Antonin Scalia put it best, in making reference to the "Necessary and Proper" clause in the Constitution:
“Wait. That it's both ‘Necessary and Proper.’ What you just said addresses what's necessary. Yes, has to be reasonably adapted. Necessary does not mean essential, just reasonably adapted. But in addition to being necessary, it has to be proper. And we've held in two cases that something that was reasonably adapted was not proper, because it violated the sovereignty of the States, which was implicit in the constitutional structure.

"The argument here is that this [ObamaCare] … may be necessary, but it's not proper, because it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the Federal Government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; that it's supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that's what all this questioning has been about. What is left?

“If the government can do this, what else can it not do?

“An equally evident constitutional principle is the principle that the Federal Government is a government of enumerated powers and that the vast majority of powers remain in the States and do not belong to the Federal Government. Do you acknowledge that that's a principle?”
It is the role of Congress to determine whether or not legislation before it is necessary. It's up to the Supreme Court to decide whether it is proper.

As it is now doing.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

How Did We Get Here From There?

1900.  Ida B. Wells, Lynch Law in America:
Our country's national crime is lynching. It is not the creature of an hour, the sudden outburst of uncontrolled fury, or the unspeakable brutality of an insane mob. It represents the cool, calculating deliberation of intelligent people who openly avow that there is an "unwritten law" that justifies them in putting human beings to death without complaint under oath, without trial by jury, without opportunity to make defense, and without right of appeal.

 No emergency called for lynch law. It asserted its sway in defiance of law and in favor of anarchy. There it has flourished ever since, marking the thirty years of its existence with the inhuman butchery of more than ten thousand men, women, and children by shooting, drowning, hanging, and burning them alive. Not only this, but so potent is the force of example that the lynching mania has spread throughout the North and middle West. It is now no uncommon thing to read of lynchings north of Mason and Dixon's line, and those most responsible for this fashion gleefully point to these instances and assert that the North is no better than the South.

This is the work of the "unwritten law" about which so much is said, and in whose behest butchery is made a pastime and national savagery condoned. The first statute of this "unwritten law" was written in the blood of thousands of brave men who thought that a government that was good enough to create a citizenship was strong enough to protect it. Under the authority of a national law that gave every citizen the right to vote, the newly-made citizens chose to exercise their suffrage. But the reign of the national law was short-lived and illusionary. Hardly had the sentences dried upon the statute-books before one Southern State after another raised the cry against "negro domination" and proclaimed there was an "unwritten law" that justified any means to resist it.
2012: Kill Zimmerman.

Ida B. Wells is dead.  As is her dream.

Why The ObamaCare Mandate Is Bad

I've written it before.  I write it again:

If you're male, under forty, and single, you'd be stupid to waste your hard-earned income on health insurance.  Chances are remote you'll ever get out of it anywhere near what you put into it.  Pick up health insurance (and life insurance) when you need it (and can better afford it).

But don't take my word for it. Take it from a young person:
That would be Dahlia Lithwick's despondent response to libertarians. Apparently, freedom actually consists of being lead by the nose without complaint by Lithwick and her ilk whenever they decide what is good for us.

The fact of the matter is, Dahlia, there are many different goods in the world. There is no one Good in Plato's sense. I get it, you think universal health care is the bee's knees. Well, I don't, mostly because I'm young and not doing so well in the Age of Hope and Stimulus. I need to put that money where it will do me some good (paying loans, food, rent, gas, etc.) rather than health care insurance, seeing as I haven't had a medical expense I couldn't pay out of pocket since...wow, yeah, I'm guessing since I was a toddler. By the way, Scalia was exactly right: people my age are smart enough to make decisions individually about their own health care. Most of us will not need it now and should be allowed to fund our more pressing needs rather than your health care. As for those my age that do purchase insurance, they may have the resources or the need to do so; Scalia's entire point is that they would know better about their individual needs than Lithwick or Obama.
Forcing young people to buy that which they don't need goes beyond the enumerated powers that We the People granted the United States government not that long ago. It especially goes beyond the compact that we as Americans share and embrace.

Where's Obama?

The price of gas here in Bland, Virginia jumped 10¢.


And what's the guy most responsible for this developing disaster doing?

He's talking about shooting hoops with the New York Knicks.

I don't believe a President should be impeached unless he's been tried and convicted of high crimes and/or misdemeanors.  But would it be too much for Americans to ask, en masse:

Please go away and leave us alone?  You've done enough damage?

To that end:

After three years of Obama, I think it's fair to say: He's not the hope or the change. He's the problem.

Let's end this nightmare.

Election and Political Images, Pics, Comments, Graphics
Election and Political Quotes Pictures - Photobucket

Liberalism In Its Death Throes?

I'd like to think so when I read headlines like this:

"Court Likely To Overturn ObamaCare After Hearings."

The Tea Party.  Defeat of cap-and-trade.  The rising tide of conservatism.  Takeover of the House of Representatives.  Soon-to-be control of the United States Senate.

And come November ...

Could it be that ObamaCare was the last gasp of American progressivism?

I have serious doubts.  There are still many, many people out there who want "free" stuff from the government.  Any many others who see a personal advantage in giving it to them.

Through overturn (should it occur; I'll believe it when I see it) or Congressional repeal, the most intrusive, anti-liberty law ever passed by the national legislature will go.  It's just a matter of when.

Because the alternative is unimaginable.

- - -

It could be argued that ObamaCare itself, in the way it was fashioned, was nothing more than a last gasp.  After reading some of the exchange that took place in the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, one wonders if the then-Democrat-led Congress had simply raised taxes to pay for Obama's pie-in-the-sky cradle-to-grave health care program - rather than devise that "mandate" that everyone pay into the program whether they wanted to or not, either through an insurance company or through a "penalty," - if it would not be in the predicament it's in.

A straightforward tax to pay for ObamaCare.

But the Democrats settled on the mandate because they knew they couldn't get a tax increase passed.  And the American people - overtaxed and under-served - would have sent even more of them into retirement than they did in 2010.

The mandate was a devious end-run around that roadblock.  And the law is where it is.  In the hands of a markedly hostile Supreme Court.

Quote of the Day

Only Ann Coulter could write this:

"On the basis of little else, the media conjured a Hollywood script: A "white" man was "stalking" a little black kid -- who could be Obama's son! -- confronted him, beat him senseless as the small black child screamed for help, and finally shot the kid dead, 'just because he was black.'"

Extravagant hyperbole works best when it is grounded in truth.

As the story about Trayvon Martin unfolds, that truth will become ever more apparent.

Not that it'll matter to Al Sharpton and his fellow mainstream "journalists."

Quote of the Day II

Ouch.  This is what you'd call a bitchslap if it didn't involve two females.  So we'll call it a dressing down ... oops, nope, can't call it that either ... feminist sensibilities and all ... it's ... a ... let's see ... a firm rebuke.  How's that?

James Taranto on ObamaCare, the Supreme Court, and the liberal ladies who knew - just knew - that it was constitutional:

"The justices' evident skepticism about the government's claims took many legal observers (though not this columnist) by surprise. Just last week the likes of Linda Greenhouse and Dahlia Lithwick were proclaiming the case for ObamaCare a no-brainer, flaunting their own brainlessness as if it proved the point."

Consider both Greenhouse and Lithwick duly spanked.  Reamed?  Battered?


Wednesday, March 28, 2012

On The Argument Before The Supreme Court

It is truly mind-boggling to me to hear the United States government argue before the Court that the Constitution permits it to force Americans to buy health insurance.  Yeah, yeah.  The Commerce Clause and all that.

But, one wonders, how did we get to the point that this government considers it its obligation to punish American citizens  - and ObamaCare does, unarguably, punish those individuals who refuse to buy insurance (even though, if those individuals were male, single, and under forty, the purchase would be unwise) - for something so innocuous?

Want to know how?

It's been a long time coming.

Think cigarettes.

Think alcohol.

Think SUV's.

Think obesity.

ObamaCare is just the latest milepost on the long road to serfdom.

One can argue legitimately that obesity is bad for the individual.  As are cigarettes and, depending on its use, alcohol.

But the perfectly wise and logical decision to forgo the expenditure of income on something that is not needed?

(If this were a tax, it could be explained, but it's not.  It's a law that requires one to go out and buy something.)

The government of the United States of America is in the business of punishing American citizens for that?

Gimme that Of the People, By the People, For the People bullshit again?

On Those Who Represent Us In The Court

This is embarrassing.  And painful to listen to.

Yesterday the Solicitor General of the United States - that would be your Solicitor General - came before the Supreme Court and tried to explain how ObamaCare is unique to our way of life.  So unique as to require that people who choose not to participate in a commercial endeavor, because they are, in fact, participating in that commercial endeavor by the very act - or non-act -  of not participating in that commercial endeavor, should be forced to participate in that commercial endeavor.

Sound kinda strange? *

Well, this poor guy - Donald Verrilli - was the poor schmuck who had to make sense of it. And will forever be remembered for failing miserably.

The painful exchange between Verrilli and Justice Samuel Alito:
JUSTICE ALITO: Do you think there is a, a market for burial services?

GENERAL VERRILLI: For burial services?


GENERAL VERRILLI: Yes, Justice Alito, I think there is.

JUSTICE ALITO: All right, suppose that you and I walked around downtown Washington at lunch hour and we found a couple of healthy young people and we stopped them and we said, "You know what you're doing? You are financing your burial services right now because eventually you're going to die, and somebody is going to have to pay for it, and if you don't have burial insurance and you haven't saved money for it, you're going to shift the cost to somebody else." Isn't that a very artificial way of talking about what somebody is doing?


JUSTICE ALITO: And if that's true, why isn't it equally artificial to say that somebody who is doing absolutely nothing about health care is financing health care services?

GENERAL VERRILLI: It's, I think it's completely different. The -- and the reason is that the, the burial example is not -- the difference is here we are regulating the method by which you are paying for something else -- health care -- and the insurance requirement -- I think the key thing here is my friends on the other side acknowledge that it is within the authority of Congress under Article I under the commerce power to impose guaranteed-issue and community rating forms, to end -- to impose a minimum coverage provision. Their argument is just that it has to occur at the point of sale, and -

JUSTICE ALITO: I don't see the difference. You can get burial insurance. You can get health insurance. Most people are going to need health care. Almost everybody. Everybody is going to be buried or cremated at some point. What's the difference?

GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, one big difference, one big difference, Justice Alito, is the -- you don't have the cost shifting to other market participants. Here -

JUSTICE ALITO: Sure you do, because if you don't have money then the State is going to pay for it. Or some -

GENERAL VERRILLI: That's different." [source]
That's different.

How is that different?

Well, it just is.

My God.

* Justice Elena Kagan, during the proceedings, actually made the attempt to justify the bizarre notion that non-participation is participation.  I knew she was (a) not up to the task of sitting on the nation's highest court intellectually and (b) a shill for the Obama administration.

Judge a Man By The Friends He Keeps

One can argue about whether Mitt Romney is right when he calls Russia "our number one geopolitical foe.”*

But, if I were Barack Obama, I wouldn't want a Russian on my side arguing against the notion.

But such is the case.

Dmitry Medvedev, it appears, is big on Obama. But not so much on the presumptive GOP nominee in the upcoming presidential election.

One assumes it's because Obama is more than willing to give him what he wants.

I don't know. I read the oath of office and I can't find anything that says Obama is to preserve, protect or defend the Roosskies.

Yet there he is ...

* I personally disagree with Romney on this. I see Russia as being a shell of its former self and not much to concern ourselves with.

Your Gov't At Work

The United States Department of Justice and another triumph of politics over the law.

Not to mention illegality.

A Good Argument To Abolish The Ed. Dept.

And it comes from the head of the Ed. Dept.:

Ed Secretary: ‘We’ve Seen As Much, If Not More, Reform in States That Didn’t Get a Nickel From Us'

If you understand that (a) the federal Department of Education has never educated one student in its thirty-two year history, and (b) is in place only to transfer tax dollars from individuals living in the various states to the federal government and back to the various states (something those states are fully equipped to do themselves) (with a sizable chunk skimmed off the top to pay the 5,000 employees it warehouses), and if you understand, as our Education Secretary asserts, that the money coming to the states from Washington has no impact on the quality of education, then ...

... why do we have a Department of Education?


Obama Keeps His Promise

He said he was going to bankrupt the coal industry.  And make energy more expensive.  He's doing just that:
EPA's War On Energy, Americans Continues
Investor's Business Daily editorial

The Obama administration is pushing the first rules ever to cut carbon dioxide emissions in new U.S. power plants. It's a move that's sure to make energy a lot more expensive for everyone.

Everyone, of course, likes cleaner air. But the new rules are so draconian that they will lead to an end of the construction of any power plant that uses coal.

The rules will force new power plants to put expensive new equipment to capture and bury emissions underground. If it sounds easy, it isn't. In fact, the equipment doesn't even exist yet.

Despite this, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is going ahead with the energy-unfriendly plan.

We wonder, what happened to the Obama administration's "all of the above" strategy? Why aren't we using all of our resources — including coal?

As has been noted before on these pages, the U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have nearly 500 billion short tons of coal reserves in the U.S. — far more than any other country. It's enough to power U.S. energy needs for decades to come.

The White House claims that the new rules will impact only new plants. But in fact, in the past three years, the Obama administration has hit the utility industry with new regulations on mercury emissions and cross-border pollution as well.

This is all part of a pattern — a regulatory siege on energy providers intended to favor so-called "green" alternative energy sources, at the cost of traditional suppliers of electricity. The "goal," if it can be called that, is to reduce global warming — though even the EPA's Jackson admits the latest rules won't do that. [link]
Some say that Obama is not an ideologue. That he's just not up to the task of being president and is, therefore, making poorly thought-through decisions.

In fact, the decisions are calculated. And radical. And destructive.

It's no accident.

Our president declared his intention to make energy more expensive. He's doing as promised.

How fulfilled he and his supporters must feel.

Don't You Hate It When This Happens?

The pilot of your cross-country commercial flight comes out of the cockpit and starts screaming and running down the aisle of the plane, deliriously ranting about bombs and death?

What is it about planes and people freaking out?

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Who Knew?

A Democrat with a conscience.  I'll be darned:

Congresswoman: ‘It Is My Sworn Duty to Fight’ Obama’s Attack on Religious Freedom

There's hope for the party of Roosevelt after ...


I'll not get carried away.  Pelosi and the press will get to her.  She'll get back in line.

Ho Hum

The facts about global warming roll in.  And they aren't good news for Al Gore's retirement accounts.

See "Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again" in today's Wall Street Journal.

And wonder when Crazy Al and his gang of warmists are going to give it up and go home.

The Globe Isn't Warming?

Who cares!

Obama Requests $770 Million to Fight Global Warming Overseas

Thank God it's only our children's college education fund that he's going to spend on fighting that which doesn't exist.

For the love of God.

Where Once Journalism Was Practiced

1)"Advocacy Journalism."  An oxymoron if there ever was one.

2) "Advocacy Journalism."  A field of endeavor that is indistinguishable from the weblog.

3) "Advocacy Journalism."  What's practiced at ABC News.

You decide if that's really what journalism is all about.

ABC News anchor Josh Elliot has decided.  He takes sides on issues and is proud to skew them for his viewing audience.

Judge him - and anything that comes out of his mouth - accordingly.
Screw Objectivity! ABC's Josh Elliott: 'I'm Proud to Work at a Place That Believes in Advocacy Journalism!'
By Scott Whitlock, NewsBusters

Sometimes journalists just come right out and say it: Appearing at the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Awards, Saturday, ABC News anchor Josh Elliott gushed over media subjectivity: "I'm proud to work at a place that believes in advocacy journalism!"

Elliott, who reads the news for Good Morning America, fawned over the liberal gay rights group: "I will never be in a braver room than this!" The reporter seemed to be under the impression that, so long as the cause is good enough, objectivity isn't needed. Elliott highlighted his own late, gay father: "I took from him the importance of being an advocate for those who need it; and I took from him what it means to be a man." [link]
You'll note that this Elliott person didn't just damn his own work - work that comes with an unabashed bias - but he condemns his employer at the same time, with ABC News being "a place that believes in advocacy ..."

Remember that next time the "journalists" there put a story on the air. It will be shrouded in prejudice. An effort that Josh Elliott - and, I'd bet, a lot of other advocates at ABC News - is proud of.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Roanoke Times: The Choice Is Clear

[edited 02.27.12] With regard to the looming debate before the Supreme Court on ObamaCare, the editorialists at the Roanoke Times invite you to entertain two alternative constructs.  (1) Obama's Affordable Care Act, draconian mandates and all, will be upheld and our health care delivery system will forever be controlled by the United States government.  Or (2) Obama's Affordable Care Act (which is quickly proving to be everything BUT affordable) will be declared unconstitutional and we'll have nationalized health care, a system that will forever be controlled by the United States government.

See "If the [Affordable Care Act's] market approach to reform falls before the current court, national health care will become the viable, and necessary, alternative."

You'll either have nationalized health care or nationalized health care.


Are those my only choices?

A smart person might wonder, since history is showing us that, as government (federal and state) has intruded more and more into the health care business over the last six decades, the system has become completely unwieldy and costs have skyrocketed, if maybe the whole government intrusion notion might be a bad one from the gitgo.

But not to those who see government as the solution to all the nation's problems (that government either created or exacerbated).  (I'm inclined to bring up the nation's 10,000 gun control laws.  Some asshole in Chardon, Ohio breaks a host of existing laws and shoots four students there and what do we need?  That 10,001st law!)

Here's the way clear-thinking people see it: Government has caused the health care cost problem.  More government has caused the price of health care to go up.  More government will cause the price to skyrocket and will cause the quality of care to decline.

Nationalized health care or nationalized health care?

Either will produce what we already have, only more.

How about an alternative that might actually work?  Something the not-so-smart people at the Times - on a different subject - are really big on: CHOICE.

How about we get government out of our shorts (sound familiar, Times editorial team?) and let We the People decide for ourselves how we wish to protect ourselves and our families when it comes to health care coverage?

Rather than a government requirement that everyone pay (an arm and a leg ...) for coverage, how about we allow insurance companies to offer a menu of services to prospective customers?  (Want total and complete health care coverage, cradle to grave?  Get out your checkbook, baby.  Under thirty-five, single, and male?  Why do you want to waste your money on any coverage again?)

But no.

Our choices will be dictated to us by a bureaucrat in Washington who is heavily influenced by a politician in Washington who is heavily influenced by a lobbyist in Washington.  Still.  More so.  Lots more so.

What is that definition of insanity again?

Memo to the Roanoke Times editorial page: For people who believe with all their hearts in CHOICE, you sure don't act like it in any circumstance, save one.

News From Half a Century Ago ...

... finally hits the front page of the New York Times:

Catholic Church Deals With a Diminished Role in Cuban Life

Someone must not have told them about Castro's communist, anti-church overthrow of the Batista government there.

In 1959.

Time had this story covered in August of 1960:

"CUBA: Castro v. the Church."

In the case of the Times, better late than never?

Why You Should Be Concerned About ObamaCare

The reasons are many.  The concerns growing.  Why, if it is not killed, it will have a profound effect on your life:

"If the government can force you to do something simply because you exist and draw breath, then the American experiment in limited government is over and done with."

The Supreme Court will soon decide whether we are slaves to the government or the government is beholden to We the People.

I have grave doubts as to how it will rule ...

'The Hunger Games.' Welcome To America.

I haven't seen the movie.  Though I will, some day, thanks to Netflix.  But I'm half way through the book.  (A tedious endeavor, I may finish it).

One thing that struck me as I was reading was this: the background theme in "The Hunger Games" is awfully familiar.  The plot, as outlined here, is thus:
It is written in the voice of sixteen-year-old Katniss Everdeen, who lives in a post-apocalyptic world in the country of Panem where the countries of North America once existed. The Capitol, a highly advanced metropolis, holds absolute power over the rest of the nation. The Hunger Games are an annual event in which one boy and one girl aged 12 to 18 from each of the 12 districts surrounding the Capitol are selected by lottery to compete in a televised battle in which only one person can survive.
The "Capitol" in the book is in today's Colorado.  The "12 districts" are made up of the former states - and Canada, one presumes.

What's striking is this: Life in the districts is primitive and geared toward bare subsistence, while the living standard in  "the Capitol" is extravagant beyond anyone's dreams.  Humans in the districts work to support the fortunate few in the seat of the nation's power.  Capitol residents accept their way of life as being their privileged right, and they look down upon the residents on the outside as being lesser citizens kept alive only for the purpose of sustaining the elite few.

It's a stretch but ... sound familiar?

See "A new survey finds 10 of the 15 wealthiest counties in America are in the Washington D.C. area."

See "Government. Big, oppressive, evil government is what smacks you in the face throughout the film "Hunger Games."

Yes, it does.  It smacks you in the face.

Because, as Washington gets more powerful by the day, and as its citizens grow more wealthy, and arrogant, and demanding, residents out here in "the districts" become ever poorer.  And to hear Obama and his ilk tell it, life is good.

Well, yes it is.

For some.

But for the teeming masses, seeing a fortunate few profit off the labors of the many, with no hope in sight for those who sustain the lavish lifestyle of those who have become accustomed to riches, resentment festers.  Distrust abounds.  Resistance grows.

Hail the Tea Party.

Read the book (and if the movie holds true to it, see the  movie).  Tell me if you are struck by its theme.

We are players in "The Hunger Games."

How Do You Kill This Thing?

Remember the story about that mythical beast called the Hydra?  It was the monster that had heads that, when cut off, would not only grow back but would grow two to replace each one severed.  Thankfully for the human race, in one of his "Twelve Labors," Hercules finally figured out a way to kill the creature.  And he did.

If only Hercules were around today.

The Hydra is loose upon the land.

Growing new heads each time one is lopped off.

Growing ever more powerful with each passing day.

It's name?

The Global Warming movement.

Which, when it lost its head, became the Climate Change movement.

Which, now that it has lost all credibility, along with its head, has grown back and is being called the "Sustainability" movement.

And it's coming to devour you:
Upcoming United Nations Summit Repackages Global Warming Agenda Under the Guise of “Sustainability”
By Kevin Mooney, NetRightDaily

Suddenly the concept of “sustainability” is very much in vogue in the run-up to yet another United Nations climate conference scheduled for June.

Throughout American history, land use questions fell into purview of localities. This has changed in the past few decades as federal agencies have greatly expanded their reach. The idea now is for trans-nationalists within the United Nations operating in cooperation with U.S. federal agencies to seize control away from American property owners.

The overarching concept of sustainability was first outlined in UN Agenda 21, which was adapted during the Rio de Janeiro conference in 1992.

This coming June, twenty years after the 1992 UN conference, Rio de Janeiro will again host thousands of UN delegates and activists who will come together over the issue of global warming. However, the participants at the “United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development” (informally called “Rio + 20”) will be couching their alarmist concerns in the vocabulary of sustainability.

The change in terminology is significant, and it was signaled by none other than President Obama. After his party took a beating in the 2010 mid-term elections, Obama told reporters, “There’s more than one way to skin the cat.”

In a revealing interview with Reuters, Ambassador Andre Correa do Lago, Brazil’s top negotiator at the Rio+20 conference, has admitted that it is easier to promote environmentalist policies under the banner of sustainability.

“Climate change is an issue that has very strong resistance from sectors that are going to be substantially altered, like the oil industry,” do Lago said. “Sustainable development is something that is as simple as looking at how we would like to be in 10 or 20 years.” [link]
Global warming. It's back. And has a new head.

And a new name.


And it's coming for your hard-earned income.

Where, oh where, is Hercules when we need him?

He Must Be a Democrat

The mayor of a northeast American city with the Highest Per-Capita Murder Rate In the U.S. is telling the police department in a small city in Florida it needs to do something to solve its problem with ...

... murder.

See "Trayvon Martin shooting 'an assassination,' Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter says."

Criticism, you see, is so much easier than actually doing something to solve problems.

Mayor Nutter is a Democrat.

But you already guessed that.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Europe Is Way Ahead Of Us

While we can't seem to get the message to sink in in Washington that the government should not be in the business of art, European governments have gotten that message loud and clear:

In Europe, Where Art Is Life, Ax Falls on Public Financing

While we here in America look for ever more stuff to fund with other peoples' money, with money the government ran short on long ago, the Europeans have come to realize that they can't be all things to all people.

Suppose that message will reach our president some day?

Thank You, Barack

Without you the gun industry would not be booming.

First a side note.  I was wandering through Wal-Mart on Thursday and asked the gentleman behind the sporting goods counter about the Bushmaster AR-15/M-4 rifles (a civilian version of the military M-16) that he had locked up in the showcase.  For those not familiar, that would be this bad boy:

At by-God Wal-Mart.

I was pleasantly surprised by the fact that the world's leading retailer wasn't shying away from this potentially lucrative business for "political" reasons.

Yet, anyway.

I asked the employee if he was selling any. He replied, "Sold two Saturday."

(In case you're grabbing your car keys with the intention of running down there and grabbing up a couple for yourself and the little missus, they are priced at something north of 1200 bucks.)

I was pleasantly surprised.

That goes the same for this related news:
Gun sales explode as election looms
By Perry Chiaramonte, Fox News

Sales of handguns and ammunition are booming across the country, and retailers say it’s all about the November election.

Gun shop owners around the nation told FoxNews.com that sales, brisk ever since President Obama was elected, have spiked upward in recent months. And manufacturers are having so much trouble keeping up with the demand that one, Sturm, Ruger & Co., can’t keep up with demand. The Southport, Conn.-based company has had to suspend new orders after taking orders for more than 1 million guns in the first three months of the year. Smith & Wesson sales are way up, as well.

“Sales usually increase this time of year with tax returns, but this year has been higher than most,” Mike Weeks, owner of Georgia Gun Store in Gainesville told FoxNews.com. “People are scared their gun rights are going to be curtailed after the election."

Weeks said his sales are up around 30 percent, and that he now sells ammo by the case. “Usually people come in to buy three or four boxes for target practice. Now they are coming in asking what kind of deals they could get on a case,” he said. [link]
Obama doing his level best to bring about the disintegration of American society will have that effect.  People stockpiling ammunition.  Along with water, corn meal, rice, batteries, first aid kits, MRE's, water filtration systems, generators, winter clothing, sleeping bags, plastic cans, compasses, binoculars, hand tools, fishing equipment, rope, gloves, lighters, knives, soap, medicines, etc.

Everything a guy would want or need so as to enjoy to the fullest the End Times.

Who would have thought that this would be Barack Obama's legacy: An American citizenry facing a scarcity of health care but with a plethora of assault weaponry.

I don't think that's what he had intended when he descended from his heavenly throne to turn back the tides and set the world right.

But we are where we are.  Keep that powder dry ...

- - -

In a related story, these fools will be the first to get swept away come Armageddon:

Hippies head for Noah’s Ark: Thousands of New Agers descend on mountain they see as haven from December's apocalypse

There'll be no saving the weak of mind.  Alas.  They shall perish.

That's Why We're The Alternative Media

The Associated Press, as is its established custom, came to Barack Obama's defense the other day.  See "More US drilling didn't drop gas price," by Seth Borenstein and Jack Gillum.  Their finding?

"If more domestic oil drilling worked as politicians say, you'd now be paying about $2 a gallon for gasoline. Instead, you're paying the highest prices ever for March."

Weblogger "JustOneMinute" reviewed the AP analysis and came up with this:
Oh, for heaven's sake - the question is, does additional US production result in lower prices than would have otherwise prevailed? If, just to seize an example, producers only ramp up US production in response to shortages and rising prices elsewhere, a simple statistical analysis such as done here will "prove" that more production is always associated with higher prices.

Well - Obama's energy plan calls for more investment in clean energy and increasing automobile fuel efficiency standards. So we eagerly await the next AP "Fact Check" where they analyze the correlation of rising CAFE standards and clean energy output with gasoline prices.

My guess - since we have a record level of solar and wind output yet gasoline prices are also at a record high, the statistical correlation will be clear - all this "clean energy" investment has increased gasoline prices.

And has the AP failed to notice that gasoline prices have been spiking since electric cars hit the streets and Obama announced stricter fuel economy standards? Surely the conclusion is inescapable - this push for fuel efficiency is driving gasoline prices through the roof.

This is what I've learned from my decades working in the capitalist marketplace:

Just as Demand does, so Supply affects price.

Because U.S. production - in the big picture - hasn't been consequential enough to drive down global prices, production on a much larger scale than we've seen in the last 36 years (to use the AP's data set) will certainly drive down the price of oil. And with it, the price of gasoline.

It is an absolute certainty - all other factors remaining constant (demand never being constant).

The Associated Press wants Obama to look good and not be blamed for the gas crisis that he could have mitigated. In attempting to shield him the AP brings much-deserved ridicule on itself.

Way to go, fellas.

And here's to the alternative media.  Without them we'd never get the true story.


In this day and age ...
Tsunami-tossed boat spotted off western Canada
The Associated Press

Vancouver, British Columbia (AP) — A large fishing vessel swept away by the tsunami that devastated Japan last year has been spotted adrift off British Columbia in western Canada.

Jeff Olsson of Victoria's Joint rescue coordination center says an airplane contracted by the government spotted the 50-foot-long (15-meter-long) vessel recently about 160 miles (260 kilometers) west of Haida Gwaii, slowly drifting toward shore.

The vessel has been identified as coming from Hokkaido, Japan. Olsson says no one is believed to be aboard and there's no environmental danger. [link]
A Ghost Ship. The stuff movies are made of.

Fascinating II

From the inbox:
Remember this lady?

Irena Sendler

Died: May 12, 2008 (aged 98)

Warsaw, Poland

During WWII, Irena, got permission to work in the Warsaw ghetto, as a plumbing/sewer specialist.

She had an ulterior motive.

Irena smuggled Jewish infants out in the bottom of the tool box she carried. She also carried a burlap sack in the back of her truck, for larger kids.

Irena kept a dog in the back that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto.

The soldiers, of course, wanted nothing to do with the dog and the barking covered the kids/infants noises.

During her time of doing this, she managed to smuggle out and save 2500 kids and infants.

Ultimately, she was caught, however, and the Nazis broke both of her legs and arms and beat her severely.

Irena kept a record of the names of all the kids she had smuggled out, in a glass jar that she buried under a tree in her back yard.

After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived and tried to reunite the family. Most had been gassed.

Those kids she helped got placed into foster homes or were adopted.

In 2007 Irena was up for the Nobel Peace Prize. She was not selected.

Al Gore won, for a slide show on Global Warming.
A hero from another time. Irena Sendler.

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Coal Industry 1, EPA 0

Is the federal Environmental Protection Agency omnipotent?

America's environmentalists - and Obama - wish it were so.

But a U.S. District Judge in Washington D.C. has decided otherwise.

It's about time:
Judge slams EPA for axing coal permit
By Erica Martinson, Politico

A federal judge slammed an Obama administration gambit to revoke mountaintop mining permits Friday, saying the EPA invented authority where there was none. “EPA resorts to magical thinking” to justify nullifying permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Arch Coal Inc.’s Mingo Logan mine in West Virginia, wrote U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington, D.C.

Berman Jackson said the EPA’s effort to revoke permits already issued by the Army Corps lacked the backing of any statutory provision or regulation. “It posits a scenario involving the automatic self-destruction of a written permit issued by an entirely separate federal agency after years of study and consideration,” the opinion says.

“Poof! Not only is this nonrevocation revocation logistically complicated,” the ruling said, but it also robs industry of the only way they can possibly measure compliance with the Clean Water Act — a permit.

EPA ignored the effect that granting itself the right to revoke Army Corps permits could cause uncertainty and financial harm to industries dependent on capital credit for projects involving waterways.

“EPA brushed these objections away by characterizing them as hyperbole,” the judge wrote. “Even if the gloomy prophesies are somewhat overstated,” the concerns are real, she said.

Berman called the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act — which she separately lambasts for being poorly written — “illogical and impractical.” Arch Coal spokeswoman Kim Link said the company is happy with the ruling. “We’re pleased the district court has ruled in our favor — confirming that our Spruce No. 1 permit remains valid,” Link said. [link]
You may recall that Obama, before he decided he was against higher energy costs, was very much in favor of higher energy costs.

This ruling by a United States District judge will certainly disappoint one of those two Obamas.

Maybe now America can get back into the business of business. And set this Leftist-tortured land straight once again.

- - -

It doesn't get any clearer than this.  Barack Obama, in 2008:

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

His plan is to make electricity rates skyrocket.

The American people have a different plan, pal.  Come November ...

ObamaCare Goes To The Supreme Court

The argument to throw out our Radical-in-Chief's signature piece of legislation comes down to this:

If the Constitution of the United States was written in order to provide our government limited authority over our way of life, and the Commerce Clause buried within that Constitution is construed by the United States Supreme Court as having absolutely no limit to its authority, which the Court may well do, that Constitution is thence and forevermore null and void.

If that's the case, and if the now-nullified Constitution was considered to be the "law of the land," where do we former law-abiding citizens go from here?

To the land of Chaos.  That's where.

The liberals on the Court need to step back and reflect on the really good thing their brethren have going for them here in Welfare State America.  Do they really want to destroy all that with one ruling?

If so, bring it.

And reap the whirlwind.

- - -

In a related story:

Fourth Largest Gun Maker In US Is Out Of Guns

Hope for the best.  Prepare for the worst.

On That Shooting Incident In Florida

There is little doubt in my mind that there is a "wrongful death" claim to be made in the incident in which young  Trayvon Martin was gunned down by one George Zimmerman.  And on the criminal side of the law, a charge of manslaughter.

I expect that charge will be filed any day.

That said, why have America's black "leaders" gotten their thongs in a bunch?

Isn't this reaction to the shooting just a tad over the top?

"[Assistant regional minister of the Nation of Islam, James] Muhammad said there’s an underlying hatred of black people in this country. “It’s deeper than the chief of police, it’s deeper than the mayor,” Muhammad said. “It’s deeper than the government. It’s deeper than the president. The reality of it is there is an underlying atmosphere of racism in this country, where the administration of justice is inconsistent and the enforcement of law is inconsistent based on your ethnicity, based on your race.

Ah, yes.  Racism.

Well, here's a photo of the dude who did the shooting:

He's Hispanic.

He's an Hispanic racist?

Okay.  I'm all ears.  Make the case.

You know what I think?  I think badasses like that Muhammed character just like to hear themselves howl.

- - -

And, as you might expect, it's all the Republicans' fault.

My favorite loony pronouncement?  It comes from MSNBC analyst and Democratic strategist Karen Finney:

"So, when ... Mitt Romney says nothing at all, the effect is dangerous."


- - -

Wait.  The perpetrator may not be Hispanic.  He is reported to be half-Peruvian.

I can hear Al Sharpton now: Aha!  He's Peruvian!  We all know Peruvians are racist pigs! (Where is Peruvia anyway?)

- - -

Oops. Wait. Now he is Hispanic. Good grief. 

- - -

It's worth noting that 99% of black Americans who are murdered in this country are murdered by black Americans.  So do we really need slave traders like Jesse Jackson fouling the air with this sort of idiocy?

From Drudge:

Blacks are under attack.  Yes they are.  Maybe you should get your brothers to stop it, you old fool.

- - -

A case of self-defense?  Unlike every loud-mouthed "civil rights" advocate in this country, I don't know.

Zimmerman photo courtesy of the Associated Press.

Are Virginia's Democrats Tone-Deaf Or Stupid?

Everyone in the Commonwealth is either fearful or enraged by the price of gas these days.

So here come the Democrats, pledging to make the situation even worse:

Virginia Democrats: $4 a gallon isn't that bad. In fact, you won't even notice it ...

For the love of God.

- - -

How bad have they - and Obama - made the situation already?

Do the calculation.

And send everyone of them back to the dark recesses of the planet from which they crawled.

Are Democrats Simply Stupid?

You decide:

"[S]ix years ago, 73 percent of the Democrats said the President can do something about gas prices. Now they say, 33 percent of them say, the President can do something about gas prices."

This goes beyond devious.  Or gullible.  I think they're certifiably stupid.

You Go, Mitt

This is how you win elections:
Romney: Obama's health law an 'unfolding disaster'
By Kasie Hunt, Associated Press

Metarie, La. (AP) — Mitt Romney on Friday looked to pre-empt Supreme Court arguments that will shine a spotlight on a key vulnerability for him in the Republican primary — health care reform.

Romney called Democratic President Barack Obama's signature overhaul "an unfolding disaster for the American economy, a budget-busting entitlement and a dramatic new federal intrusion into our lives."

Romney was marking the second anniversary of the signing of the health care law, which requires all Americans to pay insurance or face a tax penalty. That mandate to buy insurance has become a focal point for conservative anger, and critics say it represents unwanted or even unconstitutional government intrusion. [link]
The American people have a pretty good understanding of the damage that ObamaCare is now wreaking upon our way of life. It's always a good political move for a politician to reinforce their perceptions, and to give them voice.

The Democrats' health care overhaul is a looming disaster. It must be scrapped. Before it's too late.

Here's to Mitt. Take no prisoners on the issue, man. Win in November.

Friday, March 23, 2012

The Media Are Shameless

I expected the press to cheerlead Obama's visit to the pipeline yesterday.  But I expected nothing this brazen.  Or this deceitful.  I'll let Rush do the slice and dice:
Brazen Media Backs Up Obama's Keystone Lies with Dishonest News Stories
(from the transcript)

RUSH: I've never seen anything like it, folks. I've never seen this kind of a mid-course correction. I don't even think I saw one like this from Bill Clinton. Suddenly the biggest believer in the Keystone pipeline (or half of it), the biggest believer in drilling for oil, the biggest believer in expanding domestic oil supplies happens to be Barack Obama! Who just two days ago (and every day prior to that) hated the very idea and was trying to dissuade anybody from believing that drilling for oil or pipelining oil would make any difference whatsoever in the gasoline price.

My gosh, what difference a poll makes!

[H]ere's the AP! Folks, if I were you, I wouldn't believe a single word that I read in any AP story. I simply would regard it... I already do this. If I were you, I would regard every AP story, particularly this year, as nothing more than a propaganda piece for the reelection of Barack Obama. This is laughable: "Obama Defends Handling of Keystone as He Puts Another Oil Pipeline on Fast Track." Another! Another? When was the first one? He opposes Keystone! And what he did today -- we told you yesterday this is coming -- is already happening.

It was already in place.

He's not even authorizing anything that wasn't happening.

It was already happening, this particular portion of the pipeline. This is breathtaking! "Obama Defends Handling of Keystone as He Puts Another Oil Pipeline on Fast Track." There's a story also in the Stack here today that the American people... No. I take it back. The CNN story is "Rising Gas Prices Aren't as Bad as You Think." Do you ever remember seeing a story like that when gas prices were going up with any previous president, including Jimmy Carter? Did you ever see we had gasoline prices going up, and here's CNN: Well, you know, it's not as bad as you think. Could be worse! You could live in a different part of the world.

And that's what makes this AP headline so incompetent. It's journalistic malpractice. "Another Oil Pipeline on Fast Track." The Keystone pipeline has not been approved. He still opposes it. This is a pure political move to satisfy 78% of the American people who want it done. So Obama's doing nothing, and he's got a very supportive news media out there trying to convince you and everybody else that he just today authorized the Keystone pipeline. That's what's going on. It's as dishonest as possible. It's as dishonest and misleading as possible. [link]
How do they look themselves in the mirror each day?

As For Obama ...

... this is simply bizarre:
President Barack Obama took credit for “directing” his administration to move on the southern half of the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline, a portion the federal government has little involvement in and which will not connect to the northern end of the pipeline unless the administration gives the okay, which it has twice refused to do.
So, is he lying? Being your average two-bit, snake-in-the-grass politician? Or is he an idiot?

Pick one. Pick e'm all. But None Of The Above is not an alternative.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Ann Coulter Agrees With Me

I wrote yesterday that those who are criticizing Robert de Niro for telling a (stupid) joke need to Give It a Rest.

Ann Coulter agrees:

Ann Coulter defends Robert De Niro joking about GOP candidates’ wives at Obama fundraiser

Coulter via Twitter: ""Can we please stop the fake 'offended' routine? Pls explain what was allegedly offensive about De Niro's joke."

There seems to be no clear-cut answer to her question, but whatever the offense, an Obama spokesperson and half the Democratic Party - along with De Niro himself - have apologized for it.

Yeah, it was off-color ...

Oh, no!  Was I allowed to use that word?!  I didn't mean color!  I meant non-color! ... No!  I meant ...

I sincerely apologize for having ...

Paul Ryan, Nice Guy

Too nice to do anything this decade about America's financial crisis.  The Ryan plan?

Paul Ryan: My Plan Can Balance the Budget in 10 Years

Problem is?  We don't have ten years.

Get our house in order now, or there'll be no house.

A Future Leader of the Democratic Party

I wonder if this crazy bitch will be kicked out of school.  After all, if you listen closely, she threatened to murder a whole host of people on the Florida Atlantic University campus:

Problem is, she's black.  So the normal and accepted rules of societal interaction don't apply.

Still ... Virginia Tech ... Virginia Tech ...

* Here's the story.

Occupy The Asylum

Speaking of crazy people, how's that Occupy movement starting out this spring?


Zombies.  I blame it on zombies.

When You Live In a Monastery ...

... and you're a loon, you believe that "most conservatives now openly reject the very idea of democracy."

The full quote from one Sara Robinson:

"Most conservatives now openly reject the very idea of democracy. Whether it's corporatists seeking to own every branch of government and privatize every public institution, security and intelligence types cracking down on our civil liberties, or Christian nationalists out to turn the country into a theocracy, conservatives are increasingly united by the conviction that Americans cannot be trusted to govern ourselves."

What in the hell is she talking about?  Does she even wander the same planet as the rest of us?

If this nitwit understood anything about us - think Tea Party - she'd know that we conservatives believe in that quaint notion of We the People.  Who, after all, put the Republican Party in power in the House of Representatives in 2010 and will hand control of the Senate to the GOP in 2012?

We the People.

The paragraph is ridiculously boneheaded.  And the author, Sara Robinson, is a liberal.

'nuff said.

No, You're Confused

“The problem is, I’m a male-identified person. As soon as I’m in a space that is all female, my identity gets erased.”

Said the woman who has done her level best to erase her - now his? - identity.

Question: At what point can government be relieved of its obligation to accommodate seriously disordered human beings?

We Are Slaves To The State

Read "Supremes 9, EPA 0." And be ashamed of what your United States government has become.

Yeah, the poor schmucks citizens who found themselves being tortured by the EPA won their case.  But on very narrow grounds.  They'll still be forced to abandon their property.  For absolutely no good reason.

I'll be honest.  I don't want any part of this.

Let the revolution commence.

Obama The Desperate

It'll be interesting today to see if our president's media make mention of any of this:
Obama's Keystone XL Visit A Potemkin Village Photo-Op
Investor's Business Daily

The president stages a photo-op in Oklahoma to take credit for the portion of the Keystone XL pipeline that doesn't need his approval and for oil production on private and state lands beyond his jurisdiction.

If one of his aides some morning remarked on a particularly lovely sunrise, it wouldn't surprise us if President Obama responded with a "thank you," so gifted is he in taking credit for successes that he has nothing to do with and that occur despite, not because, of his policies.

So it will be Thursday, when Obama is scheduled to appear in Cushing, Okla., known as the pipeline capital of the world, to take credit for the southern half of the Keystone XL pipeline, a project announced weeks ago by TransCanada, the Keystone builder.

It's the section that doesn't need presidential or State Department approval since it does not cross an international boundary.

The part that does require State Department approval and a presidential blessing, and which holds as much as 24 billion barrels of oil, runs from the rich oil sands of Alberta, past the booming oil fields of the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and down to Cushing. It is the portion Obama killed in January. [link]
I wondered the obvious. Why would Obama fly out to Oklahoma to tout a project that he is doing his best to stop?

But then it became clear.

The mainstream press will provide cover for Obama. They'll go along with the burlesque. The media want us to think that Obama isn't part of the gas price problem, that he's part of the cure. They'll do their duty.

The rest of America? We'll be finding it laughable, in an enraging sort of way.

Obama is going to stand at the pipeline that he is trying to prevent from ever being completed and speak to its virtues.

May God have mercy.

- - -

Headline of the day, from The Drudge Report:

"Obama Backs Half a Pipeline!"

Funny.  Pathetic.  Typical.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

This Ain't Your Granddaddy's Ol' Virginie No Mo'

Where once freedom, independence, and the entrepreneurial spirit predominated, we now find ourselves awash in residents who are dependent - and happily so - on their monthly government check.  Whether it be fat government paychecks up in northern Virginia* or government handouts in Southwest and Southside (pick your poison - Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps/SNAP/EBT, SCHIP, Social Security, SSI, WIC, farm subsidies, "green" subsidies, government "stimuli,"  financial write-offs, EIDC, tax breaks, tax reductions, tax deductions, tax exclusions, tax exemptions, tax credits, tax loopholes, tax shelters, tax rebates ... one can't escape the fact that Virginians like government (if not the taxpayers who write the checks to the government).

With that understood, is this hard to understand?

President Barack Obama leads all Republican presidential candidates in a new survey of Virginia voters, and has widened his advantage over GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney.

The dude who writes the checks is a popular guy here.

Yeah, Virginians love government.

And they will as long as the central one keeps spending money it doesn't have, filling the coffers of the state one that knows not to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Party on, Wayne.

Party on, Garth.

* Even here in remote and sparsely populated Bland County the largest employer is ... government.

It Was About Money, Mr. Trejbal

The relatives of the two victims in the Virginia Tech massacre who decided that they wouldn't take the cash settlement offered by the university a few years ago, but decided instead to pursue their case in court, didn't sue for an apology.

They sued - and got - more money.

Now a Roanoke Times columnist laments the fact that there was no "I'm sorry" included with that fat check.

Here's one of the original filings.  I'm looking for the word "apology" anywhere in the document's lengthy list of alleged damages and sought-after compensations, before or after the number $10,000,000.

In detail:
As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, gross negligence, and reckless disregard of Virginia Tech, Julia Kathleen Pride was killed, and her father, mother, brother, halfbrother, and half-sister have suffered the following damages for which they are entitled to recover:

a) Sorrow mental anguish, and solace which may include the loss of society, companionship, comfort, guidance, kindly offices and advice of the decedent;

b) Compensation for reasonably expected loss of (i) income of the decedent and (ii) services, protection, care and assistance provided by the decedent;

c) Expenses for the care, treatment and hospitalization of the decedent incident to the injury resulting in death;

d) Reasonable funeral expenses.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, by counsel, as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Julia Kathleen Pride, deceased, request that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of TEN MILLION DOLLARS ($10,000,000.00) compensatory damages, together with attorneys’ fees, costs of litigation, interest from the date of Julia’s death, and any further relief that this Court may deem appropriate.


When Your Currency Is Lies ...

... your "news" items that attempt to make us believe that Rush Limbaugh's advertisers are fleeing his show fail.

Written by David Brock.  Who's in the employ of the enemies of Rush Limbaugh.

Yeah, you have credibility, Dave.

In truth?  Rush - and his advertisers - are doing just fine.

A fact that David Brock's malevolent sugar daddy can't corrupt, no matter how much money he throws at it.

Give It a Rest

Well, it looks like a friend of Obama is in big trouble for saying something racist.

That friend?

Actor Robert De Niro.

What, he called someone a n----r?


He told a joke.

Not even a joke.

A quasi-joke.

The attempt-at-joke:

Callista Gingrich. Karen Santorum. Ann Romney. Now, do you really think our country is ready for a white first lady?

Lord God have mercy.

Have racial politics been so infected with venom that such an innocuous bit of  nonsense so inflames passions?

Will y'all stop?  This is beyond silly.

- - -

A second point worth making: Obama's wife - through her spokesperson - apologized for de Niro using such hate-filled words.

Another Obama apology.

It must be Wednesday.

Just How Poor Are America's Poor?

Not poor enough to where their enablers can't be discriminating in the kinds of foods that get donated to the starving masses:

New York City Anti-Salt Crusade Demands Gov't-Run Shelters Turn Away Donated Food

In New York's homeless shelters it'll be low-fat, low-saturated fat, low sodium, low cholesterol, foods that are high in vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, protein, and fiber only.

The compassionate Mayor Blumberg to those less fortunate: Eat this shit or die. 

Either way, I feel good about myself.

* The classic definition of the word "liberal."
** I once read of a starving man eating axle grease from a can just to stay alive.  I'd say New York City's poor people, by comparison, are doing just fine.