Blog @ MoreWhat.com

This has to be the last post on the topic of President Obama’s September speech to the United Nations. One cannot endure this abuse indefinitely. Rhetoric that can make or break a speech by inspiring the audience or causing them to reject the notions of the speaker can be tiring in either circumstance. In addition to what was presented in the earlier posts only one last swat at this thing is made possible by President Obama.

Barack Hussein Obama, as the kids in the video chant, finishes his speech with a longer than necessary presentation of his ‘four pillars’ for the future. Here’s the opening quote.

Today, I put forward four pillars that are fundamental to the future that we want for our children: non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.

Certainly no reasonable person would object to that sentiment. Prior to this expression about the only honest declaration stated by President Obama was his assessment of the sad state of affairs that IS the United Nations. And that most members simply use it as a political bully pulpit for a self-serving agenda. But other than another opportunity for the President to attempt an oratory masterpiece the pleasant sentiment of his four pillars only serves to extend the useless enterprise that defines the United Nations.

Earlier in his speech Mr Obama endorsed the Millennium Development Goals. This disaster of an initiative has been a pathetic example of how little the UN can accomplish. Can anyone reading this cite one deadline that was met by this collosal waste of time. As with many UN programs the objective is commendable but success is rarely if ever achieved. Is it possible that Mr Obama’s four pillars fall in the same category?

On the first item in the pillars one curious note is offered. Non-proliferation AND disarmament seems redundant or anticipating failure. If the world was to disarm what need would there be for non-proliferation? It seems non-proliferation would be implied if success were achieved at disarmament. For those who would charge this post with nitpicking consider the fact that the genie is already out of the bottle or Pandora’s box has already been opened. Undoing this sequence of events is at best a subject for an undergraduate class in logic.

Peace is threatened by competition. It is in our nature to compete. That natural tendency is complicated by unfavorable tendencies toward greed or the intoxification of power to have control over others for one’s own benefit. To pursue peace and security is met with objections as to whose benefit such endeavors serve. Disputes with regard to the outcome of such noble goals and how each player is affected by this pursuit have contributed to the lack of progress. Again, Mr Obama proclaims a noble pursuit that is not new. And merely proposing that everyone participates will solve nothing.

Connecting planet preservation, or more specifically, climate change to the notion of peace is a mistake. ‘The danger posed by climate change cannot be denied’ according to President Obama. Yes it can. This is another debate that the American President suggests has been resolved. He is incorrect. The point is those who support the dire assessment of climate change versus those who reject the paranoia approach share one common argument. They both come complete with a large group of credentialed individuals in science who agree and/or support their contention. So the ‘danger posed’ can be denied.

For the President to associate laudable goals with questionable agendas does not serve his purposes or anyone else’s. To submit that if you are for peace and not for the paranoia of AGW you are somehow flawed will serve no worthwhile purpose. And to suggest that the US can abandon their nuclear capability while the rest of the world pursues it is naive contrary to the President’s contention he is not.

At this point there is really no reason to deal with the President’s fourth pillar. That would be on the ‘global’ economy and all that goes with it. It is as ‘naive’ as the first three pillars. So much for President Obama’s September 2009 speech to the United Nations. The speech was equal to the task of the UN…. useless.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The last post on the topic of President Obama’s UN speech this September dealt with the first half dozen paragraphs. In the seventh, the small matter of Mr Obama’s math is troubling. He says he has been in office for nine months. It seems the days between late January and the Presidential Inauguration to near the same point in the month of September next would calculate to eight months. But that is small potatoes compared to the long list of troubling statements contained in this ‘address’.

In this post the President moves on to his accomplishments in those eight, or nine,months he has been in office.

His next statement is about Gitmo, terrorists and interrogation. He claims there will no longer be torture. The debate on this subject is not closed contrary to what the President suggests. The debate is not closed on what was or is torture except in the minds of those with an opinion to the contrary. In the President’s own words ‘frameworks’ are still being discussed. And his AG’s intent on retribution against those in the opposition party continues.

Gitmo is not closed and may not be for some time if at all. And to claim he will work with members of the United Nations to combat terrorism is as impotent as the record on such things to date. The President ran a campaign that included withdrawal from Iraq and something similar for Afghanistan. They inflamed the antiwar sentiment in cooperation with far left activist organizations as a ploy to win the election. Now they are faced with the grim reality such promises are not so easy and elections have consequences.

So in terms of the eight or nine months, depending on your math skills, that the President has been in office little if anything has been accomplished. Gitmo, Iraq and Afghanistan are still issues in search of solutions. What comes next in the Obama speech just piles on to the misstatements about his time in office.

Eliminating nukes, peace in the Middle East and climate change are the next items the President tries to claim as successful performance. A little premature given the nuke situation regarding Iran and North Korea at least without any discussion of the earliest members of the Nuke Club. Some slack can be afforded the President to any discussion of Middle East peace as many before him have struggled with this issue and there is little optimism his term in office will fare any better. The climate change topic is merely pandering to a particular sentiment not shared by all. It is likely the President and former or current community organizer sees some political value in this pursuit.

The President continues by expressing what he accomplished in terms of the the economic conditions around the world through the G20 and he appears to be again asking forgiveness by emphasizing a ‘re-engagement’ with the UN by joining various groups, offering money and appeasement in general. No wonder those around the planet pleased with his election maintain such an attitude. Any one who will roll over that easily makes their agendas that much easier to advance. This is not a positive sign that Obama intends to defend the interests of the US or the American people.

To this point in the speech transcript the President has accomplished little if anything yet states ‘this is what we have done’. He then goes on to discuss inaction and not getting things done which only serve to strengthen the uselessness of the body he was addressing. Everything that comes out of the UN is worthless. Maybe the President’s strategy was to follow that theme for his address. He mentions the dire circumstances needing attention. Shows that he has done nothing. Claims success for merely mentioning the issues. And encourages others to do something about it. All this and a sprinkling of mea culpas on behalf of the country whose interests he said he would never apologize for defending….. the United States. Is he faithfully executing his oath of office?

Here’s a direct quote from the speech as the final item for this post. It is President Obama speaking about the United Nations.

This body was founded on the belief that the nations of the world could solve their problems together. Franklin Roosevelt, who died before he could see his vision for this institution become a reality, put it this way – and I quote: “The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man, or one party, or one Nation…. It cannot be a peace of large nations – or of small nations. It must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world.”

Simply starting an organization based initially on a pleasant sentiment provides no solution without willing participants. It is a little naive to expect world peace from an entity as corrupt as any other on the planet. Whether the UN continues to exist or is abandoned or replaced it is unlikely such efforts will succeed in bringing peace to the world until all the earth’s inhabitants honestly seek this end simultaneously. The probability of that happening any time soon is remote at best.

A call by President Obama for specific remedies to current conflict in the world would be the preferred choice. To present a challenge to other members of the UN to respond properly or risk appearing as co-conspirators to those conflicts may have initiated effective action. But then that is not the aim of the UN or the current American President.

More on this topic in the next post.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

President Obama’s speech to the UN last week has received ample focus. Some will laud the address and others will criticize. This post is just trying to determine what it is Mr Obama intended to accomplish speaking again on the world stage. So, here comes yet another analysis.

In the first paragraph of the transcript one has to wonder what exactly the President means by acting ‘boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad’? Certainly recent events involving missile defense, North Korea, Iran and other security threats do not inspire confidence nor indicate bold and collective action for justice, prosperity or anything else.

The next paragraph features typical rhetoric common to the Obama Administration. Just as the 2006 midterms featured the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid speaking of a new direction in America the Obama White House has focused on the empty slogan of hope and change. The latest action in evidence of broken campaign promises and the accuracy behind Joe Wilson’s statement ‘you lie’ is inserting the Big Pharma lobbyist Paul Kirk in the US Senate seat from Massachusetts vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy. The only purpose for buying the 60th vote in the Senate allows the Democrats to force more government control over American lives in the name of healthcare reform.

The third paragraph returns to a favorite ploy of the liberal majority. From an earlier mention of bold and collective action that has not materialized nor produced any effective governance the temptation to blame the previous administration for unilateral action and anti-American sentiment is a reversal of history. The anti-American sentiment was the cause for unilateral action in the absence of collective action from the UN and other international forums to confront terrorism. The same indifference is present now on issues involving Iran, North Korea and others seeking nuclear weapons. Only this time the current American president is indifferent to the bold and collective action he claims to champion.

In the next paragraph, the fourth, President Obama may as never before express his fondness for the word ‘audacity’. To state he will never apologize for defending the interests of ‘my nation’ or ‘my people’ after his World Apology Tour is only trumped by the audacity to proclaim these interests are shared.

The next two paragraphs circle earlier statements as well as introducing a timid mention of religion. Without the courage to express the religion of peace is now the religion of terrorism Mr Obama betrays his claim of bold and collective action once again. He follows this with promotion of more timid proclamations about global warming and pleas to be humanitarian. And he finishes these thoughts with a reminder of his World Apology Tour telling the rest of the planet he will sacrifice his nation’s interests contrary to any earlier reference to defending them.

This topic will be continued in the next post.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Below are three reactions on Paul Kirk replacing the late Ted Kennedy in the US Senate until a January special election takes place. Following the three expected sentiments from the President, Senate Majority Leader and House Speaker is a more enlightening analysis of one, Paul Kirk.

Statement by The President on The Appointment of Paul Kirk as US Senator From Massachusetts

“I am pleased that Massachusetts will have its full representation in the United States Senate in the coming months, as important issues such as health care, financial reform and energy will be debated. Paul Kirk is a distinguished leader, whose long collaboration with Senator Kennedy makes him an excellent, interim choice to carry on his work until the voters make their choice in January.”

Reid Reaction To Interim Appointment Of Paul Kirk To Vacant Massachusetts Senate Seat

Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released the following statement upon the news that Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts has designated Paul Kirk as the interim successor to the late Senator Ted Kennedy:

“Ted Kennedy’s impact will endure for the life of this body and his values will continue to serve as a guiding principle for those of us who served with him. But as Senator Kennedy would say, ‘the work goes on,’ and today’s news of Paul Kirk’s appointment ensures that the commonwealth of Massachusetts will have an effective advocate as they await the results of the special election in January.

“As a former staffer and associate of Sen. Kennedy and member of the board of directors for the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation, Paul Kirk embodies the values of Sen. Kennedy. He also has a long-standing appreciation of the issues that matter to the great people of Massachusetts. I look forward to welcoming Mr. Kirk as he works with Sen. Kerry to represent Massachusetts in the Senate.

“Governor Patrick made a wise, thoughtful choice by naming Paul Kirk as an interim successor to Sen. Kennedy. I also appreciate the diligent work of the Massachusetts Senate and House leadership for understanding the importance of securing full representation for Massachusetts in the United States Senate.”

Pelosi Statement on Appointment of Paul Kirk to Vacant Massachusetts Senate Seat

Washington, D.C. — Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement after Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts announced that he has appointed Paul Kirk as the interim successor to the late Senator Ted Kennedy:

“Paul Kirk will be a voice of reason and passion in the United States Senate. His belief in public service and commitment to the causes of social justice, equality, and opportunity for every American make him an outstanding choice to carry on the torch of Senator Ted Kennedy.

“Paul Kirk will be an effective advocate for the people of Massachusetts, and I look forward to welcoming him to Congress and working with him to advance the cause of health care for all, energy independence, and economic growth in the coming months.”

And now for the enlightening analysis…..

Barack Obama has a narrative he likes for his health-care fight: Obama, on behalf of sick people and the whole economy, battles the well-funded special interests who profit from the status quo while his opponents spread lies.

But there’s another narrative being told by the facts most of the media ignore, and Paul Kirk could provide the awkward punctuation:

Obama is fighting to subsidize health insurers and drug companies, is cutting deals with drug lobbyists, and now his ally Deval Patrick has brought in a revolving-door drug-industry lobbyist to hit the game-winning RBI.

You really should read the rest of this piece. Click on the highlighted text above to go to the full story.

It is still a time where we need to voice public opposition to the corruption in our nation’s capital. More events like 912dc and the tea parties across the country are the order of the day. Paul Kirk is one more special interest lobbyist that the Messiah in Chief claimed would be a thing of the past. It is another vindication for Joe Wilson’s phrase ‘you lie’. Lies are all that appear to be coming out of Washington DC.

How can so-called healthcare reform legislation be anything but corrupt when corruption is all that is producing it?

At the very least, contact your elected reps and express your disatisfaction including advance notice of your vote against them in 2010.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A former aide to Senator Max Baucus and current acting-Director at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Jonathan Blum, has complied with a request by his former boss to investigate insurance companies. President Obama appointed Jonathan Blum and it appears he is faithfully silencing opposition to the Baucus efforts to produce a Senate version of the failing House healthcare reform package.

The investigation resulted in a letter being sent to Humana and, say sources on Capitol Hill, other health insurers who have a fiduciary relationship with CMS that imposes an industry-wide “gag order” ordering a halt to any additional mailings and effectively prevents companies from communicating with their customers about the impact of any pending healthcare reform legislation.

Efforts to quash transparency and accountability are not lost on Democrats in Congress.

Obama and the Democrats have not, however, governed as they campaigned. Openness and transparency exist in theory and talking points, not in practice.

We saw another example Wednesday afternoon, as Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee almost unanimously voted to defeat an amendment offered by retiring G.O.P. Kentucky Republican Sen. Jim Bunning to require that the exact language of any health care legislation—and the bill’s cost estimate—be placed on the committee’s website seventy-two hours before a final vote in committee.

What’s the big deal you ask? The House version of healthcare reform is a disaster. Congress had thought they could go to the August recess to gain support for government-run healthcare in their home districts.

What they found was something quite different. Unlike many in Congress, the folks who turned out for the these events had actually read the bill—in this case H.R. 3200, the healthcare reform package pushed forward by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., and her leadership team. And, having read the bill, the critics of Obamacare were able to slice through the arguments in favor of it like a chain saw slicing through a barrel of fish.

Democrats in the United States Senate, however, are apparently not as naïve as their colleagues on the other side of the Capitol. They are pushing ahead with reform legislation fully intent on keeping it away from the prying eyes of the American people, if that’s what it takes.

If you haven’t read the version of America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 currently available and the Chairman’s mark, etc., a subsequent post on this blog will address that topic. And if you believe that health ‘insurance’ reform in Congress will be a good thing you qualify as ’sheeple’. There is nothing about this episode in government-run reform that will be any better than the failures in the past…. those rejected or those that became law.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Democrats and other liberals, not the least of which is President Obama, want government-run healthcare. The rhetoric from liberals will describe it differently but that is politics. Not much different from the shell game players can never win. Tell the public nirvana is under one of the shells and take their money. When the public complains they have been taken, offer them another chance to pick the winning shell.

The House bill HR 3200 was the first chance at picking the winning shell. An outrageous shell game that met with public anger. Enter the Senate. If the public was not happy with that shell game outcome offer them another one. Republicans opposed the House bill. As evidenced by the August recess town halls and tea parties plus the 912 march on Washington there was much public outrage over this and other government meddling. American business was not pleased by this turn of events either. Then comes this report.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2009

Overhaul Divides Business and Its Traditional GOP Allies
By NEIL KING JR.

WASHINGTON — Business is parting from its traditional allies in the Republican Party on health care as companies and big corporate lobbyists lend tentative support to a congressional overhaul that conservative lawmakers staunchly oppose.

How can this be you say? Let’s not forget that business is populated by, go figure, humans. That may come as a surprise to some but it is true. And business people can pander just like every one else. You’ve heard of special interest? Everyone is a special interest. They have their own special interest at heart. That is the problem. That is why we have a debate on healthcare.

Everyone has their own way of doing things and wants to continue that trend. The problem is if we keep doing things the same way we cannot expect a different outcome. Some credit that sentiment to Albert Einstein and some to Barack Obama. But it is a reasonable statement. The problem with those who favor more government intervention especially in healthcare refuse to change their ways.

“We are now at a crisis point,” said Joe Olivo, who has struggled to keep up with rising health costs as the president of Perfect Printing Inc., a 40-employee printing company in Moorestown, N.J.

Mr. Olivo is apprehensive about many proposed Democratic fixes, above all the push to create a government-run insurance program. But he said he was also “disappointed that the Republicans don’t seem to be at the table at all.”

Apparently Mr Olivo doesn’t pay attention to politics. Mr Olivo, the GOP is not allowed at the table. When you have a Democratic party majority in Congress and a Democrat in the White House bipartisanship is code for acquiesce. The Dems will only allow consent from the GOP. Any opposition to the liberal healthcare plan will be squashed. Even some Dems are opposed to the plans. There are reports indicating Dems leadership has demanded other Dems who oppose the plan to comply or else and ‘reconciliation’ is the budget tactic that will be used to enforce compliance or ignore opposition.

If the business community is caving to the liberal takeover of healthcare they are just as guilty as anyone else who is pandering for a handout in healthcare. And all handouts are paid courtesy of the American taxpayer. In all likelihood if the business community caves on government-run healthcare they will do nothing to effect lowering costs and will suffer higher taxes. Not a smart business move.

The business world this summer largely recoiled from legislation put forward in the House, which would mandate that employers provide employee coverage and would create a public insurance option.

But companies have been far more receptive to the plan released last week by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus. The Baucus bill, which the committee is now busy amending, wouldn’t include an employer mandate. It proposes a national exchange where individuals and small businesses could purchase insurance.

Apparently some in the ‘business world’ have found a shell they are willing to bet on. Of course they forget odds are with the house in these matters. Biz will lose over the long term. It never fails when one gambles.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents about three million businesses of all sizes, has run television ads opposing the Democratic-led health-care push. And the chamber, like many other big business groups in Washington, has many concerns about the Baucus bill, particularly the taxes it proposes to help pay for its $774 billion Congressional Budget Office price tag over 10 years.

At least some businesses are still thinking and not quite pandering.

And if you think the Big Pharma deal the White House applauded earlier this year was some sort of endorsement by big business think again. Just like the K Strett money flowing to both parties it is hedging one’s bets. Big Pharma’s deal was no deal at all. $8 billion over ten years was a payment to continue sitting at the table not unlike campaign contributions. Compare the size.

Big Pharma’s 625 Washington Lobbyists In addition to an army of lobbyists Big Pharma spends an amount equal or greater than that proposed in their Obama deal. Ten years ago they spent over $500 million for related causes during one year alone. So $8 billion over ten years is not a departure from the norm.

Everyone talks of shared sacrifice. It is in the report referenced for this post. It is in Obama speeches. It is in just about everyone’s talking points. The problem is it is not in their actions. Until that happens no government-run healthcare meddling will solve anything but the liberal wet dream. If we keep doing as we have with our use of healthcare and how we provide it, nothing will change. Not even with the proposals hiding under those little shells.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Upbeat Conservative News, Obama’s illegal conundrum

Upbeat Conservative News, Dems diss Obamacare deals

Upbeat Conservative News, Obama disappoints libs… again

Upbeat Conservative News, Paterson blames Obama

Upbeat Conservative News, Biden overstates the obvious

Upbeat Conservative News, Obama gaffe, health vs auto ins.

Upbeat Conservative News, Obama fundraiser, $290M fraud

Upbeat Conservative News, Pataki and Paterson diss Obama

Upbeat Conservative News, Obamaflop

Upbeat Conservative News, What mean ‘rightroots’?

Upbeat Conservative News, Paterson Ignores Obama

Upbeat Conservative News, Kennedy vacancy, party of ‘no’

Upbeat Conservative News, Romney 2012

Upbeat Conservative News, Obamacare Treatment Delays

Upbeat Conservative News, Paterson Under Obama Dems’ Bus

Upbeat Conservative News, Right Slams Obama on Weak Defense

Upbeat Conservative News, Democrats Run Away From ACORN

Upbeat Conservative News, weak liberal agenda

Upbeat Conservative News, put simply: Joe Wilson

Upbeat Conservative News, House denies ACORN funding

Although a favorite target of liberals is former President George W. Bush liberals have their own presidential problems. Now Bill Clinton has reentered the political discussion and if memory serves was given some sort of BS envoy job by Obama. Not less BS than the job given to the former First Lady HRC. Both of the Clinton’s have meaningless posts in the Obama Administration but apparently feel the need to ‘back’ the Messiah anyhow. And there’s Jimmy Carter who did no favors for the current Admin.

Yet the libs continue their worn out GOP bashing amid all the clamor their impotent party and fringe supporters create. Fringe components like nutroots, MoveOn and the Soros gang bashed Cheney, Rumsfeld, Patraeus and US troops with their antiwar sentiment leading up to the 2008 election. Obama began with campaign rhetoric convincing supporters the US would immediately withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and punish everyone in the Bush Administration.

The fringe and not so fringe left want government everything from bailouts to stimulus to free healthcare as well as shamnesty for illegals, same sex marriage, abortion paid by tax dollars and more expense to the American public through AGW, cap and tax and a crushing debt exacerbated by President Obama and tax cheat Tim Geithner.

Congress is still muddled in Obamacare and cannot turn this sow’s ear into a silk purse. Okay, there’s not enough lipstick on the planet to accommodate this pig. Dems don’t appear to have the strength to finish Iraq or Afghanistan as required, fail to handle problems like Iran and North Korea properly and hand the Russians a gift by abandoning allies in Europe with an another appeasement missile defense plan.

As indicated by all the tax cheat nominations and withdrawals, plus the ACORN connection and shady resumes of most of the Messiah’s chosen few Michelle Malkin is not the least off the mark emphasizing the Culture of Corruption and placing it squarely on the liberal majority in Washington. The GOP had their fall from grace and lost the majority in the last two elections. It is now the Dems turn and they have wasted no time promoting a ‘throw the bums out’ option for voters in 2010.

Elections have consequences. Democrats wanted to be the majority and got their chance. Their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is once again being confirmed. It is way past time to point fingers and blame those who were previously the majority.

To the Democratic Party:

You wanted the job, you got it. Now govern properly and abandon your insane agenda or pay the price next year.

Complete the jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Abandon your present course on healthcare. Reduce spending and increase tax cuts. Stop the bailouts and porkulus madness. Forget cap and tax. Give up shamnesty and improve national security and defense. Follow the rule of law and the founding documents. Correct the other items mentioned above.

Once you get that completed come back here for the next task list.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Is that the best Iran’s so-called supreme leader can do? Blame his country’s problems on media reports. That same media has recently reported Iran has agreed to a new set of rules for cooperation with the IAEA. You can call the IAEA independent all you want to but it’s relationship and sanction by the United Nations is all too clear. The IAEA’s ‘atoms for peace’ slogan is more than any rational human being can bear. The history of the UN and the IAEA fit well into Iran’s plans to play games with the all too willing international community until Iran detonates their first nuke.

Iran’s Supreme Leader says Western News Media Attempting to “Poison” Iran
Iran’s supreme leader says Western media are to blame for his country’s recent political unrest. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is pointing his finger at Western news media for inciting political friction in Iran.

In May of this year not the ‘Western News Media’ but ‘Iran’s state media’ got all puffed up about Iran’s missile tests complete with cheering crowds of those characterized as supporters of Ahmadinejad.

Iran Claims to Have Test-Fired Mid-Range Missile
Iran’s state media says the country has successfully test launched a mid-range surface-to-surface missile that can reach Israel, southeastern Europe and U.S. bases in the Middle East. Iranian government TV showed what it said was the test-firing of the Sejil-2, which it says has a range of 2,000 kilometers. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad also commented on the test-firing of the two-stage missile during a campaign speech in the northern town of Semnan. The crowd of several thousand Ahmedinejad supporters cheered as the president described the launch.

During the same month Ahmadinejad held a news conference rejecting talks about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Iran: No More Nuclear Talks With World Powers
Mr. Ahmadinejad told a news conference in Tehran Monday Iran will only agree to discussions with major powers about cooperating in managing global problems. He said Iran will not participate in talks about nuclear issues outside the framework of the U.N. nuclear agency.

This of course is combined with the year’s Iranian politics which generated this headline, ‘Ahmadinejad Win Sparks Protests in Tehran‘ in which an address by Ahmadinejad made the following claim, ‘In an address, Mr. Ahmadinejad declared the vote a great victory and called it a “completely free election.”

Add his statements which blame the US and Israel for all the world’s problems, his call for the destruction of Israel and recently renewed claim the holocaust never happened and it becomes clear any ‘poisoning of Iran’ is self-induced contrary to the stated opinion of Khamenei. Most of what comes out of Iran, minus the loyal opposition to the current regime, demonstrates a rogue state’s intention to develop a nuclear arsenal and put the world at risk. All the delays are nothing more than a smoke screen to buy time to complete their sinister strategy.

AP NewsBreak: Nuke agency says Iran can make bomb
VIENNA — Experts at the world’s top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press.

IAEA denies report it is sure Iran seeking atom bomb
The International Atomic Energy Agency reaffirmed IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei’s Sept. 9 comment that allegations the agency was sitting on evidence of Iranian bomb work were “politically motivated and baseless”.

Either way, the IAEA does not inspire confidence. You need a scorecard to keep up with all the reports on yes they do or no they don’t in terms of Iran’s status of joining the nuclear club. Argue the topic to your heart’s delight but one conclusion remains clear. The world does not need any more members to the nuke club. Pandora’s Box was opened long ago in the heat of a world war. There’s no putting the lid back on. Outside of ending the war with Japan in the last century none of the current known members of the nuke club have become reckless with the option. Who believes that restraint would be practices by any new members?

And no one has forgotten about North Korea or the Jihad crowd’s similar ambitions. World leaders are as impotent in this regard as with Iran.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

There are the birthers. A pejorative term for those convinced Barack Obama is not eligible to be President. There are the truthers. A pejorative term for those who believe the 9/11 attack on the United States was an inside job. And there are those who suggest the Obama Administration and the Democratic party intend to introduce socialism as the dominant ideology within the US government.

The first two groups are not likely to have their opinions gather traction. But the last group continues to enjoy a list of actions by those in the Obama Administration which support the notion that government will be everything to everyone and all matters involve the government. While George F Will is on record rejecting the idea of socialism as presented here he has suggested we are already subject to some socialist tendencies in matters like healthcare. And he has another relevant column outlining how the Obamanation invades everything for political purposes.

Sergant’s comments, made to many individuals and organizations from what is vaguely and cloyingly called “the arts community,” continued: “This is the first telephone call of a brand-new conversation. We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government.” Wrong preposition. Not “with” the government, but for the government.

The plot thickens with sinister entanglements between the arts, government, the financial sector and Obamacare. Is there any doubt that this rules for radicals politician, President Obama, has designs on controlling everything and everyone, ala socialism, or not? Read the rest of Will’s column and have an opinion. Feel free to express it.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The information below suggests to this blogger that having government-run healthcare or the same thing members of Congress have is not necessarily the answer to the contrived healthcare debate or issue. It merely echoes at least one of the suggestions from the conservative side of politics for solving concerns. Allow health insurance companies to compete nationwide. You can also include tort reform and other conservative proposals as worthwhile. But as far as what has typically been referred to as HillaryCare or ObamaCare….. no thanks. It seems people polled from Rasmussen have the same reaction.

Members of Congress are eligible for the same private health care programs available to all other federal workers, with the government paying two-thirds of the premium and the Congress member paying one-third. They also can opt for access to a medical team at the U.S. Capitol and use of the major Army and Navy hospitals in Washington, D.C., for which they pay as if part of an HMO, although this coverage is subsidized by taxpayers.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, said, “In the Federalist Papers, written to promote passage of the U.S. Constitution, it was noted that the only way to effectively control a legislator was to insure that they come home and live under the rules they write for the rest of us. In the 21st century, that doesn’t happen anymore. So voters seem to be applying the same logic in reverse by saying that they would like a chance to play by the same rules that Congress has written for themselves.”

Americans are evenly divided over the general concept of making free health care available to every one in the country, but by a two-to-one margin, they reject free health care for all if it means changing their own coverage and joining a program administered by the government.

In fact, support for any proposed reform goes down if people are told they would have to change their own coverage.

This blog does not recommend factcheck dot org for checking facts but included their take anyway.

from factcheck.org
According to the Congressional Research Service, the FEHBP offers about 300 different private health care plans, including five government-wide, fee-for-service plans and many regional health maintenance organization (HMO) plans, plus high-deductible, tax-advantaged plans. All plans cover hospital, surgical and physician services, and mental health services, prescription drugs and “catastrophic” coverage against very large medical expenses. There are no waiting periods for coverage when new employees are hired, and there are no exclusions for preexisting conditions. The FEHBP negotiates contracts annually with all insurance companies who wish to participate. There is plenty of competition for the business; FEHBP is the largest employer-sponsored health plan in the U.S.

Want to compare your coverage to that of your government counterparts? Here’s a link to get you started.

US Office of Personnel Management, 2009 FEHB Premium Rates

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

No doubt there is a legacy of race-related problems in America. And if you make a distinction between race and ethnicity whereby one term is defined by genetics and one by cultural heritage there have been many more problems than those solely based on race. In addition to that, America does not stand alone with a history of such problems. It’s essentially universal. We are human. We are flawed.

That’s the introduction to this post on current events, race, ethnicity, society and politics. Although the terms ‘race’ and ‘card’ have been joined to define a currently popular or common debate on Presidential politics there was a time when race was automatically associated with a competition and card referred to something you sent to someone, collected or used to play games. Maybe that hasn’t changed much.

There is currently a competition in which the gamesmanship employs the use of the race card to sway public opinion. Public affairs are regularly being discussed in terms of black and white in reference to one’s racial or ethnic or cultural heritage. One example of these discussions, or more accurately, rants, came from former President Jimmy Carter this week.

Jimmy Carter is back in the news. It seems he’s a bit desperate to be in the news these days. He’s gone on record saying it’s racism that is motivating the opposition to President Obama’s policies. The Town Hall meetings of this summer, anger erupted over the rising mountains of debt that will crush us and our children’s generation. But to Jimmy Carter such expressions of concern seem little different than mob actions. “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African American should not be President,” Carter said in Atlanta.

Where does he get this stuff? Number one it is a statement without any supporting evidence and is quite vague. On what basis does the former President conclude the ‘feeling’ he denotes is ‘inherent’ and held by ‘many’? Besides being an older, white, male American this blogger is getting more than just a little tired of people characterizing those opposing the agenda of the current administration in Washington, DC.as racist. To take Jimmy Carter’s conclusion to the next obvious step does he also contend that ‘African American(s)’ who oppose the current Administration are Uncle Tom’s? And don’t try to make the argument that all black Americans support the agenda of the current American President. Even Barack Obama’s own political party is divided on the issues and the agenda.

According to a Fox News poll you can summarize the results to indicate that 2 out of 3 blacks believe opposition to Obama is racially motivated and 2 out of 3 whites believe it is based on honest disagreement.

Black voters are twice as likely to say the opposition is motivated by race (63 percent cite racism as the reason for opposition and 27 percent say it is based on honest disagreements), while most white voters — 71 percent — say the opposition comes from honest disagreements.

Well there it is Mr Carter. The poll is done and the results have been entered into evidence. I generally oppose President Obama’s agenda and am white therefore I’m a racist. Never mind the 71% of whites who say the opposition is from honest disagreement because they are white and obviously racist. And that one of three blacks who agree with the 71% of racist whites must be Uncle Toms The only whites telling the truth are the 29% or less who agree with the 63% of blacks citing racism as the reason for opposition to Obama.

Why is it seldom mentioned in these stories that President Obama is not only black? Unless I’ve been livin’ in a cave like bin Laden for the last decade I believe President Obama had one black parent and one white parent. Oh that’s right. During the campaign in 2008 some suggested there were black voters who would not vote for Obama because he was not black enough.

Should we keep up this racial dialogue in this manner for benefit of the MSM and their advertising revenue or the misguided political notions of those who wish to advance this stupidity? Or should we get back to the business of debating the relative merits or lack of same in politics and public affairs in our nation’s capital?

If one cannot be white and disagree with a black and white President without being labeled racist than so be it. If the left believes this nonsense is the perfect argument to defeat opposition to their flawed agenda they have less respect for the American people than one may have suspected. All the President has to do to gain support from those who currently oppose his agenda is listen to them and make some changes. But it is unlikely his current leftist base will allow such a thing to happen. So it looks like those of us who oppose the current agenda of the Obama Administration will have to suffer the insult of being called racists for some time to come. Or at least until the voting public, black and white, recognizes this strategy for what it is, cheap political tactics.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

On the Nomination (Confirmation of Cass R. Sunstein, of MA, to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget )

The announcement above is from the US Senate and relates to, among other things, the popular discussion of President Obama and his appointment of ‘czars’ and other staff to his administration. No doubt as much dismissal of the process is uttered by liberal sources as concern about the process is voiced by the loyal opposition. So it all becomes a little silly. Or is it? Below is what appears to be an example of trying to dismiss the concern on the czar/appointee thing.

Get This Rat a Lawyer!

Glenn Beck says Cass Sunstein wants to give animals the right to sue humans. Really?
By Christopher Beam
Posted Monday, Sept. 14, 2009, at 8:49 PM ET

But, if you believe Fox News host Glenn Beck, it could happen here too.

Glenn Beck may be regarded as flamboyant by some critics or worse by left-leaning analysis. But he wasn’t wrong on the ACORN story was he? And he is correct on many things which means this blog is only leaving the door open in case he has been wrong on something. But when it comes to Cass Sunstein, the czar epidemic and the liberal response there is at least one evaluation of Mr Sunstein which is disturbing.

If Slate wants to downplay criticism of the Sunstein appointment it might be best to leave the whole thing alone. Even in their article referenced above they essentially agree that Sunstein believes animals have legal rights. And that leaves the door open for some really bizarre legal battles based on human history. Things could get out of hand considering humans EAT animals. Is there a need to say anymore on that topic?

What is of more concern regarding Cass Sunstein is the longer list of his publishing resume’. Of note is a book entitled, ‘ The Bill of Rights and the Modern State’, co-editor with Geoffey R. Stone and Richard A. Epstein, (University of Chicago Press 1992). One of Sunstein’s contributions to the book quotes Alexander Meiklejohn.

Meiklejohn is known as an advocate of first-amendment freedoms and was a member of the National Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Meiklejohn was selected by John F. Kennedy to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which was presented by Lyndon B. Johnson shortly after Kennedy’s death.

Sunstein’s quote of Meiklejohn is presented below.

The radio as it now operates among us is not free. Nor is it entitled to the protection of the First Amendment. It is not engaged in the task of enlarging and enriching human communication. It is engaged in making money. And the First Amendment does not intend to guarantee men freedom to say what some private interest pays them to say for its own advantage.

The radio, as we now have it, is not cultivating those qualities of taste, of reasoned judgment, of integrity, of loyalty, of mutual understanding upon which the enterprise of self-government depends. It corrupts both our morals and our intelligence.

Sunstein proposes ‘a New Deal with respect to speech’, freedom of speech, that is. You know, the First Amendment. For those of you concerned about the Fairness Doctrine and the liberal agenda to shutdown talk radio. You’re not crazy. Here’s what Sunstein says.

It applies much of the reasoning of the New Deal attack on the common law to current questions of First Amendment law. Such an approach would produce significant changed in existing understandings of the nature of the free speech guarantee. It would call for a large scale revision in our view of when a law ‘abridges’ the freedom of speech. At a minimum, it would insist that many imaginable democratic interferences with the autonomy of broadcasters or newspapers are not ‘abridgments’ at all.

And more of what the left may care to ignore on any discussion of Cass Sunstein is the remainder of his publishing resume’ which includes the following selections:

The Second Bill of Rights: Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever, (Basic Books 2006)

The Partial Constitution, (Harvard University Press 1993)

Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, (The Free Press 1993)

Free Markets and Social Justice, (2002)

The Cost-Benefit State, (American Bar Association 2002)

Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America (Basic Books 2005)

After the Rights Revolution: Preconceiving the Regulatory State, (Harvard University Press 1990)

(end of list)

And the left would also like to dismiss that vast right wing conspiracy focused on the free speech threat of the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives are more than a little concerned the current liberal majority has some sinister plans in mind that include destroying free speech and the remainder of the founding documents. Maybe all that talk of socialism is not so far fetched after all. Of course this blog never thought it was in the first place. The information above certainly supports that notion. But those of us who do not support the liberal agenda are labeled racists or Nazis or some other pejorative. Thanks libs.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Democrats in the White House and Congress have characterized healthcare reform as an issue that must be solved before the US economy can be restored to pre-recession strength. They have also renamed ‘healthcare reform’ to ‘health insurance reform’. It is again noted here that Rahm Emanuel is credited for stating you should never waste a crisis. Apparently that applies to any liberal agenda item that Democrats want to redefine as a crisis. The urgency they describe and the need to pass their legislative proposals by a self-imposed deadline without benefit of reading thousands of pages of HR 3200 is exactly what Rahm Emanuel meant by not wasting a crisis. Invent the crisis. Insert an agenda item as the solution for the invented crisis. Hope to grab political power if you can pull off the scam.

FDR introduced Social Security. It became the third rail of politics. Touch it and you die, politically speaking. Most people understand Social Security cannot continue indefinitely. The number of those paying into the system to support benefit payments for those who are retired continues to shrink. The system cannot sustain itself any longer.

LBJ introduced Medicare and Medicaid. Just as Social Security cannot be sustained indefinitely the same holds true for these two programs. As if these government-run legacies are not proof enough that healthcare ‘reform’ is doomed to fail recent experiences in state government attempts to run healthcare are ignored by the liberals as well.

They like to bash former Governor Mitt Romney for failing to install successful state-run healthcare in Massachusetts but are careful not to mention the others with their hands in that fiasco. And they omit the part indicating this Republican Governor in an extremely ‘blue’ state was trying to accommodate the ‘other side of the aisle’ in those efforts. Here’s a snippet of what happened.

In fall 2005 as the House and Senate each passed health care reform bills.

The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney’s original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide “fair and reasonable” health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers. The legislature also rejected Governor Romney’s proposal to permit even higher-deductible, lower benefit health plans.

On April 12, 2006 Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation. He vetoed 8 sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment. Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid. The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.

Romney’s proposal may have been flawed but the liberal legislature wasted no time altering his plan. The bottom line demonstrates government-run healthcare does not work. TennCare in the state of Tennessee is another failed example from recent history.

Obama could learn some reality from Tennessee’s experience with TennCare. Former Democratic Gov. Ned McWherter introduced TennCare in early 1994 with an initial budget of $2.6 billion. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that TennCare proved so popular that the rolls swelled from 500,000 to 1.4 million by 2002.

The Journal quoted from a letter Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., wrote to House members: “Many of the concerns we have expressed about the proposal before us today are the stark realities of a system that went terribly wrong in Tennessee.”

Blackburn also co-authored an essay for RealClearPolitics with a physician, Rep. Phil Roe, R-Johnson City. Roe and Blackburn wrote that 55 percent of people enrolled in TennCare had migrated from employer-provided plans. Though TennCare’s current director disputes those numbers, there is no denying TennCare’s effect on the state budget. Within 10 years, TennCare spending had mushroomed to more than $8 billion, consuming about one-third of the state’s budget.

Here’s more from Blackburn and Roe.

Lessons For Health Care Reform

By Reps. Marsha Blackburn and Phil Roe

Tennessee was home to a failed attempt at universal single payer care, and has lessons to teach a President who has promised that in pursuing his goal of universal health care, he will learn from the policy failures of the past. In 1994 Tennessee implemented managed care in its Medicaid program, creating a system known as TennCare. The objective was to use the anticipated savings from Medicaid to fund and expand coverage for children and the uninsured. The result was a program that nearly bankrupted the state, reduced the quality of care, and collapsed under its own weight.

Another analysis from the Wall Street Journal…..

Tennessee Experiment’s High Cost Fuels Health-Care Debate

By AVERY JOHNSON

In 1994, Tennessee launched an ambitious public insurance program to cover its uninsured. The plan, TennCare, fulfilled that mission but nearly bankrupted the state in the process.

As originally envisioned, the Tennessee plan expanded Medicaid, the government health-care program for the poor, to cover people who couldn’t afford insurance or who had been denied coverage by an insurance company.

With an initial budget of $2.6 billion, TennCare quickly extended coverage to an additional 500,000 people by making access to its plans easy and affordable. But the program became so expensive that Tennessee was forced to scale it back in 2005.

If TennCare was estimated to cost $2.6 billion yet became an $8 billion program dominating a third of the state’s budget in ten years how do you suspect it will work on a national level? Rahm Emanuel’s advice to never waste a crisis may be backfiring. Between the town hall meetings of the August recess and the Sept 12th rally in Washington DC and across the country, voters are gearing up for a 2010 backlash on the liberal agenda.

In case you didn’t do the math from above here’s the extrapolation. If healthcare reform, health insurance reform, socialized medicine or whatever they’re calling it right now in Washington becomes law and experiences the outcome with TennCare what will it cost? In ten years it will be more than three times the original estimate. Even using the new Senate version’s $856 Billion estimate would result in a ten year price tag of more than 2 1/2 trillion dollars!!!! If it also becomes a third of the national budget the idea that it will save money, cover everyone and cost less is more ridiculous than when first suggested.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related videos:

9 part series from Rep Todd Akin (R-MO)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkj2YWq-OP8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zniLYVe12cI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nKmACqR0Ug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p36nN1fIE7Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW-TJpobQvk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NupQS6lq6l8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO5OY4qqRVc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMo8hfKnJgg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25P0gAkPaaU

http://blackburn.house.gov/Multimedia/?MediaID=1500

Congressman Phil Roe Multimedia

http://johnshadegg.house.gov/Multimedia/?MediaID=1479

http://broun.house.gov/

http://gingrey.house.gov/Multimedia/

Wear it like the badge of honor Rep Joe Wilson (R-SC). H. Res 744 ‘dissin’ you for speaking truth to power and using ‘decorum’ as the excuse undermines the additional truth that liberals have bashed former President George W Bush (43) and others in the most dispicable ways yet act holier than thou while adoring their Messiah in the halls of Congress.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

H. Res. 744

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

September 15, 2009.

Whereas on September 9, 2009, during the joint session of Congress convened pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 179, the President of the United States, speaking at the invitation of the House and Senate, had his remarks interrupted by the Representative from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson; and

Whereas the conduct of the Representative from South Carolina was a breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of the behavior of the Representative from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, during the joint session of Congress held on September 9, 2009.

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 699

(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)
H RES 744 YEA-AND-NAY 15-Sep-2009 5:32 PM
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Resolution
BILL TITLE: Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

	Yeas	Nays	PRES	NV
Democratic	233	12	5	6
Republican	7	167		4
Independent
TOTALS	240	179	5	10

—- YEAS 240 —

Abercrombie Adler (NJ) Altmire Andrews Baca Baird Baldwin Barrow Bean Becerra Berkley Berman Berry Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Boccieri Boren Boswell Boucher Boyd Brady (PA) Braley (IA) Bright Brown, Corrine Butterfield Cao Capps Capuano Cardoza Carnahan Carney Carson (IN) Castor (FL) Chandler Childers Chu Clarke Clay Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly (VA) Conyers Cooper Costa Costello Courtney Crowley Cuellar Cummings Dahlkemper Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (IL) Davis (TN) DeFazio DeGette DeLauro Dicks Dingell Doggett Donnelly (IN) Doyle Driehaus Edwards (MD) Edwards (TX) Ellison Ellsworth Emerson Eshoo Etheridge Farr Fattah Filner Flake Fudge Gonzalez Gordon (TN) Grayson

Green, Al Green, Gene Griffith Grijalva Gutierrez Hall (NY) Halvorson Hare Harman Hastings (FL) Heinrich Herseth Sandlin Higgins Hill Himes Hinojosa Hirono Holden Holt Honda Hoyer Inglis Inslee Israel Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Johnson (GA) Johnson, E. B. Jones Kagen Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick (MI) Kilroy Kind Kirkpatrick (AZ) Kissell Klein (FL) Kosmas Kratovil Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lee (CA) Levin Lewis (GA) Lipinski Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Luján Maloney Markey (CO) Markey (MA) Marshall Matheson Matsui McCarthy (NY) McCollum McGovern McIntyre McMahon McNerney Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Melancon Michaud Miller (NC) Miller, George Minnick Mitchell Mollohan Moore (KS) Moran (VA) Murphy (CT) Murphy (NY) Murphy, Patrick Murtha

Nadler (NY) Napolitano Neal (MA) Nye Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Pallone Pascrell Pastor (AZ) Payne Pelosi Perlmutter Perriello Peters Peterson Petri Pingree (ME) Polis (CO) Pomeroy Price (NC) Quigley Rahall Rangel Reyes Richardson Rodriguez Rohrabacher Ross Rothman (NJ) Roybal-Allard Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Salazar Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Schakowsky Schauer Schiff Schrader Schwartz Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Serrano Sherman Shuler Sires Slaughter Smith (WA) Snyder Space Speier Spratt Stark Stupak Sutton Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Tierney Titus Tonko Towns Tsongas Van Hollen Visclosky Walz Wasserman Schultz Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Welch Wexler Wilson (OH) Woolsey Wu Yarmuth

—- NAYS 179 —

Aderholt Akin Alexander Arcuri Austria Bachmann Bachus Bartlett Barton (TX) Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boehner Bonner Bono Mack Boozman Boustany Brady (TX) Broun (GA) Brown (SC) Brown-Waite, Ginny Buchanan Burgess Burton (IN) Buyer Calvert Camp Campbell Cantor Capito Carter Cassidy Castle Chaffetz Coble Coffman (CO) Cole Crenshaw Culberson Davis (KY) Deal (GA) Delahunt Dent Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Dreier Duncan Ehlers Fallin Fleming Forbes Fortenberry Foxx Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Garrett (NJ)

Gerlach Giffords Gingrey (GA) Gohmert Goodlatte Granger Graves Guthrie Hall (TX) Harper Hastings (WA) Heller Hensarling Herger Hinchey Hodes Hunter Issa Jenkins Johnson (IL) Johnson, Sam Jordan (OH) King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kirk Kline (MN) Kucinich Lamborn Lance Latham LaTourette Latta Lee (NY) Lewis (CA) Linder LoBiondo Lucas Luetkemeyer Lummis Lungren, Daniel E. Mack Maffei Manzullo Marchant Massa McCarthy (CA) McCaul McClintock McCotter McDermott McHenry McKeon McMorris Rodgers Mica Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller, Gary Moore (WI) Moran (KS)

Murphy, Tim Myrick Neugebauer Nunes Olson Paul Paulsen Pence Pitts Platts Poe (TX) Posey Price (GA) Putnam Radanovich Rehberg Reichert Roe (TN) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rooney Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Royce Ryan (WI) Scalise Schmidt Schock Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shimkus Shuster Simpson Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Souder Stearns Sullivan Taylor Teague Terry Thompson (PA) Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Turner Upton Walden Wamp Westmoreland Whitfield Wilson (SC) Wittman Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL)

—- ANSWERED “PRESENT” 5 —

Engel Foster

Frank (MA) Shea-Porter

Skelton

—- NOT VOTING 10 —

Ackerman Barrett (SC) Conaway Hoekstra

Lynch McHugh Sestak Tanner

Velázquez Waters