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.