Blog @ MoreWhat.com

One of the champions of increasing quotas for H1B visas is none other than Bill Gates who has testified before Congress at least once on this topic. A common refrain when hearing commentary from American business concerning sending jobs offshore or importing foreign workers to replace Americans points to low wages as the primary incentive.

But fine folks like Bill Gates suggest that is not the case. Instead they claim an earnest desire to find the best and the brightest and often reference the stale notion of global everything. Beyond the arrogant insult toward Americans, that dog won’t hunt.

Here is one example of why American business prefers importing workers rather than hiring Americans.

On the outskirts of China’s capital Beijing is a bustling ghetto dubbed the ant colony - a vast community of young professionals forced to live in tough conditions because of a tight job market and rocketing property prices.

And what do you suppose those ‘professionals’ earn? ‘…the average wage for a university graduate is around $320 a month.’ Like you couldn’t have guessed it. Conditions may not be so wonderful in the world’s most talked about emerging economic power.

Tangjialing has become an example of the paradox of China’s fast-paced economy.

After expanding universities in the 1980’s, China now has more than six million graduates a year, but there are not enough well-paid jobs to go round.

Considered over qualified in their hometowns, the graduates flock to the big cities like Beijing and Shanghai - only to discover they must share bunk beds and rent Spartan rooms to survive. Their dreams of the urban middle-class lifestyle are put on hold.

So maybe all the hype from business leaders like Gates is exactly that…. hype. Do you suppose residents of the Ant Colony would be interested in coming to the US to work? With millions of graduates every year China is a valuable resource to tap for low cost labor. And importing that labor to the US can be a boon for the bottom line. That is, of everyone except the American who loses their job because of it.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(above: 2007 Shamnesty rally with Mexican flags)

crossposted at: Maggie’s Notebook

More than a week has passed since some of those seeking shamnesty organized another ‘rally’ in our nation’s capitol. Images seen from this blog suggest those participating may have learned one thing in two years. Don’t display Mexican flags when promoting shamnesty for illegal immigrants (like the 2007 photo above). But the MSM learned little, as they did not minimize estimates of the turnout as they had for Tea Party gatherings.

A report from VOA displayed this title. ‘ Thousands Rally in US Capital, Demanding Immigration Reform.’ A quote from that report is an example of what angers many Americans. “It’s a lost, because like the president is saying he is going to do something and he never do it, we are waiting for that,” she said. “And we want justice.”

That is one skewed definition of justice. It demonstrates a perverse feeling of entitlement and failure to recognize the difference between legal and illegal immigration. As if to say, okay, I’m here, now gimme my stuff. Additional excerpts from the VOA report illuminate the problem.

Leyda Lopez came to Sunday’s rally with her mother who entered the country illegally from Equador nearly two decades ago. Leyda says she is concerned about the state of the immigration reform debate.

This is the same woman quoted earlier. Her mother was here for two decades illegally (not long after Ronald Reagan allowed a one time only amnesty which obviously was a mistake) and now Leyda wants ‘justice’?

Leyda’s mother, Mely, says that because of her status, she has been unable to return to Equador to see the rest of her family for 18 years.

Can you believe the arrogance or ignorance of this thought process? Not only here illegally for two decades but the daughter expecting ‘justice’ and the mother obviously complaining that because she is illegal she is unwilling to risk detection by traveling in and out of the country.

That is the kind of twisted argument that can make most Americans absolutely wild. And it gets better (that would be sarcasm).

Yulmi says many work 15-16 hours a day, holding two jobs and are underpaid because they are undocumented. He says frequently they are taken advantage of and exploited and that is not just.

Who do they expect to believe this? No, they are NOT undocumented. That is the liberal euphemism!! They are here illegally and that makes them illegal which means their first act when crossing the border was to break the law. No respect for the rule of law and now they ‘want justice’?

Justice for illegal immigrants is one, deportation, two, incarceration and/or three, sanctions against their home countries that cause severe consequences or a combination of all three.
Where people like Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer get the idea that anything else is reasonable defies logic. If people like those described above are representative of those here illegally they certainly do not qualify for the good citizenship award. If they genuinely believe what they are saying there is no hope for them ever understanding what they did and are doing wrong. That inability precludes legal immigration or citizenship.

If they are simply running a game by saying what they do they are equally unfit to be legal immigrants or citizens. Any legal citizen of the US who does not understand that is a civics moron unworthy of their citizenship status. Something else we need to correct.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A heartwarming note for your Sunday morning is published here today. While we have Obamacare to deal with as well as cap and trade and a long laundry list of liberal legislative proposals one rises to the top this week.

You may remember RINO Senator Lindsey Graham teamed up with liberal lamb chop Senator Chuck Schumer for another run at shamnesty to pry America’s borders wide open. As if there weren’t gaping holes in them right now.

A February 22, 2010 memo attributed to James M Chaparro at Homeland Security laid out plans for improving performance on deportation quotas for illegal immigrants. Apparently WaPo picked up the story and a reply to their inquiry about the memo by the Department suggested not everyone’s on the same page. A revised memo from the same source, also apparently, did not contain any changes from the original.

The guess here is Homeland Security will have some personnel changes from infighting and/or there will be some interesting fights over whether or not the US government is serious about protecting citizens and borders as well as anything else that is, you know, American.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If anyone cares to offer a compelling argument to explain the results of the following roll call vote it would be appreciated. The only condition for the argument is that it does not offer political strategy as an excuse.

While the GOP would like to be viewed as the loyal opposition to the Democratic party’s far left agenda some Republicans defy explanation for their voting choices. The roll call vote presented here deals with earmarks. Senator DeMint offered an amendment described as an earmark moratorium for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. More than a dozen members of the GOP voted to table the amendment along with the Democrats. One Democrat, Russ Feingold from Wisconsin voted ‘no’ with most Republicans. But that may be due simply to political considerations in a re-election year.

That DeMint’s amendment clearly limited the earmark moratorium to 2010 and 11 should have made it easy for anyone to support it given current economic conditions. If you cannot support what may amount to nothing more than a symbolic gesture of disapproval for wasteful government spending how serious can you be about reducing the national debt and deficits? Earmarks are reported to account for ‘only’ a tiny amount of government spending. But eight or nine billion dollars per year is real money to most people. Money that could be used to solve real problems that get postponed due to lack of funding. How’s that for twisted logic?

It is understood POLS regularly tout their ability to direct federal taxpayer dollars to their respective states. You can visit many websites of Congressional members of either party listing all the, let’s face it, PORK, they provide their constituents. But isn’t it really a select number of constituents? Isn’t this simply more election campaigning and vote buying sponsored by the American taxpayer?

This sort of thing needs to stop. It may explain in part the popularity of what some call the Tea Party Nation. The GOP and even the Democratic party should adopt measures like the one Senator DeMint introduced mentioned earlier. It is just common sense. And it would go along way to convince the public that politicians are actually serious about controlled spending, deficit reduction and retiring the national debt.

And it could all be done without the political risk of attacking the real problem. Entitlements like the latest healthcare legislation or the majority of the annual budget that is, go figure, entitlements.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Less than two weeks ago the news was dominated with stories surrounding the contentious health reform debate. Opposition to President Obama’s obsession with his top agenda item in Congress mirrored that of the voting public.

The U.S. Congress appears headed for a final battle over health-care reform legislation in the next several days, and the political stakes for President Barack Obama, his Democratic allies and opposition Republicans are enormous.

Health-care reform has been President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority, and the president is making an energetic final push for support, including a recent visit to Ohio.

‘An energetic final push for support’ keeping President Obama in campaign mode since taking office was necessary as most Americans oppose the plan.

Public support for the Democratic health-care plan has eroded during the past several months, and Mr. Obama must now rely on Democrats alone to get the legislation through Congress.

There never was strong support for Obamacare as demonstrated by public opinion polls and the need for Democratic party leadership to strong arm their membership, buy votes with special deals at taxpayer expense as well as abusing their majority status in Congress to force a simple majority vote on the measure that would otherwise require 60 votes in the Senate.

Democrats including President Obama could not muster 60 votes of support in the Senate nor more than 40 percent in public opinion polls. Even without the ever-present political considerations politicians evaluate common sense opposition from the voting public demonstrates healthcare legislation forced through Congress by the Democrats is seriously flawed. And that Democrats have nothing but contempt for those who oppose their questionable agenda. That includes about sixty percent of the American public.

Health Care Bill Still Under 40% Approval

The polls above are from last week. You can click on the link to read more.

Perhaps the sixty percent opposed can send the Democrats home in November 2010 and retire the one in the White House in 2012.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A column by Dana Milbank at WaPo may be representative of the liberal view on healthcare reform and the associated politics in Washington DC. And right out of the gate Milbank is wrong. In the first paragraph he tries to be cute and references a Kenny Rogers song suggesting the GOP should ‘know when to fold’em’. And two more errors are offered in the next paragraph. One, that healthcare reform is a done deal. And two, bad behavior and death threats ‘no doubt’ were caused by actions of Republicans.

On the topic of folding Milbank should be more concerned about the financial strain another huge entitlement will place on our nation. He should also point out that politics, majority party politics is responsible for the selfish choice to place a favorite liberal agenda item, healthcare ‘reform’, ahead of attending to jobs and the economy.

Perhaps Milbank’s real meaning for his ‘folding’ advice was requesting that the loyal opposition simply roll over and play dead. There are those of us who would prefer they did not. Bad enough that GOP errors caused them to lose the majority in 2006 that led to the leadership mess we’re in now. But the best way to fix that is learn from your mistakes, retake the majority and correct what damage the liberals cause.

To suggest that healthcare reform is a done deal is for Milbank to concede his lack of understanding. Beyond the fact that 37 states have initiated legal moves to opt out of Obamacare and talk about repealing the new legislation there is an underlying problem Milbank ignores.

There are no done deals in politics. Obamacare is no exception. Most new legislation alters older legislation and the party battles, wins and losses, perpetuate the process. And if Milbank thinks other liberals are content to stop meddling in healthcare after the bill is signed by the President, he knows nothing.

‘No doubt’ Milbank would prefer you had ‘no doubt’ about who or what is behind threatening behavior directed at politicians. But it is prudent and sensible to withhold judgment until there is something other than guesswork or personal opinions available like evidence. Or we can fan the flames like Milbank and point fingers and hurl accusations. Or just hurl.

For Milbank to jest about viagra for pedophiles misses the point which is government failures in managing programs produce outrageous outcomes. Milbank mentioning Lindsey Graham or John McCain as sensible voices in the GOP confirms they’re RINOs. Thanks for making one point conservatives can agree upon.

There is much about Milbank’s column that is foolish. Not the least of which is getting it wrong on why the GOP won’t fold’em.

The GOP used the majority party’s choice of reconciliation to send Obamacare back to the House allowing liberals one more chance to do what’s right and kill the bill. They also used amendments they knew would be rejected as nearly all have been to date in order to provide a record of many items that are in Obamacare and wrong. And to have those who support Obamacare go on record as promoting and accepting bad legislation.

There may be those who believe the GOP needs to use the record of these proceedings to challenge Democrats in November. It may be necessary to inform those not paying attention. I for one do not require it for opposing those who supported Obamacare. And Milbank does not need it to vote for liberals. No doubt.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

In Hypothetical 2012 Matchup, Obama in Statistical Dead Heat Against 2 Republicans: Nobody and Anybody

It would be entertaining if it wasn’t so serious. First of all, make no mistake, there is rhetoric everywhere. Political rhetoric is a familiar tool. Everyone uses it. And those opposed to any such rhetoric typically submit a rebuttal. The following is an example.

This blog offers a rebuttal to those who characterize any criticism of Obamacare as somehow sponsored by the GOP or otherwise supported or connected to the Republican party.

The Democratic party has been in the majority throughout the so-called health reform debate that has now lasted, in its current form, for more than a year. The Democrats raised the issue. President Obama has placed it as his top priority. The entire issue was brought forward by the Democratic party. And few would argue against the fact it has been a liberal cause for decades. No need to repeat a description of the Ted Kennedy saga or the fallacy that current health reform proposals are in any way relevant to frequent references about Theodore Roosevelt’s efforts on behalf of public health issues.

Democrats currently own this issue and any results that occur because of it. The GOP has been effectively shut out of the process as shown by the massive number of amendments they offered compared to the few that have not been rejected by the majority. Even some Democrats opposed to this reform have had their ‘yes’ votes paid for by special deals. And there is not one poll available during the entire debate to indicate adequate public support for the Democratic party’s health reform legislation.

Connecting opposition to current healthcare reform exclusively as a function of the GOP is absurd. While the GOP opposition certainly has a political component the same cannot be said for the majority of Americans opposed to the Democratic party’s healthcare reform legislation.

Just because a majority of Americans oppose the Democratic party’s healthcare reform legislation does not make them Republicans. And the fact that this blog is presenting content in this post from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is not an endorsement of the GOP. But it does demonstrate something about the loyal opposition to Obamacare. Most Americans oppose Obamacare and that includes the GOP and this blog. Although it is fair to say each opponent may have their own reasons for opposing Obamacare.

The point is Obamacare is opposed by most Americans. And the Democratic party majority is forcing it upon citizens anyway. That’s the issue.

Here’s the Mitch McConnell content……

and the text version……

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday regarding the health care bill:

“The administration and some in Congress would like to think this debate is over.

“They want the American people to sit down and quiet down.

“That’s been their approach to health care for an entire year.

“Well, Republicans think Congress serves the people, not the other way around.

“So we’ve fought on behalf of the American people this week — and we’ll continue to fight until this bill is repealed and replaced with common-sense ideas that solve our problems without dismantling the health care system we have and without burying the American Dream under a mountain of debt.

“That’s what we’ve been doing all week here in the Senate.

“While Democrat lawmakers and staffers threw a party for themselves at the White House yesterday, Republicans were here at the Capitol fighting a 150-page postscript that Democrats added on at the last minute to the health care bill.

“This add-on bill took a terrible health spending bill and made it even worse.

“If you thought the tax hikes in the original bill were bad, this bill raised them even higher. If you thought the Medicare cuts were bad, this bill made them deeper. If you thought the first bill cost too much, this bill made it even more expensive.

“If you didn’t like the special deals in the first bill, they slipped more into this one.

“The whole thing was one last slap in the face of Americans across the country who’ve been howling at Democrats for the past year to stop this bill and to work instead across party lines on reforms that would actually drive costs down.

“So today, Republicans will give Democrats one last chance to reject the horrible impact the underlying bill and this last-minute add-on will have on our country.

“Unfortunately, we already know that they plan to turn the other way.

“We’ll offer an amendment to direct the Medicare cuts in this bill back into Medicare, to preserve and strengthen it for future generations. They’ll reject it.

“We’ll offer an amendment to strike all the new sweetheart deals in this bill. They’ll reject it.

“We’ll offer an amendment that would have obliged the President to keep his pledge that families earning under $250,000 won’t see any tax hikes as a result of this bill. They plan to reject it.

“We’ll offer an amendment requiring HHS to certify that this bill doesn’t increase premiums. They’ll reject it.

“We’ll offer an amendment to strike a job-killing mandate on businesses. They’ll reject it.

“So while the White House is trying to sell this health spending bill to a skeptical public — Senate Democrats today will speak loudly and clearly about the things in this bill the White House doesn’t want people to know — and vote to endorse them:

* Massive cuts to Medicare for seniors
* Job killing mandates and small business tax hikes
* Higher insurance premiums
* Sweetheart deals
* Tax hikes on middle class families

“This is the real story of health care reform.

“Americans may not be hearing about it from the White House, but I assure you they’ll be feeling the pain. Americans know this, and they want to know that someone’s fighting for them in Washington, to make their voices heard.

“That’s what Republicans have been doing on this issue for the past year. That’s what we’ve been doing this week. That’s what we’re doing tonight.

“And that’s what we’ll keep doing until those voices are heard.

“We’re not giving up.”
###

‘…the Hudson Institute scholar argues that the principle cause of continued violence in the Middle East — and the reason so many peace initiatives have failed — is Arab culture itself.’

There’s a quote to attract your attention. It’s a safe bet Lee Smith, author of ‘Strong Horse: Power, Politics and the Clash of Arab Civilizations’ will not be offered a job in the Obama State Department.

The report offered below was a timely find for presentation with the last post featuring another slur of Israel from the United Nations Secretary General. The view from this blog has typically been the reason for elusive Middle East peace is that no one really wants it. It is as if world powers need conflict among less powerful nations to accommodate their perverse competition. A handy excuse to distance themselves from direct confrontation with each other.

Be that as it may the book by Smith provides a tempting addition to anyone’s reading list. It is refreshing to see a story not blaming Israel or the US for Middle East problems. A few more authors from the Middle East couldn’t hurt. But then speaking out in other parts of the world is much more dangerous than it is here. (the US) At least one American tradition (and contitutional concept) seems to remain intact.

So repeat after me, it’s all the Arabs’ fault.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA….

Lee Smith says it has always been hard for Americans to understand exactly why peace in the Middle East is so elusive, and why violence and terrorism are so pervasive and persistent in the Arab world.

He says those questions became even more difficult to answer after the 9/11 attacks by a group of Sunni Arab terrorists that killed 3,000 people on American soil, and after the massive U.S. military deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Smith says American academicians and journalists often cite a list of root causes for Middle East turmoil, in which the U.S., the West and Israel usually play a big part: a history of colonialism and economic exploitation, the creation of Israel and American support for the Jewish state, the politics of oil, Western backing of repressive Arab regimes and the U.S. military presence in the region.

‘Culture of Violence’

Smith concedes these are factors in Arab perceptions of the West. But in his new book, “The Strong Horse: Power, Politics and the Clash of Arab Civilizations,” the Hudson Institute scholar argues that the principle cause of continued violence in the Middle East — and the reason so many peace initiatives have failed — is Arab culture itself.

It is a political culture, Smith argues, in which violence has always played a central role. “Of course, it was not America’s hand that blew up mosques in Iraq. It was not the Bush administration that conducted a campaign of terror in Beirut, assassinating Lebanese politicians, journalists and civil society activists,” says Smith. “And the U.S. State Department sentenced no opposition figures, intellectuals, journalists or bloggers to prisons in Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere around the Middle East, where they were subject to torture, rape and murder. It was Arabs who did this to other Arabs.”

Smith believes that is the main lesson American policymakers should learn: that Arabs today are divided against themselves.

“A clash of Arab civilizations; clashes between Arab regimes and their own people, the regimes and their domestic rivals and insurgencies, clashes between Arab regimes themselves,” says Smith. Perhaps most importantly, there is the clash between world views, where on the one hand, there is the democratic and progressive trend embodied in the venerable and still extant tradition of Arab liberalism, and on the other hand, the bloody and violent current represented by far too many of the region’s seminal figures.”

Strong Horse

Smith is an Arabic speaker who moved to Cairo after 9/11 determined to find out what motivated the al-Qaeda attackers. He has spent the past nine years crisscrossing the Middle East in search of the answer. Smith took the title of his book, “The Strong Horse,” from a quote by Osama bin Laden, who said, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.”

Smith believes Arabs are trying to stabilize and strengthen their societies after centuries of Ottoman control, Western colonization and decades of conflict while also looking for that strong horse to lead them out of their troubled past. Faltering Arab states like Yemen, which faces new threats from young, radicalized Muslim insurgents, also need help maintaining the rule of law and exploring democratic pathways to political reform. Smith argues that the United States can and should continue to play that role.

“There is no evidence that the U.S. is any less strong than it has always been. So I think it becomes clear that even if we want to reduce our regional profile, an issue like the Yemen issue makes it clear that this is not possible,” says Smith. “I think the U.S. can certainly be of assistance. I think that one of the things that a ’strong horse’ does is not just punish his enemies but he rewards and protects his friends.”

Struggle for supremacy

Smith sees a clear distinction between the two world views vying for regional supremacy in the Middle East. On the one hand, there is Iran and its allies in the so-called “resistance” block, including Syria, the Palestinian group Hamas and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. And on the other hand, there is the United States and the American-backed Arab regimes, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.

Smith says the U.S. and its allies cannot afford to lose to the other camp. “It would be very bad for the U.S. and even worse for our allies in the region, because that would affect the political culture of the region to show that resistance ideology has scored a victory and that moderation and compromise are not as successful as resistance ideology,” says Smith. “So it would be a very bad thing for U.S. interests and U.S. allies in the region.”

Smith believes a victory for what he calls “the culture of resistance” would enshrine violence and vengeance as the manner in which all grievances, real and imagined, are routinely addressed.

U.S. role

The author acknowledges that after nine years of large-scale U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, and with the nation’s economic difficulties bearing down on them, many Americans feel the temptation to pull the U.S. strong horse out of the region.

But Lee Smith’s new book concludes that diminishing the American presence in the Middle East at this moment could create dangerous new instabilities that could worsen, not improve, the prospects for peace in the region.

Smith believes that would be especially true in the Arab Gulf states, where the U.S. for decades has ensured the security of the world’s largest oil reserves.

“The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations,” by Lee Smith, is published by Knopf Doubleday.

What a surprise this is. Imagine that. The UN Secretary General is condemning Israel. Can anyone point to a UN condemnation of the Palestinians or Hamas or Hezbollah or al-Qaeda etc., etc.?

It is amazing that such a tiny place, Israel, surrounded by a massive geography of unfriendly neighbors is so often characterized as the sole problem for unrest in the Middle East.

Maybe the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, could try something new. How about pointing to the activities of others involved with unrest in the Middle East rather than simply single out Israel?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA….

As a result of the blockade, residents have been unable to rebuild thousands of homes destroyed by Israel during three-week Israeli war on Gaza in 2008 and 2009.

Luis Ramirez

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has made a visit to the Gaza Strip and repeated his condemnation of the blockade. Meanwhile, international efforts to get Israelis and Palestinians back to negotiations are stepping up.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon came the region to press Israelis and Palestinians to return to negotiations. On Sunday, while visiting the Gaza Strip, he condemned Israel for the blockade it and Egypt have on the enclave.

“I have repeatedly made it quite clear to Israel’s leaders that the Israeli policy of closure is not sustainable and that it is wrong,” Mr. Ban said. “It poses unacceptable suffering of human beings. This policy is also counterproductive. It undercuts moderates and empowers extremists.”

Israel has imposed a blockade since the 2007 violent takeover of the Strip by the militant group Hamas. Israeli officials say their restrictions on cement and other construction materials are meant to prevent Hamas from building bunkers to attack Israel.

As a result of the blockade, residents have been unable to rebuild the thousands of homes that were destroyed during Israel’s war on militants in 2008 and 2009.

While in the region, Ban has criticized Israel’s construction of settlements on lands it occupies in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

On Sunday, he appealed for Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a prisoner exchange that would result the in the release of Palestinian prisoners and the liberation by Hamas of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

Speaking at a Cabinet meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his government will not restrict building in East Jerusalem. The move puts Mr. Netanyahu further at odds with the United States, just before he is due to leave for a visit to Washington this week.

The prime minister said that from Israel’s point of view, building in Jerusalem is like building in Tel Aviv. He said he has made this clear to the U.S. administration. Mr. Netanyahu said that in upcoming indirect talks with the Palestinians, each side can present its position. He said he will make Israel’s position clear during his visit to the American capital.

Israel has not complied with U.S. calls for it to cancel the approval of 1,600 new housing units in a Jewish settlement of East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians claim as the capital of their future state.

The Palestinians have said they will not return to talks until Israel stops all settlement activity.

Special U.S. envoy George Mitchell is returning the region to push along efforts for both sides to start indirect negotiations.

Let’s not get all excited about current news reports featuring ACORN. The organization now famous for registering cartoon characters and dead people to vote is bleeding profusely but not entirely dead yet. And with a community organizer-in-chief occupying the White House ACORN’S chances for revival are better than they should be.

Most of the 20 chapters of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, which endorsed President Barack Obama during his 2008 campaign, have disbanded on their own and reorganized under new names, a source within the group said.

Funding dried up after a widely disseminated YouTube video last September that showed ACORN workers giving advice on how to flout the law to two conservative activists who posed as a pimp and a prostitute. A separate embezzlement scandal also damaged the group’s credibility.

Someone like George Soros or any number of other liberal sugar daddies could come to ACORN’s rescue, new names or not. It is to the benefit of all who support honest participation in public affairs and respect for the rule of law to be vigilant against the return of these ‘community organizers.’ Which is nothing more than code for a special interest scam willing to use any means to perpetrate their fraud.

Focus should not only be placed on ACORN. All one needs to do to find other sources like ACORN can be accomplished by reviewing non-profits, ‘volunteer’ or ‘charitable’ groups in their own locations. College and university campuses are a typical site for these groups. Even local chamber of commerce chapters have produced programs of a questionable nature.

Obviously not all groups described above are dishonest. But hiding among them as well as some in plain sight are groups with similar objectives to ACORN. And the methods to achieve those objectives are as suspect.

Don’t believe this? Look around.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Emotional appeals designed to pull at the heartstrings were an effective weapon unleashed on the uninformed for those supporting the latest fiasco in the US Congress. Americans have always been a generous group. But too often that generosity is abused by those with special interests having nothing to do with being kind to others.

The report below is a case in point. The first paragraph indicates it was published before roll call vote 165 on Sunday night last on the House ‘vehicle’ for the bill named the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. And there is much in this report pointing to the decision process of many Americans.

In this instant society of fast food, mobile everything and the ‘on demand’ appetite developing unreasonable expectations comes with the skewed perception of reality that results from these behavior patterns. Not so different from the average spoiled child.

A basic concept in marketing defines salesmanship as satisfying needs and wants. Everyone should understand the difference between something you need and something you want. But more and more these days the two become confused. It is now common for people to believe something they need or want is a right and they are entitled to it. And to them it does not matter if someone else must be the responsible party in providing it. In other words, I need it therefore I want it and you must give it to me.

With the story below, where to begin? Why is Michele without health insurance? The author suggests 20 somethings are the largest uninsured group. She further suggests about half work only part-time. And their uninsured numbers are nearly twice that of older adults.

This will sound cruel. Michele claims she has a heart condition and it keeps her from working full-time. We are not told why she is a single mother but obviously having a heart condition did not interfere with getting pregnant. It may sound cruel but being sheptical is part of not being conned.

Much of this is about choices. And it certainly is about rights and responsibilities. How many people CHOOSE not to have health insurance? How many of those described in the VOA report made choices which limited their options for their future? It is reasonable to suggest there are those who are in predicaments not of their own choosing. But it is just as reasonable to suggest the vast majority of people in predicaments are there through no one’s fault but their own.

And a swell of sympathy for those with limited options (through no one’s fault but their own) has once again been used to force legislation on the rest of us. Liberals were more than willing to use these emotional appeals in an attempt to further their flawed agenda and avoid political backlash this fall at the ballot box. To the GOP’s credit a practical and common sense set of objections were used to oppose dangerous legislation. However, to be fair, their motives may not have been entirely altruistic.

The point is, whether for the right reason or not, the GOP was on the correct side of this political battle. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a misnomer in more than title. If you do not understand or believe by now this measure can break the financial back of our nation you are not paying attention.

The instant society, a loss of values from our nation’s past and a failure to be the best we can be have all conspired to bring us to this point. If this trend is allowed to continue the future looks very dim indeed.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Democrats in the US Congress are racing to pass health care reform legislation. Currently, people in their 20s are the largest group in the United States without health insurance. With skyrocketing health care costs, those with low incomes often cannot afford insurance. Under the legislation, some 30 million uninsured will be able to buy insurance, and some will get government subsidies for it. And that could make health care more affordable.Michele Gomez is a 23-year-old single mother with no health insurance. She has a cold and came for medication to the Free Clinic in Arlington, Virginia outside Washington. Gomez also is having a blood test because she has a heart condition.

She says because of it, she can only work part-time and she doesn’t make enough money to pay for health insurance.

“I need medicine, and sometimes I get heart pains and I have to think about it twice before I go to the hospital because I don’t have insurance,” said Michele Gomez. “I normally get a big bill and I don’t have a way to pay for it.”

Nearly half of young adults work part-time and so they are less likely to be offered health insurance at their jobs.

The U.S. government estimates that 30 percent of young adults are without health coverage, compared with 17 percent of older adults.

Gomez says she is in favor of health insurance reform. But she says if she is required to pay for even a small part of her insurance, she can’t do it.

“I think they should have done this a long time ago,” she said. “It’s ridiculous how you can’t get insurance, especially if you are a U.S. citizen. I think that should be one of the major priorities is to get insurance for people, especially if they have a low income.”

Health officials say it’s important to insure young adults even if they have few health problems. Nancy Pallesen, head of the Arlington Free Clinic, says their issues can become chronic.

“It’s very important for these people to have health care, regular health care, and to have preventative kinds of health care because in the future this will save them a lot of anguish,” said Nancy Pallesen.

Currently, most insurance plans allow parents to claim their children as dependents until they are 22-years-old. Under the new legislation, young adults will be able to remain on their families’ policies until the age of 26.

Ronald Perry works in a grocery store and says health insurance is too expensive for him. He thinks it should be optional.

“Everybody can make their own decisions and if you choose to have health care you shouldn’t be forced to do it at 26 or 30,” said Ronald Perry. “If you want it at 45 or 50 you should be able to get it then.”

Young adults are more likely to work in small businesses that don’t offer health care plans.

Isidro Duran is one of them. He came to the U.S. from Honduras 10 years ago and works in a small restaurant in Washington. He says he would like affordable health insurance.

“I am nervous and I am very concerned about it because you never know when you will need it,” said Isidro Duran.

Kimlinn Pham, from Vietnam, is a manicurist in a hair salon in Virginia. She hopes health care reform will allow her to buy reasonably priced health insurance. Pham says even when she’s sick she avoids going to the doctor.

“The doctor and hospital are so expensive,” said Kimlinn Pham. “I know that they treat you very well. But later on when you get the bill, you are the one to suffer from the bill. The doctor won’t suffer from that.”

Even with new legislation, the changes in health insurance won’t begin for several years. By that time, some people in their 20s could already be burdened with medical debt and chronic illness.

Given the roll call vote (number 165) for March 21, 2010 with a time stamp of 10:49PM in the US House of Representatives the fat lady may not have sung yet on the outcome of healthcare legislation but the situation looks rather dismal.

What it looks like from here is Obama will sign his Obamacare and the Senate has an opportunity to make fixes or changes. It also looks like Mr Stupak may have been duped. Accepting less than a million dollars in airport funding for his vote in exchange for an executive order from President Obama to protect Stupak’s claimed pro-life interests may be another healthcare scam.

While preparing to publish this post an unproductive search was conducted to determine who the other Congressman were in Mr Stupak’s little alliance. It is almost as if the others have effectively cloaked their names from the media. About all that was found so far was six more names to go with Mr Stupak at Wikipedia. A check of the roll call indicates they all did not vote one way.

But they are not the only ones who may deserve to be politically impaled for this travesty. You can start with the Republicans. Had they not squandered their last Congressional majority with a major fall from grace on conservative principles we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

Add to that the equally disgusting performance of the liberal agenda gone wild and a recurring theme in American politics emerges once again. Politicians are the largest impediment in politics and governing. They are the root of all evil in public affairs. They are what allows lobbyists to exist. For without the pursuit of power, election and re-election by politicians, lobbyists would have no reason to exist.

It’s the ageless battle between greed and corruption versus principle and virtue. So now the next chapter begins. What to do after the mindless tragedy that took place in Congress this past Sunday?

37 states will pursue opting out of Obamacare. Various entities will pursue legal action against Obamacare. And many politicians may have just signed their resignation papers with a vote for Obamacare. And some argue those who voted against it will experience the same fate.

Let the purging begin.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

President Obama’s agenda is nothing if not ambitious. After all, taking over everything is no small task. Review any tyrannical leader’s attempts throughout history and that fact will become clear.

If he really wants to decentralize education in the US he should eliminate the Department of Education. And if major opposition to No Child Left Behind (besides funding issues) was the reluctance to have performance measured to standards, how would Barry from DC ‘ensure all students graduate high school ready for college and a career’? Exactly!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA News….

U.S. President Barack Obama says he is bringing Congress an ambitious overhaul of the country’s education system.

In his weekly internet and radio address Saturday, Mr. Obama says his plan will help ensure all students graduate high school ready for “college and a career.”

The plan will be a major overhaul to the education plan of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Mr. Bush’s program, called No Child Left Behind, has been controversial because it relies heavily on standardized testing and penalizes schools that do not meet national standards.

Mr. Obama says his plan will decentralize education reform. He said the federal government will set a “high bar,” but that local schools and districts will have “flexibility” in how they reach it.

Foreign policy has not exactly been the Obama administration’s strong suit. But then what has? President Obama has delayed his international travel until Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer and the rest of his crew can ignore the public and worse, the US Constitution as they remain fixated on their government in everything agenda. Or is that government IS everything agenda?

So, Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, that’s Barry from DC (his words) and H Rod (my words) are embarking on a world rap tour. Obama will visit Indonesia which is probably more of a family reunion than a foreign affairs junket. And H Rod will try to match wits with the Red Bear. Do you suppose she’ll try to find another Russian word to use like the last fiasco?

This may equal the concern over so-called health insurance reform or whatever it is. What makes you more nervous? Obama and Clinton touring the globe representing you, sort of, or committing crimes to takeover your healthcare? Right! It’s about a horse, or a deadfish a piece. Elections for 2010 and 2012 can’t come fast enough.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from David Gollust….

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is en route to Moscow for a key international meeting on the Middle East peace process. She also meets with Russian leaders on efforts to conclude a new big-power nuclear arms reduction accord.

Clinton will meet with colleagues in the international quartet on the Middle East with peace efforts suddenly complicated by a U.S.-Israeli dispute over East Jerusalem home-building and a surge of Israeli-Palestinian unrest.

Secretary Clinton says the Obama administration was dismayed and disappointed by an Israeli announcement last week, coinciding with an Israel visit by Vice President Joe Biden, that it will build 1,600 new Jewish housing units in mainly-Arab East Jerusalem.

She scolded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an angry telephone conversation last Friday that triggered reports of a crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations.

Officials here say an anticipated follow-up call to Clinton and conciliatory steps by Mr. Netanyahu have not occurred.

But the Israeli leader Wednesday praised President Obama’s commitment to Israel’s security and a senior U.S. official expressed hope the issue will die down somewhat in the coming days.

Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Philip Gordon, who is accompanying Clinton to Moscow, told a Washington seminar on U.S.-Turkish relations the U.S. criticism of Israel’s Jerusalem action was an example of friends who are able to speak to each other frankly.

“We have an important partnership with Israel, and a close relationship with Israel. It goes on. It’s important to us,” said Gordon. “It’s important to them. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t disagree with them when we have a frank difference. And we’ve been very clear that on this particular issue, we have a frank difference,” he said.

The quartet - consisting of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations - condemned the Israeli housing move last week and said the world community won’t recognize unilateral steps by either side that could prejudice peace talks.

U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell put off a trip to the region this week aimed at starting indirect Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. But U.S. officials say he is likely to make the trip after attending the Moscow quartet meeting.

They say the United States would like to see statements from both the Israelis and Palestinians recommitting themselves to the peace process after events of the past week that, they say, included incitement by Palestinian officials over Israel’s dedication of a rebuilt synagogue in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem’s old city.

In addition to quartet meetings, Clinton will hold talks with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on bilateral issues, including negotiations on a new U.S.-Russia strategic arms reduction, or START, accord.

U.S. officials had originally expressed hope that a new START agreement could be ready by the time the previous one expired in December, but talks in Geneva have dragged on inconclusively.

Acting State Department Spokesman Mark Toner Wednesday declined to cast blame for the delay.

“Both sides have repeatedly stressed their commitment to reaching an agreement. Are there hard issues to tackle? Sure. But they remain hard at work and they’re getting closer. But I can’t predict when. The goal here is to get the best agreement we can get,” said Toner.

Clinton and Lavrov are also expected to review efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear program, with officials here saying Moscow supports the imposition of new U.N. Security Council sanctions against Tehran. Among veto-wielding permanent council members, only China is seen as a potential hold-out.