Blog @ MoreWhat.com

When the last vestige of the Kennedy political machine lost the liberal lion, Ted Kennedy’s US Senate seat was transferred to rookie politician Scott Brown. Brown’s performance as the junior senator from Taxachusetts may be the only transparency in Washington, DC.

A laughable commentary at Salon might serve as the liberal take on the subject given Brown’s negotiation with the majority party, his campaign finance sources and the status of financial legislation pending in Congress.

Let the mockery begin. Mere moments ago, I was urging Democrats to go on the attack, and make it clear that Republicans simply aren’t serious about governing. But as it stands now, the Dems are folding without a fight. The Republicans might not be serious, but the Democrats are simply incapable.

That excerpt is from a diatribe on so-called Wall Street reform and the author’s frustration about Scott Brown impeding the liberal agenda.

The take from WaPo features some quotes from the junior Senator.

Brown said in a statement Monday that he was “surprised and extremely disappointed” by the proposed assessment. “While I’m still reviewing the bill’s details, these provisions were not in the Senate version of the bill which I previously supported,” he said. “My fear is that these costs would be passed onto consumers in the form of higher bank, ATM and credit card fees and put a strain on lending at the worst possible time for our economy. I’ve said repeatedly that I cannot support any bill that raises taxes.”

Too often POLS of one stripe who successfully seek office in an area dominated by the other stripe become double agents and in the case of Republicans, RINOs. Part of a report from Forbes on this topic makes the point.

Some of the biggest contributors to his campaign committee include political action committees and employees associated with FMR (think Fidelity Investments), Bain Capital, Credit Suisse Group and Barclay’s, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Whether it’s regarding constituents or campaign contributors, Brown has quickly learned in Washington that it’s not smart to bite that hand that feeds you.

As with health care reform, don’t expect the Massachusetts Republican to derail financial regulatory reform. But he’s certainly making life difficult for Democrats.

The writer from Salon must not have considered the oldest ploy in politics. Your contributors are your masters. Brown has no interest in being conservative. He is acting on behalf of Massachusetts’ employers and his largest campaign donors. As Forbes suggests, he will not torpedo liberal Wall Street legislation. He will just play conservative long enough to get what he wants…. re-elected.

If there are any conservatives in Massachusetts they need to find a replacement for Scott Brown next time around.

As for the other members of the Senate who voted against others in their respective political party the five have their stated reasons.

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) voted against the Senate version of a financial regulatory reform bill, saying it did not close potentially dangerous loopholes in the derivatives regulations.

Leave it to Russ Feingold to tie his vote to a plausible explanation that would play well to voters whether liberal or conservative. That may explain why he has been re-elected. Casual voters do not detect the ruse. And of course, liberals only vote for liberals. The following is Senator Feingold’s stated reason for voting against the bill.

“The bill does not eliminate the risk to our economy posed by ‘too big to fail’ financial firms, nor does it restore the proven safeguards established after the Great Depression, which separated Main Street banks from big Wall Street firms and are essential to preventing another economic meltdown. The recent financial crisis triggered the nation’s worst recession since the Great Depression. The bill should have included reforms to prevent another such crisis. Regrettably, it did not.”

Brown voted for the bill because Dems said they would give him what he wanted.

Grassley voted for the bill because his amendments were passed.

Collins voted for the bill because her amendments were passed.

Snowe voted for the bill because her amendments were passed.

Feingold and Grassley face re-election this year. Brown, Cantwell and Snowe face re-election in 2012 and Collins in 2014. It is easy to believe Feingold opposed the bill to please conservative voters in the liberal-leaning state of Wisconsin while Grassley supported it to please the liberals in Iowa. Brown supports it with conditions his state gets perks in the bill. Collins and Snowe are well-known RINOs and their support for the bill was expected as well as for the rest of the liberal agenda. Cantwell is a liberal in a liberal state. Who knows if her stated reason is genuine?

If you follow the link below and click on the bill number there are reports available including the minority view (GOP) on the legislation considered. These are statements offering compelling arguments in opposition to the proposed legislation. Something many people probably do not read (but should).

Roll Call Vote for H.R. 4173 (Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 )

This blog has frequently published items that include the sentiment of ‘throwing the bums out’. Some of what is discussed in this post gives rise to that rallying cry again. The legislative process serves the legislators and not the voting public. Bills that produce thousands of pages and much lawyer speak as well as the hideous phrase ‘and for other purposes’ suggest most legislation is bad. And it is.

The public needs to push elected officials to change the process. All bills should be limited in scope and effect. This would reduce the time necessary to determine whether or not a bill has merit and eliminate much of the charade that allows politicians to game the system. And the public would not be burdened by results of poor legislation that only serves the POLS and those whose financial support aids in their re-election. That merely allows this flawed arrangement to continue indefinitely.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Elena Kagan is probably not a good nominee for SCOTUS. If conflicting statements or a troubling contrast between statements now and then surface as they have this time around and in the case of Obama’s last nominee, Sotomayor, conventional wisdom would dictate rejecting a nominee. Of course, that would be at odds with the judgment of a ‘wise Latina’. It is assumed Kagan would concur.

You can stop by the news portion of this site to read some views of those opposed to the Kagan nomination.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Here’s a report from VOA…

Confirmation Hearings Begin for Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee
Jim Malone

Confirmation hearings began Monday for Elena Kagan, President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States. Political and legal experts expect Kagan to be confirmed for the high court. But before that can happen, she will have to endure a week of tough questioning by Senate Republicans.

Monday will likely turn out to be the easiest day for Elena Kagan at her confirmation hearings this week.

After listening to lengthy opening statements from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kagan gave her own opening statement and noted the words that are carved in stone above the entrance to the Supreme Court building - “Equal Justice Under Law.”

“What this commands of judges is evenhandedness and impartiality. What it promises is nothing less than a fair shake for every American,” she said.

Kagan also promised to uphold the rule of law if confirmed as a justice and she said the high court has the responsibility to ensure that government does not overstep its proper bounds. Kagan said she would approach each case that comes before the court with an open mind.

“I will work hard and I will do my best to consider every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle and in accordance with the law,” she said.

Even though Kagan’s confirmation is expected, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have vowed to question her closely on her legal and political views, and on her lack of experience as a judge.

“Ms. Kagan has less real legal experience of any nominee in at least 50 years. And it is not just that the nominee has not been a judge. She has barely practiced law and not with the intensity and duration from which I think real legal understanding occurs,” said Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

Several Republicans warned Kagan that they will be looking for signs that she is what they describe as an activist judge - someone who will bring her own presumed liberal views to the bench.

This caution came from Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

“So I look forward to trying to better understand how you will be able to take political activism, association with liberal causes and park it [i.e., set it aside] when it becomes time to be a judge. That, to me, is your challenge,” said Graham.

Democrats have a different view of what constitutes judicial activism on the Supreme Court. New York Democrat Charles Schumer says he believes that the current court leans heavily to the right. He says he is hopeful that Kagan will act as a counterweight and swing the nine-member court toward the center of the political spectrum.

“The rightward shift of the court under Chief Justice [John] Roberts is palpable,” he said. “In decision after decision, special interests are winning out over ordinary citizens. In decision after decision, this court bends the law to suit an ideology. Judicial activism now has a new guise - judicial activism to pull the country to the right.”

Public opinion surveys show that Americans know less about the Supreme Court than the other two branches of government - the presidency and Congress. Supreme Court nominations offer the public a rare opportunity to shed light on the court and on the person who has been nominated to a lifetime appointment.

“Appointments to the Supreme Court are the most important appointments a president can make because, unlike members of the administration, members of the executive, even members of the independent boards, a judge has life tenure and can only be removed for misbehavior,” explains Melvin Urofsky, an expert on Supreme Court history at Virginia Commonwealth University.

Kagan would replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, who has been a leading liberal on the high court since his appointment in 1975. Legal experts do not expect Kagan’s appointment to alter the current ideological makeup of the court, which is split among four conservatives, four liberals and one swing justice, Justice Anthony Kennedy.

If confirmed, Kagan would be the third woman on the current court and only the fourth to serve in Supreme Court history.

After the hearings, Kagan’s nomination will be voted on by the Judiciary Committee and then by the full Senate. Supporters hope she will be confirmed in time for the beginning of the next Supreme Court term in October.

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the finance committee and key player in passing Obamacare posted an item in Roll Call defending his work. The November 2010 elections are approaching and apparently Mr Baucus, like Mr Obama is focusing on damage control. If that were not the case and if Obamacare was inspired legislation that is good for the nation he would not have to defend it.  But defend it he does, again.

I have some questions for you Senator Baucus. But you probably will never read them on this tiny and obscure little blog in cyberspace.  And I do not have the time or patients to try to get your attention by other methods.  So let’s just give it a go and see how it works out.

The first question has essentially been asked at the top of this post.  If Obamacare, Demcare, HillaryCare, LiberalCare is so wonderful why do you need to defend it?  Good legislation that can stand on its own merits does not need to be defended.

Question two: Given the CBO estimates, your own actuary reports from HHS and numerous other sources, how can you claim Obamacare will ‘lower skyrocketing costs’ of healthcare? Just the half trillion dollars to be removed from Medicare plunges an iceberg into this titanic.

Question three: Given the power to be bestowed on bureaucrats to decide what constitutes insurance coverage, how doctors will be paid and what treatments are authorized how can you claim the quality of care will be improved?

Your anecdote on Billie Jo Meglen is heartwarming Mr Baucus.  But tell me; if the doughnut hole is $2000 and your fine legislation provided Billie Jo with a $250 ‘rebate’ check how does that really help? $250 is 12 1/2% of $2000.  Put another way, the $2000 she would pay without benefit of the $250 ‘rebate’ is 14.28% higher than with the $250 from the taxpayer. I can get a bigger discount by haggling with the pharmacy or the drug company.

And question four: I know, you said after that a 50% discount would be in place for drugs, etc.  Is that what the $80 billion payoff from Big Pharma was for or will the taxpayer be on the hook for the difference? Unless the drug companies keep handing you billions those discounts will be paid by taxpayers.

Mr Baucus, where is the offset to pay for the 35% discount to employers who provide health insurance?  And by the way, there’s a rumor out there that 60% or better of the current employer based plans will be disallowed once this thing gets going.  What say you, Senator?

And Senator, how is it you can magically make things disappear?  Like annual and lifetime claim limits and pre-existing conditions? If there is no limitation on claims a not-so-unlucky insurance carrier could easily go bust with too many high cost customers. How does Obamacare establish or maintain the basic idea of insurance for pooling risk?

And I really am unsure if I understand your terms when it comes to insurance company disclosure. If what you pay for claims are ‘costs’ how do you ask them to pay 80% of profits on those costs? Isn’t profit what you hopefully have left over after paying costs? BTW, just what is an ‘exorbitant salary’?  Who gets to make that determination?

Your claims and defense of Obamacare seems vague and ripe with generalities.  Like how ‘Americans and small businesses’ (interesting distinction) will receive billions in tax credits without, shall we say, breaking the bank?

‘The new law is fully paid for and won’t add a dime to the national debt.’ That’s a real difficult claim to believe Mr Baucus.  I didn’t believe it the first time I heard it.

Do you really expect American taxpayers to accept these claims? Especially given all the evidence to the contrary.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Feed and clothe the poor. Now there’s a noble endeavor. And let’s not forget to give welfare recipients an ATM card. It would be equally enlightening to allow them to use the ATM card at their favorite casino.

ATM cards given to welfare recipients in, go figure, California, are enabled to withdraw money at more than half the state’s casinos. Now ’state officials’ are trying to determine how much ‘taxpayer’ money has been withdrawn from casinos using California’s welfare debit cards.

“We have instructed our vendors to prohibit these cards from being accepted at ATMs located in casinos and card rooms,” Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said Wednesday. “It is reprehensible that anyone would use taxpayer money for anything other than its intended purpose.”

While term-limited Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger has done nothing to change California’s image as the poster child for nanny state failures the state’s prospect of having shamnesty advocate Meg Whitman or Moonbeam Jerry Brown as the next governor almost guarantees the continued path to disaster for one of this nation’s socialist strongholds.

And you have to love McLear’s statement. So, limiting the use of the cards was not on their mind after reaching the hair-brained idea to give welfare recipients an ATM card in the first place? That’s more ‘reprehensible’ than what he suggests in the second sentence. Like you do not have to assume some will ‘game’ the system when you create one.

Individual liberty, individual responsibility and conservative principles are lost on the land of fruits, nuts and flakes.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

‘and jihad is not terrorism’ is what one of the five said outside a Pakastani court ealier this year according to AP.

So the story goes, made contact with a group tied to al-Qaida in Novvember 2009. Traveled to Pakistan in December of 2009. Arrested in the home of the leader of the group they contacted also in December 2009. Defended by CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, who says the five made a ‘farewell video’ stating ‘Muslims must be defended.’

So they didn’t get life for terrorism in a Pakastani prison why? Back in December 2009, Pakistani police have said they plan to ask the court to press terrorism charges, carrying life sentences.

A Pakistani court on Thursday sentenced five American students accused of contacting militants in Pakistan over the Internet and plotting terrorist attacks to 10 years each in prison, the deputy prosecutor said.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Cuomo Accepts Millions From Interests He Assails (NYT)

But as he delivered his announcement, Mr. Cuomo was sitting on millions in campaign cash from the very special interests whose influence he said he wanted to limit.

from Wiki….

Cuomo was born in Queens, New York, the elder son of former New York Governor Mario Cuomo and the older brother of ABC News journalist Chris Cuomo. Andrew and his ex-wife, Kerry Kennedy, the seventh child of Robert F. Kennedy and Ethel Skakel Kennedy, have three daughters. The couple announced their separation in 2003 and have subsequently divorced.

According to the NYT’s fishwrap Cuomo ‘declined repeated requests to be interviewed for this article.’ Gee, why wouldn’t you want to answer the NYT?  Maybe it is because a Cuomo spokesman claims Andrew Cuomo ‘had consistently demonstrated his independence from special interests and others who contribute to his campaign.’

Is there really a need to say this is what is wrong with American politics?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

More heartwarming enlightenment from the NYT fishwrap about global warming scam artist Al Gore hits your news stand. Okay, the byline is from AP.

Gore Was Accused of Sexual Advances

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A massage therapist accused former Vice President Al Gore of “unwanted sexual contact” at a hotel in October 2006, but no charges were filed because of lack of evidence, law officials said Wednesday.

Okay, it’s in the NYT.  It is credited to AP.  But imagine this, the National Enquirer published the report on Wednesday. Hey, the tabloid lost some of its sleaze factor in recent years for breaking, I dunno, real news stories.  So who knows?

That’s right folks, even a massage therapist has the right to decline advances from a sleazy scam artist.  Way to go, Al. And how many carbon credits did you require for this misadventure?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

During the last 12 months or so a local radio station began airing the Allen Hunt Show. The station describes itself as ‘news/talk’ and gives the impression they offer conservative talk shows. A local radio personality has a talk show for about 2 1/2 hours in the morning. That is followed by Rush Limbaugh, then Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Mark Levin during the week.

There is a mixture of syndicated programming on the weekends that now includes the Allen Hunt Show. I never heard of Allen Hunt before this local programming began. One weekend evening as I worked around the house I listened to the show. I was not impressed. Tried to listen again a couple of times but was not interested as I was opposed to many of this man’s opinions.

Now comes a reason to seriously oppose the Allen Hunt Show. His take on illegal immigration includes his statement that he believes in open borders/immigration. This past weekend I listened to the last hour of a financial program that was pre-empted for sports programming for the first two hours. That was followed by the Allen Hunt Show and his topic from the 16th according to the website was aired today on this station.

Allen Hunt believes a man who was brought here illegally by his parents when he was 4 should be allowed to stay. The man is now 19 and finished his first year at Harvard. Hunt says Obama will deport all those fitting this description and that ICE or CBP have apprehended this man and have him in custody scheduled for deportation.

First it was a student here in Georgia. Now the controversy has moved to Harvard. A student there was arrested for being an illegal immigrant in the country even though he has been her since he was 4, and can’t remember not speaking English. It’s just another example of how messed up our immigration policy is, and how we are targeting the wrong people.

One caller to the show made the correct rebuttal to Mr Hunt’s misguided kindness. Don’t blame the US or Americans for this person’s situation. The blame falls on his parents. If this man is unhappy with his situation he has no one else to blame other than his parents.

If you give this man a pass on immigration laws it simply gives other illegals another reason to break the law. You cannot reward people for breaking the law. It is unfortunate that this man has to suffer the consequences of his parents’ actions. But it is not for the US or its citizens to ignore the rule of law.

Laws are necessary for a civil society to exist. Laws maintain order, protect citizens and their liberty and keep things from getting out of control. Not enforcing the laws related to immigration is why illegal immigration is, go figure, out of control. Eliminating the laws will not solve the problem. Enforcing them will.

Had the law been enforced effectively about 15 years ago the man mentioned on Hunt’s show would not be in the position he is in now. His parents plan to break the law would have been thwarted and we would not be having these discussions.

My conclusion about the Allen Hunt Show early on was correct. His opinions are flawed. He says he is not a liberal. But his opinions say otherwise.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For one who is as willing as the next person to criticize the mainstream media for their biased reporting I am just as willing to credit those presenting a fair representation of the facts. The first obligation for this post is to give credit where credit is due.

Pauline Arrillaga is a national writer for The Associated Press, based in Phoenix.

Arrillaga has the byline for the report quoted and linked to in this post. It is the best article this blogger has seen to date in the MSM dealing with the tea party phenomenon and the underlying cause and widespread reason for its development as well as the growing voice of ordinary Americans not associated with any tea party organization.

For those expressing opposition to the liberal agenda in this country whether tea party members or not a single quote from the article sums up the general flavor of patriotic concerns.

Its stated purpose is “to promote, educate and advance conservative principles of fiscal responsibility, small limited government, free enterprise, the rule of law, private property rights, and the preservation and protection of individual liberty.”

That Arrillaga’s report goes out of its way to disspell the notion there is something wrong with tea parties or angry voters is the single most refreshing MSM account to come along in years. Discussing what some of the people chronicled face while engaging the process gets to the heart of the matter.

These four were all in Searchlight that Saturday in March. They’ve heard, time and again, the characterizations in the news media, from some Democrats and, in certain cases, from their own friends and relatives — about how “those tea party-ers” are just angry voters venting about economic hard times, or they’re confused, uneducated and easily influenced, or they’re extremists, or, worst of all, they’re racists.

Months after Searchlight and other rallies, plenty of questions remain about just what the tea party is, whether it can endure and how much influence it will have on elections this year and in years to come. Part of the answer is this: In communities across the land, citizens-turned-activists are digging in in different ways to wield whatever power and influence they’re able to muster over this thing called democracy.

To hear what motivates them is to begin to understand what’s going on in American politics in 2010.

Really, in America itself.

That’s what I’m talking about! What’s going on in America? Those who are represented by elected officials have finally had enough of politics as usual. It has been time for change for many years. But the ‘hope and change’ offered by the liberal agenda is not what most of us had in mind.

The brief list offered near the top of this post more accurately describes what is needed. ‘fiscal responsibility, small limited government, free enterprise, the rule of law, private property rights, and the preservation and protection of individual liberty.’

Let’s not forget to emphasize the US Constitution and our nation’s founding principles.

Thanks to Pauline Arrillaga at AP. Thanks to the folks described in the report. And thanks to all Americans who echo the sentiment presented here. Carry on and repair our nation. Protect her from those who would do her harm. Stand up. Stand on principle.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Sometimes one could understandably draw the conclusion the current President of the United States may need the help of a therapist. Not like his liberal agenda isn’t reason enough to be concerned about his mental health. And a report this week certainly supports such a concern.

President Barack Obama accused Republicans on Saturday of blocking legislation that would boost the nation’s economic recovery and lift a $75 million cap on what oil companies must pay to families and small businesses affected by an oil spill.

Look at the information on either side of the word ‘and’ in the report’s opening paragraph provided. A most hideous feature of most if not all legislation is characterized in a common phrase found in most bills. ‘And for other purposes’ is the phrase that plagues most legislation. Mr President fails to mention this fact while criticizing the loyal opposition.

Not that Republicans, Democrats, Independents or simply all POLS are not guilty of allowing this tactic but it needs to be addressed. The habit of placing bad legislation along with possibly good legislation in most or all bills is the problem. In voting for or against any particular bill each politician is likely forced to support or oppose items that are good and bad.

Here’s more of the nonsense Mr President would like you to believe in his weekly address.

“Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the Senate won’t even allow this legislation to come up for a vote,” the president said in his weekly radio and Internet address. “And if this obstruction continues, unemployed Americans will see their benefits stop. Teachers and firefighters will lose their jobs. Families will pay more for their first home.”

Mr President really wants to spend more of your money. He also wants to spend more of the money of those he defines as villains, like oil companies. Mr President should remove the liability cap proposal from so-called recovery legislation if he wants to bring it to a vote.

As stated earlier in this post, ‘and for other purposes’ is a phrase that needs to go away. Let an idea for a bill stand on its own merits. Don’t continue to spew the rhetoric that the other guys are the problem. With that old ploy of mixing good and bad in legislation everyone loses.

Bad legislative items are simply bad. Good legislative items are only the least bad the government can do. Getting rid of ‘and for other purposes’ would force legislative items to be less problematic for citizens and more of a proble for POLS. We need to take away the POLS excuse that the mixture of items in a bill was responsible for their voting choice.

And BTW, Mr President coerced BP to agree to a $20 billion contingency fund for claims related to the Gulf oil mess. Never mind that this may give BP a leg up in likely court battles in the future but that fund and the fact BP has already paid out more than the $75 million limit renders Obama’s argument moot. He simply wants to gouge his defined villains for more money than current law allows.

That he expects you to believe his rhetoric is the cause for concern about his mental health.

Recently Mr Obama was heard to say he is tired of talk and wants action. Mr Obama, you are the President. Do something impressive. Do something most Americans can support. Or is that asking too much?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If a candidate or other political personality is not featured on this blog or in the sidebar it does not indicate whether or not they are supported or opposed here. At any given time the decision to support or oppose said political person may be withheld until more information is collected.

Such is the case for this site and California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman. But given the latest news about this ‘Republican’ candidate related to illegal immigration opposition to her election can now be expressed here.

Whitman Disses Ariz. Law in Spanish to Court Calif. Latinos

Republican Meg Whitman is translating her message into Spanish, and emphasizing her opposition to Arizona’s controversial immigration law, to court Latinos in her quest to become California’s next governor.

Is there any other way to interpret this move by this candidate than to say it’s an obvious sellout for votes? If there is this blog hasn’t found it. No amount of campaigning can convince this blog author that Whitman’s immigration blunder simply means she opposes illegal immigration and may support another solution for the problem. She simply sold out in public for all to see.

The candidate who doesn’t vote has more money than California and is looking to be CEO of the land of fruits, nuts and flakes gives that state what it deserves. A choice between herself and Moonbeam Brown.

Add to this another story that should rally the troops against the shamnesty scam by larger numbers than ever.

Obama Administration to File Lawsuit Against Arizona’s Immigration Law

Obama administration officials have decided to file a federal lawsuit to block a politically popular Arizona law cracking down on illegal immigration, Fox News and other news organizations reported Friday.

There are some interesting details from these reports. Liberals at the Justice Department and other ’senior’ officials are anonymously stumbling all over themselves to spin the latest development.

The confirmation comes after an inadvertent confirmation by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in an interview last week with an Ecuadorian journalist.

If the healthcare ripoff, national debt, deficits and the Gulf oil mess were not enough to rile voters in an election year the libs are apparently willing to go all in on their agenda bets for this cycle.

Regardless of any other considerations regarding Arizona’s new immigration law those who support Governor Brewer and this effort would do well to financially support the state of Arizona in their fight against the lame Obama administration and its desire to allow anyone to enter our country whenever they feel like it.

As a reminder, when immigration meant those coming to America brought something to the table rather than simply pursuing handouts or to do this country harm the melting pot was a good thing. All that changed when libs decided to put up the sign ‘free for all’ opening the floodgates to illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration must be eliminated.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Just a little note on da big futbol event this year. Those who hope to have soccer become as pppular in the US as it is elsewhere were given a leg up this week. It seems World Cup Soccer shares at least one characteristic with American sports… controversial calls by game officials.

The Americans frantically charged back from a 2-0 deficit at halftime and seemed to go ahead, 3-2, in the 86th minute on a goal that was nullified by a controversial and unexplained foul call from the referee, Koman Coulibaly of Mali.

It is axiomatic to state a given in athletic competition and the use of scoring to determine the winner. You must be ahead of your opponent by a score capable of rendering bad calls inconsequential.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Upon reading an article from the Washington Examiner this morning I was once again reminded of the timely work of Michelle Malkin and her book the Culture of Corruption. This story has a connetion to the University of Chicago, the Obama administration and funny business going on in public office. Maybe not so funny for those affected by the acts of those in public office.

Fenty administration raided workers’ insurance fund
June 19, 2010

The Fenty administration took $10 million from a workers’ insurance fund that is now the center of multiple investigations, sources told The Washington Examiner .

Fenty and his attorney general, Peter Nickles, have now acknowledged that hundreds of disabled workers were charged for life insurance but weren’t actually given the policies. The administration announced that it was handing the matter over to the city’s inspector general last week.

The workers’ money, which might be worth up to $6 million, went into the city’s workers’ compensation fund.

And now for the Obama administration connection…..

Dan Tangherlini was the city administrator at the time and determined the city was safe in ‘raiding’ the fund. Tangherlini has been with Obama’s Treasury Department for a while now. The Examiner said he wasn’t available for comment on the story. Imagine that.

And the connection to the University of Chicago is, you guessed it, Dan Tangherlini. And even though the report states ‘authorities have not found any evidence of corruption’ you can bet there is.

It seems the Obamanation just can’t get enough people with questionable pasts to work for them. The only annoying part of the story is a common problem. ‘Sources familiar with the investigations’ and ’speaking on condition of anonymity’ appears in the report.

Tangherlini has been busy. He has had more than a few jobs at different levels of government. You can get his official info at Treasury simply searching on his last name. He seems a compatible match for tax cheat Tim Geithner. Although after AIG and his history at the NY Fed, Geithner’s tax problems may decline on the corruption scale.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If you are the most liberal president the United States has ever seen and you give a speech that is panned by the mainstream media what does that tell you? If you cannot win the praises of the liberal media who fawned all over you since you declared your intention to run for the White House in 2008 it’s time to consider a career change.

For those who are interested and haven’t had a chance to review the commentary on Obama’s Tuesday night Oval Office speech two links are provided below:

Media on Obama’s speech: Did we mention it was short on specifics?

Reaction to President Obama’s Speech

Then there is the review from this blog. The handy White House transcript of the speech provides the targets. In just the third paragraph Mr President raised a question or two.

Because there has never been a leak this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology. That’s why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation’s best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge — a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation’s Secretary of Energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.

Not having any evidence to the contrary the size and depth of this gusher is not contested. But Mr President, if you ‘assembled a team’ of the best and the brightest to ‘tackle this challenge’ almost immediately what does that say about two months passing with little to show for it? And stating the event has ‘tested the limits of human technology’ is hard to believe. If reports are correct it appears you have declined assistance from those who have offered to help. A good example would be the Dutch offering to perform skimming operations.

The very next paragraph Mr President you claim the brain trust results had you tell BP to bring out more stuff. Hardly a testament to the limits of human technology if you simply ordered more stuff. And if, as you say, up to 90% of the gushing oil can be captured in weeks why wasn’t it possible before now? Or is ‘up to 90%’ a set of weasel words allowing for nothing more than has been done to date?

And it just gets better in paragraph number six.

But make no mistake: We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever’s necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy.

That pretty much leaves everything open to interpretation. That may why the MSM said the speech was short on specifics. Think of the words in paragraph six as you would when discussing work to be performed by a potential contractor for your home repairs after some disaster. ‘For as long as it takes’ and ‘whatever’s necessary’ are not phrases you want to hear. Making someone pay for damage they caused is subject to legal challenge and in any event can take years longer than anyone can wait. So there you are, nowhere.

Obama says the federal government has been in charge of the cleanup since the beginning. But carefully says ‘we now have nearly 30,000 personnel’ cleaning up. Meaning ‘now’ and not since the beginning. Mr Obama also urges governors in the region to activate the National Guard yet carefully mentions he authorized it but when…. just before the speech?

It gets worse from this point. There is no reason to continue but feel free to review the video or transcript which is widely available and of course the White House website has it.

This is just pathetic. And yes, President Obama does not warrant all the blame for the spill. But his performance as President of the United States regarding this matter falls miserably below any minimum standard acceptable. If the person sitting in the Oval Office cannot muster the resources public or private to address the issue in a timely manner this country is in real trouble.

Gee, what will he do when a real disaster occurs? By his actions this apparently was not considered a disaster of the magnitude he describes in the speech. Or at least not until public opinion changed his mind.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Even though the national debt, budget deficits, unemployment, a recession, global economic turmoil and an absence of lending and investment plague the planet the liberals among us seem to think we can spend our way out of trouble. The question would be where does the money come from for that spending?

“It is essential that we continue to explore additional measures to spur job creation and build momentum toward recovery, even as we establish a path to long-term fiscal discipline,” Mr. Obama said in the letter to congressional leaders, a copy of which was seen by The Wall Street Journal. “At this critical moment, We cannot afford to slide backwards just as our recovery is taking hold.”

Mr President, where do you get the idea ‘our recovery is taking hold’? And even if it was where do you get the idea you can spend money we don’t have to create jobs? Just like the 410,000 jobs in the latest government report were all temporary census jobs save for 41,000 private sector additions make work jobs do not improve the economy.

Here’s the real deal.

…policymakers, who want to boost the economy and create more jobs ahead of midterm elections in November, but who worry about increasing the federal government’s record budget deficits. Polls have suggested that voters are concerned about both issues.

Duh, POLS want to look good in advance of re-election bids. So let’s spend taxpayer money we don’t have to ‘create’ jobs that won’t exist for long. Or if they do it will simply mean continuing to spend that taxpayer money we don’t have. If enough taxpayers are not working that piggy bank you keep raiding will certainly not contain adequate funds.

You cry about public jobs lost as in police, fire and teacher positions. Reports indicate pay and benefits for public sector jobs far outweigh the private sector. So let’s see. You want to extend and increase public sector jobs at rates higher than those paid for private sector jobs from taxpayer money.

Your nanny state agenda where the government pays for everything is failing. The simple truth is you cannot expect taxpayers to provide the source for all your spending. If you strangle the private sector by your policies there is nothing left to pay for your nanny state ideology.

And yet there are liberal politiicians trying to figure out how to run for re-election and at the same time spend more taxpayer money we don’t have.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com