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

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