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

Monday, September 17, 2012

I Have a Better Idea

The Roanoke Times editorial page this morning goes to great lengths advocating which Virginia kids should be exempt from being required to attend (public) school and which shouldn't.  See "Take religion out of education waivers."

The key point (I think):

"About 7,000 children in Virginia are exempted from public school attendance under a vaguely worded state law that forces school officials into the awkward position of judging religious beliefs and creates the potential that some youngsters receive no education at all."

(They're always so hung up on that religion thing.)

That school officials not be placed into that awkward position of judging we agree.

But here's where we differ: I think all children should be exempted from public school attendance.


Jerry wants America's children to grow up stupid and unprepared for adult life?

No.  I want them to no longer graduate from public school stupid and unprepared for adult life.

Make school voluntary.


That's right.


And when our children no longer feel like they are being warehoused, when they and their parents are forced to decide their own futures, when they realize that the decision to succeed or fail is theirs to make and not the government's, watch things in this country change for the better.

Or continue down the path we're on and watch the majority of American kids continue to graduate stupid and unprepared for adult life.  And hope and pray we continue to get a lot of smart and well-educated immigrants from India coming to this country to take care of the idiots.

How Long Can Baghdad Bob Keep This Up?

Obama Officia: Benghazi attack was spontaneous; Libya: No, it wasn’t

Hey, why not go full-Baghdad Bob?

The Benghazi attack didn't harm anyone either.

And the Muslims love us.

And the Arab Spring is still something the Western world should be proud of.

And ...

"I repeat, there is no U.S. presence in Baghdad."
—Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, (AKA "Baghdad Bob")

Hillary Has Selective Outrage

Why would a Broadway play about religious faith that has been described as being profane and insensitive be okay but another movie about religious faith that is both not be okay?

Hillary calls Innocence of Muslims "disgusting and reprehensible."

But gives The Book of Mormon "a standing ovation"?

I think we all know the difference.

And shameful that difference is.


Well, America got an answer to the most important question being asked about Obama's failure to protect our ambassadorial staff in Libya.  That answer came from our U.N. representative, Susan Rice, yesterday on "Meet the Press."  To quote:

"First of all, there are Marines in some places around the world. There are not Marines in every facility. That depends on the circumstances, that depends on the requirements," Rice said. "Our presence in Tripoli, as in Benghazi, is relatively new as you will recall. We've been back post-Revolution only for a matter of months. I've visited there myself, both to Tripoli and Benghazi, I was very grateful to have strong security presence with me as part of our embassy detachment there. We certainly are aware that Libya is a place where there have been increasingly some violent incidents. The security personnel that the State Department thought were required were in place."

Read it again.  Or don't bother.  You can read that bit of horse shit a thousand times and you're not going to be able to understand it.  Host Jake Tapper asked, quite simply: "Why would we not have Marines at the embassy in Tripoli to begin with?"  And we got that in response.

Had I been Tapper, I would have responded with this:

Great answer.  But not to my question.  Why would we not have Marines at the embassy in Tripoli to begin with?

So we learn from Obama's henchgirl that she had a swell visit to Tripoli.

What we didn't learn is why Obama and Hillary failed four Americans in their charge who are now dead.

The question will be asked again.   And again.  We will get a straight answer.

Until then, expect more dodge and weave and ... horse shit.

- - -

Congressman Allen West has some questions - and comments - of his own.  From The Blaze:
“It’s very simple. When I listened to the U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice today, several words came to mind: asinine, naive, inept, incompetent, and borderline ignorant. Because when you understand that the Egyptian government…put out a letter talking about a potential threat of attacks and uprisings about a week before this– it was even printed in the Jerusalem Post on 9/11. And anyhow I can tell you…having been in a combat zone several times after 9/11, we were always on a higher state of security and alertness on 9/11. It should have been the exact same thing here. “And for Susan Rice to say that this was not a well coordinated attack– first of all, I’d have to ask her what is her line of expertise in understanding what a well-coordinated attack is… This was not happenstance. It was not coincidence. This was well-planned, well-coordinated, and the president there in Libya confirms that.” 
You've got some explaining to do, Barry.

I Come To Maureen Dowd's Defense

Look, liberals are renowned for their goofy belief that conservatives use racial "code words" when communicating with one another.  Words that clearly mean one thing but - to the conservative mind (only)  (and, somehow, the minds of liberal pundits - I never figured that out) - words that mean something else.  Something dastardly.  Something racial.


So along comes poor New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd.  She's known for being less than bright.  And for being sickeningly liberal.  But she was never known for harboring unique capabilities found only in the genes of those sinister conservatives - speaking in code.

Until now.

In "Maureen Dowd meets anti-Semitism charge" we learn that she did just that.  She wrote in code:
"Dowd's use of anti-Semitic imagery is awful," Steven A. Cook, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote on Twitter.

"Maureen may not know this, but she is peddling an old stereotype, that gentile leaders are dolts unable to resist the machinations and manipulations of clever and snake-like Jews," Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic columnist and leading journalist on Israeli issues, wrote.

"[A]mazing that apparently nobody sat her down and said, this is not OK," Blake Hounshell, the managing editor of Foreign Policy magazine, tweeted.

On the right, The Weekly Standard's Daniel Halper called it "outrageous," while Commentary's Jonathan Tobin described it as "particularly creepy."

"Dowd’s column marks yet another step down into the pit of hate-mongering that has become all too common at the Times," Tobin wrote. "This is a tipping point that should alarm even the most stalwart liberal Jewish supporters of the president."

Hate-mongering?  Can ignorance monger hate?


But words writ - whether by conservatives or (ditzy) liberals - have meaning.  This gal didn't say anything about Jews.  Nor did she imply anything that would lead one to believe that she had Jews in mind when she wrote about some "'neocon puppet master' who was leading the neocon effort to 'slither back' into power." Sure, she might have had this guy in mind. And yes, he's Jewish. But she never mentioned his name nor addressed his ethnicity/religion.  So we're dealing with a big assumption about Dowd here.  One usually made by morons on the Left.

Besides, not all "neocons" are Jews.  This guy - a blood-thirsty neo-conservative in good standing - one I admire greatly - is Lutheran.

Maureen Dowd is known for a lot of things.  None of them good nor wholesome.  But "speaking in code"?


Oh, Please

The only difference between the joker who made that anti-Islam film and Bill Maher, who made a largely anti-Christian film is the fact that nobody was murdered over the latter.  So does that make Maher culpable for anything that might have occurred after the release of his movie?

In the eyes of a leading deep thinker on the Left, the answer must be YES:

Bill Press: Anti-Islam Filmmakers 'As Guilty as the Terrorists' Who Killed Americans in Libya

Are ALL filmmakers then culpable if crazy people use their work as a pretext for murder?

If so, what should be done with Bill Maher?  And all other filmmakers?

Think it through, Bill, if you're able, and get back to us.

It Wasn't The Movie's Fault

Though our President - and certain shining lights among the liberal inhabitants of Moonbat Central - see above - would have you believe otherwise.

Let's let the Wall Street Journal explain (in "The Video Did It"):
It's one thing for the U.S. government to say it isn't responsible for and disapproves of an anti-Islamic video. But it's another to say the video is the reason for anti-American violence. Eleven years after 9/11 and 33 years after the Iranian revolution, it should be obvious that there is no end to the insults that Islamic radicals can imagine or cite as an excuse to foment anti-American, anti-Western protests and violence.

[U.N. Ambassador Susan] Rice's the-video-did-it explanation is no doubt intended to shield Obama Administration policies from any domestic political blame for the attacks. But far worse is the message it sends to adversaries and even friendly governments abroad: Overrun sovereign U.S. territory, even kill U.S. diplomats, and the first reaction of the American government will be to blame Americans for somehow provoking the violence.

The far greater provocation to violence is the appearance of U.S. weakness. What should really concern the White House is how slow and parsimonious were the denunciations of anti-American violence in Egypt, Tunisia, Sudan, Yemen and most of the rest of the Middle East. The Administration's feeble response in the last week only invites radicals to use more such excuses to kill more Americans.
No. We don't want to blame the murderers.

Let's blame a movie.

Where's Hillary?

She needs to answer for this:

More details emerge on U.S. ambassador's last moments

Disgrace.  An absolute disgrace.

Stop This Madness

So our best and brightest are being sacrificed in Afghanistan for no reason and, if that's not bad enough ...

... we also have to deal with this:

Afghan protest over anti-Islam film turns violent

Those we sacrifice for smack us in the face.

For the love of God.

Tea Party Favorite Coming To Town

From a press release:
The Southwest Virginia Tea Party of Abingdon / Bristol / Washington County is pleased to announce that we will host Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli as our speaker on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 at the Abingdon High School Auditorium, 705 Thompson Drive, Abingdon, VA at 7PM.

A question and answer period will follow Atty. General Cuccinelli's address.

The event is open to the public and everyone is encouraged to attend!
A good man who appreciates the original intent of the Constitution. He deserves our support. And attendance.

Be there.

She's Not Renowned For Her Racing Ability

This headline makes that clear:

[Danica] Patrick finishes career-best 25th in Cup race

And that's fine.

Living In Fantasy Land

Yes, Obama and his people are this delusional:
Pay No Attention to the Burning Flags, Stormed Consulates, and Dead Americans . . .
By Victor Davis Hanson, National Review

One of the ways of understanding the strange nonchalant response of the administration to prior warnings of trouble in the Arab Spring countries, and its contextualization of the violence on the anniversary of 9/11, is its belief that it is somehow separated from the object of the violence. Raging crowds and Islamic wrath could not possibly be connected to the enlightened Obama administration or, more generally to a U.S. that has been “reset” on his watch — given the three years of laborious Muslim outreach and the long-ago departure of George Bush. So we are to think away all those burning flags, stormed consulates, and dead Americans, and instead remember that the violence “is a response,” a sort of cry of the heart against a couple of America-residing video makers — and has nothing much to do with any anger at well-meaning Americans per se.

Cf., [sic] for example, Jay Carney’s latest and perhaps most embarrassing explication yet:

"We also need to understand that this is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, and not to, obviously, the administration, or the American people, but it is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy, this is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims."

Note to Mr. Carney: Radical Islamists really do not care whether “we” have judged some crackpot video “reprehensible and disgusting.” They have more important aims than distinguishing the Obama administration or its policies from the moronic Terry Jones. [link]
This debacle seems to be lost on Obama. How could the Arab world love him any less than his devoted American populace does?

He hasn't a clue.