GREAT INSPIRATION AND ENCOURAGEMENT

Let me break from my regular posting for a moment.

I work as a part-time Production Director at a Christian radio station in Southwest Florida, http://www.kingdom.fm/.

Mostly you hear me on announcements and the like nowadays, as I am only working quarter-time.

Kingdom FM is heavy into Praise and Worship music with great lyrical content.

I have a friend who has an Internet radio station that is the essence of peaceful, uplifting, encouraging Christian music and ministry.

If you need a peaceful sound, something you can keep on in the background where you work that is unobtrusive, yet has a great presence, may I recommend that you tune in to Christian Life Radio .

This is inspirational radio in the true sense of the word.

When I am at my radio or in my car, I listen to Kingdom FM.

At my computer, where I have no radio, I often listen to Christian Life Radio.

I recommend both of these stations to you, each for its own format.

Both are available online.

I DID NOT WRITE THE FOLLOWING,

BUT I WISH I HAD.

Since it came with an invitation to share it, I will do so now.

Posted at 8:47 am on June 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey Send to a Friend / Share on Facebook / printer-friendly


Give Robert Gibbs points for chutzpah, if not logic or consistency.

When the White House press corp peppered him with questions about the status of Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination after getting reversed on Ricci, Gibbs explained that the ruling proved that Sotomayor was — get ready — a judicial originalist.

Not only that, but it turns out that the administration had already rejected part of Sotomayor’s previous judgment on Ricci before the court reversed it:

The White House came to the defense of President Obama’s pick to be the newest Supreme Court justice after Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s ruling in a racially charged case was reversed by the Supreme Court.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs all but accused the current court of “judicial activism,” a buzz term used by conservatives in recent years, in overturning what the White House saw as Sotomayor’s upholding of precedent. …

But Gibbs said that the case “denotes that [Sotomayor] is a follower of precedent,” and the arguments over judicial activism “seem to be at the very least upside-down in this case.”

Gibbs said the case proves “she doesn’t legislate from the bench.”

Not even the Supreme Court’s dissenters to Ricci would go that far. As Stuart Taylor notes in his analysis of the dissent, none of the nine justices defended Sotomayor’s judgment or reasoning in Ricci :

What’s more striking is that the court was unanimous in rejecting the Sotomayor panel’s specific holding.

Her holding was that New Haven’s decision to spurn the test results must be upheld based solely on the fact that highly disproportionate numbers of blacks had done badly on the exam and might file a “disparate-impact” lawsuit — regardless of whether the exam was valid or the lawsuit could succeed.

This position is so hard to defend, in my view, that I hazarded a prediction in my June 13 column: “Whichever way the Supreme Court rules in the case later this month, I will be surprised if a single justice explicitly approves the specific, quota-friendly logic of the Sotomayor-endorsed… opinion” by U.S. District Judge Janet Arterton.

Unlike some of my predictions, this one proved out. In fact, even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 39-page dissent for the four more liberal justices quietly but unmistakably rejected the Sotomayor-endorsed position that disparate racial results alone justified New Haven’s decision to dump the promotional exam without even inquiring into whether it was fair and job-related.

Justice Ginsburg also suggested clearly — as did the Obama Justice Department, in a friend-of-the-court brief — that the Sotomayor panel erred in upholding summary judgment for the city.

Ginsburg said that the lower courts should have ordered a jury trial to weigh the evidence that the city’s claimed motive — fear of losing a disparate impact suit by low-scoring black firefighters if it proceeded with the promotions — was a pretext.

The jury’s job would have been to consider evidence that the city’s main motive had been to placate black political leaders who were part of Mayor John DeStefano’s political base.

Wait, wait, wait — the Obama administration filed a brief against Sotomayor’s judgment? Their argument was that Sotomayor overreached in issuing a summary judgment, a point that won unanimous approval from the Supreme Court. Isn’t that the definition of “judicial activism”?

Now the White House wants to pretend that Sotomayor is an originalist, when they themselves fought against her activist ruling.

That’s impressively Orwellian.

See what I mean? Don't you wish I had written it?

ADDENDUM: If you think that President BO's administration is sincere, click on this link and watch even the MSM get agitated at the way they are being treated. The honeymoon with the press may be being subverted. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/01/cbs_helen_thomas_challenge_gibbs_on_controlled_town_hall_meeting.html

HEADED FOR THE LAST ROUNDUP

Renowned tax evader (and former Senator), Tom Daschle, has weighed in again on a part of the so-called "stimulus" bill which he helped author.

The part in the spotlight is the part where there is extensive rationing of health care for senior citizens.

In his own words: "...health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them."

As a senior, then, I should ignore my heart condition, ignore my hip pain, ignore my blown out knee, ignore my gout, ignore my edema and ignore my insomnia. Just live with it, or not, as the case may be.

I don't think I like Tom Daschle any more.

Come to think of it...I never did to begin with.

In England, anyone over 59 cannot receive heart repairs or stents or bypass surgery because those procedures are not covered by GB's wonderful socialized system of medicine.

If that had been so this past year in the U.S., you would not have to be reading this right-wing-extremist blog.

I have had 5 heart stents implanted over the last year, and would have died without them.

Maybe Canada's system of health care would be a better choice.

Consider the actress, Natasha Richardson.

She died after a skiing fall while in Canada.

In the U.S., Natasha would have been med-flighted to a hospital in 30 or 40 minutes.

In Canada, her ambulance ride to the nearest hospital took almost 8 hours.

Is it possible that if Ms Richardson had had her accident in this country (where the liberals claim we have the sorriest health care in the free world...as well as the not so free [read: Cuba] world), that she might have survived?

I can't say for certain, but I'd put a 30 minute helicopter ride above an 8 hour ambulance ride any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Remember, our esteemed Senators and Congressmen have their own health care plan that is a Rolls Royce of a system and which they are guaranteed for the remainder of their lives.

Furthermore, they would not be subject to President BO's suggested national health care plan.

And they don't even work for a living.

CAN YOU SAY, "AL CAPONE?"

PRESENTED WITHOUT COMMENT

CAP AND TRADE AND ACID RAIN

Do you remember the hype about acid rain?

Acid rain was going to ruin the woodlands and wetlands around the world.

The world was coming to an end because of acid rain.

Acid rain was caused mostly by us filthy Americans pouring pollutants into our fragile atmosphere (never mind that the atmosphere is not only not fragile, but that "acid rain" is actually part of its cleansing activity).

"Scientific" study after "scientific" study proved that we were totally doomed because of acid rain.

We learn from such experts as thinkquest dot org (I did it that way so as NOT to provide you with a link...but you can still type that in your URL address box and get there), that "The invisible gases that cause acid rain usually come from automobiles or coal-burning power plants."

AND we also find out that there are more natural causes of acid rain than there are human causes.

Later that self-same set of "experts" tell us that "In Third World nations..., acid rain tends to be very high."

Now, do Third World nations have more or fewer automobiles and coal-burning power plants than we do here in the U.S.A.?

So...what have you been hearing about acid rain lately?

Now I use this example to make a point about something that seems totally unrelated: Cap and Trade, which is really not unrelated at all.

With Congress' passing of Cap and Trade legislation comes "economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of global pollutants."

The theory is that some central agency (federal or international - think UN) sets a CAP on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted.

Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances that represent the right to emit a specific amount.

The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the CAP, Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less.

The transfer of allowances is referred to as a TRADE.

The buyer pays a TAX for polluting, why the seller gets a TAX BREAK or even a REBATE.

All of this is the government's idea of the FIX for global warming (and maybe acid rain, too...although acid rain seems no longer to be a problem, since we never read about it in the MSM any more).

Meanwhile, the planet is not getting warmer. According to some very confused scientists, it is now cooling down.

So in the end, the government will be extracting a TAX on you (what...you think a business that has to pay a Cap and Trade TAX is just going to absorb it?), to fix a problem that has already fixed itself.

Tell me again...why are you surprised?

THIS IS A SPECIAL REPORT

THIS JUST IN FROM THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF CONGRESS AND THE UNITED STATES SENATE:

In a joint meeting before every reporter stationed in Washington D.C., the leaders of both houses held a press conference at which they announced:

The members of both the House and the Senate have agreed to dispose of their present taxpayer provided health insurance policies, with all of their special provisions for both routine and catastrophic health coverage, in favor of President BO's proposed Public Option plan.

They have done so in order to demonstrate to the American people their good faith in presenting such a plan and to assure the American people that it is a plan that will meet the needs of every American who wants to avail himself/herself of the plan, including all of the members of both the House and the Senate.

In an unprecedented move, the lawmakers showed unanimous solidarity in accepting the very plan they put forth for the American people.

"This is a great day for the health needs of ALL Americans, whether in public or private service," one unidentified Congresswoman was heard to proclaim.

"Here! Here!" responded a Senator.

Note: The preceding announcement is an absolute fabrication and bears no relationship to truth in any way, shape or form.

HOW DOES HE DO THAT?

During his press conference on Tuesday, June 23rd, President BO was asked about his health care reform plans.
President BO referred to the so-called "Public Option."

"...As one of those options, for us to be able to say, here's a public option that's not profit-driven, that can keep down administrative costs, and that provides you good, quality care for a reasonable price as one of the options for you to choose, I think that makes sense."

QUESTION: "Wouldn't that drive private insurance out of business?"

MR. OBAMA: "Why would it drive private insurance out of business? If -- if private -- if private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical."

Are you intelligent enough to understand what he tried to slip by you in that statement?

In his very carefully crafted snide way, President BO compared a non-profit plan with the for-profit plans offered by insurance companies.

Now even I can get that a for-profit company cannot effectively compete, product-for-product with a non-profit company, particularly one subsidized by tax dollars.

Yet many of you will fall for that idea.

President BO was forcing into the conversation the ideas that there is something intrinsically wrong with a profit making enterprise by suggesting that their contention that they should be able to compete if they are ideologically correct, and that they are idiots for believing that the government can't run anything.

The evidence demonstrates that indeed the government does NOT know how to run things.

From Amtrack to the Women's Bureau, when the government runs the entity, it is the essence of inefficiency, cost overrun and waste.

But, of course, that will not be the case with government Public Option health care, because...well, just because President BO says so.

To help you understand, suppose you run a business that costs you $1.00 to produce the product, $1.00 to land the product, $1.00 to pay taxes, utilities and rent and $3.00 to pay your employees.

It costs you $6.00 to get that product to the customer.

If you sell it for $7.50 your business makes $1.50 for its stockholders and others to divide up as a reward for the risk they took investing in your business.

Then suppose a "non-profit" business comes along with the same product and does not pay the taxes, pays no rent, and does not have to pay anything to investors, therefore can ready the product for market for only $3.50.

Clearly they can sell the product for $3.50 or anything under the $7.50 you have to sell it for, because they do not have to make a profit.

Furthermore, they have unlimited financial resources that you don't have, because they can simply confiscate what money they need from the "customers" at will.

How would you feel about the non-profit "company" horning in on your business?

Would you just chalk it up to market competition?

Would you just say, "Oh, well," close up shop and slink away?

Would you choose to stay in business, losing "market share" with every passing moment because the same product is so much cheaper for the customer to buy from the non-profit?

At how many dollars in losses would you decide that you couldn't make a go of it in that business?

Yet President has persuaded millions that that is a good thing for the government to do when it comes to insurance companies and health care.

How does he DO that?