Blog @ MoreWhat.com

One of the best reads I absorbed lately. I have read this author before and have yet to be disappointed. The values we hold. Similarities and differences between generations. And what influences our perceptions and how that changes over time. Plus a generous description of the role technology has played shaping the youngest among us.

Opinions of millennials with regard to values and older generations may be the clue that wisdom will prevail and America will endure and become better for the effort. This could be further proof that the founders knew what they were doing. Like most of us didn’t know that already.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Not the One They Were Hoping For
Bliss it wasn’t in that dawn to be alive.
BY Matthew Continetti
March 8, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 24

Millennials are frustrated, too, by the slow pace with which Obama has enacted his agenda. They are an On Demand generation. They are used to getting what they want instantly or close to it, from iTunes and FedEx packages to fast-food meals and Starbucks. They communicate effortlessly through texts, instant messaging, Skype, Twitter, and Facebook. But the government does not work this way. Our system is filled with checks and balances and minority protections to ensure the maximum possible deliberation and compromise—and to frustrate temporary and passionate majorities from enacting massive overhauls with uncertain consequences.

Are we serious this time? Among the other items within the liberal agenda spearheaded by President Barack Obama as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and others, amnesty for illegal immigrants, no deportation for those here illegally and lax national security and border control feature prominently. But a few members of Congress, 22 to be exact, have put forth a resolution reminding everyone the rule of law must prevail to secure America’s borders and protect the nation.

111th CONGRESS 2d SessionH. RES. 1026Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the continued peace, prosperity, liberty, and national security of the United States and its people depend upon the rule of law and credible and effective immigration enforcement policies which both welcome lawful immigrants and non-immigrants and also prevent the unlawful entry or unlawful continuing presence of foreign persons.IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 21, 2010

Mr. CHAFFETZ (for himself, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. KRATOVIL, Mr. NYE, Mr. FLEMING, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. POSEY, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. HARPER, Ms. JENKINS, Mr. BARROW, Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. OLSON, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. KAGEN, Mr. SHULER, and Mr. CHILDERS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Education and Labor and Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

---

RESOLUTIONExpressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the continued peace, prosperity, liberty, and national security of the United States and its people depend upon the rule of law and credible and effective immigration enforcement policies which both welcome lawful immigrants and non-immigrants and also prevent the unlawful entry or unlawful continuing presence of foreign persons.Whereas the United States, as a nation of immigrants, recognizes and celebrates the economic and cultural contributions of generations of lawful immigrants;

Whereas the United States must remain a place where lawful immigrants can come to enjoy the promises of religious, political, and economic freedom; and

Whereas the continued peace, prosperity, liberty, and national security of the United States and its people depend upon the rule of law and credible and effective immigration enforcement policies which both welcome lawful immigrants and non-immigrants and also prevent the unlawful entry or unlawful continuing presence of foreign persons: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that–

(1) the use of a basic pilot program described in section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note; commonly known as the E-verify program) by employers of workers within the United States should be mandatory, and that enforcement policies should hold both employers and employees responsible whenever an individual’s employment violates United States immigration law;

(2) installing and sustaining the necessary border infrastructure and manpower to effectively secure and control United States borders to prevent the unauthorized passage of persons or contraband is a critical responsibility of the Federal Government; and

(3) any immigration reform proposal adopted by Congress should not legalize, grant amnesty for, or confer any other legal status condoning the otherwise unlawful entry or presence in the United States of any individual.

It is not everything we need but it IS a good start. Problems remain with those supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants like Mayor Bloomberg.

NY Mayor Bloomberg to promote immigration reform

On the hot-button issue of immigration, he favors more liberal laws on allowing immigrants into the country and legalizing those who lack documentation. That will draw opposition from advocates of tightening the border and deportation of illegal aliens.

“We’re committing what I call national suicide,” Bloomberg said on the NBC’s “Meet the Press” last Sunday. “Somehow or other, after 9/11 we went from reaching out and trying to get the best and the brightest to come here, to trying to keep them out.”

“In fact, we do the stupidest thing, we give them educations and then don’t give them green cards.”

What planet is Bloomberg living on? Sure, foreign nationals are educated in the US. But that is but one aspect of the problem. We’re talking about illegal immigration. Is Bloomberg suggesting students from foreign countries are here illegally? Probably not.

And his suggestion that educating the best and the brightest is a direct insult to American citizens who are pursuing their education here or already received it. Yet in addition he wants to loosen the almost non-existent immigration law and enforcement further.

This is the mindset that must be resisted. What Bloomberg suggests IS NOT reform. He merely wants to eliminate immigration law and completely open the borders. You don’t fix what is wrong with your country by importing replacements for your own citizens or exporting their jobs to another country. That has been Mexico’s answer to their country’s problems. Export it to the US. Then they benefit by the money sent by illegals back to Mexico.

The point is the US needs to improve education and the performance of students and teachers without abusing immigration law. And Mexico and other countries need to fix their own country’s problems without burdening the US. Stop sending American jobs overseas and importing cheaper labor here. And let other countries fix their own problems without affecting the US.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient

What is the US President’s State of the Union address supposed to accomplish?

from an interview at WaPo on January 24th….

Nixon speechwriter Lee Huebner: I think it’s a schizophrenic speech. On the one hand, it’s an administrative tool, it’s a way of managing the government . . . of defining priorities, of getting input from every bureau and agency. . . . It all comes together and then gets mashed into an overlong, often very dull speech. .

Certainly the task of distilling input from nearly every department and agency in the US government to blend flawlessly with the Commander-in-Chief’s expression of an agenda for the country based on current conditions is a formidable challenge to say the least.

Well then, how’d it go for President Obama’s first? No doubt the Democrats loved it.

Looking only at interviews conducted on the two nights following the speech, it is clear that the President enjoyed a bounce in the polls and that the bounce came from members of his own party. On the morning of the speech, 50% of Democrats Strongly Approved of the President’s performance. On the two nights following the speech, that number jumped to 65%. There was essentially no change among Republican and unaffiliated voters.

It rarely makes sense to challenge the wisdom of the Founders. But the following commentary if nothing else offers some welcome humor to an otherwise solemn topic. It may be the result of being worn out in times past preparing for this major political event.

Reagan speechwriter Peter Robinson: I consider the State of the Union one of the central mysteries of modern American life. The president doesn’t want to give it, Congress doesn’t want to listen to it, and the networks don’t want to cover it, and every year the damn thing happens all the same. Nobody would have invented it — the founders sort of backed their way into it, and we’re stuck with it . . . a kind of a permanent ritual.

Rituals are good. Tradition is good. It is unfortunate that we tweak and modify processes that are just fine in their original form.

I wrote Lenny Skutnik into the finale. I wrote the passage, and that created the hero-in-the-gallery ploy, which unfortunately has been milked to death since and overdone. I almost regret it.

As in an earlier post here on the topic of President Obama’s SOTU speech the conclusion drawn is that nothing changed. The same rhetoric, same message, same agenda is what this President proposes. Although the permanent campaigner may have changed that strategy somewhat since the speech. Confronting the GOP at an issue or policy conference may be stage two. Given stage one, the SOTU, did not get it done.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(it is hoped WaPo does not take offense at my ‘liberal’ use of their content in this post.)

The New Old Way to Tote Your Beer
At Bierkraft in Park Slope, Brooklyn, customers bring their own growlers and fill them with fresh draft beer. They drink it there, or take it out.

By ROBERT SIMONSON
Published: January 26, 2010

BY midafternoon on a recent Saturday, Bierkraft, the beer emporium and grocery on Fifth Avenue in Park Slope, Brooklyn, was half-filled with customers, many of them parents with babies or toddlers in tow. They were browsing the more than 1,000 varieties of bottled beer or surveying the listing of selections available on the 13 taps and 3 cask lines. Some carried a good-sized satchel.

Let’s see. A satchel for carrying a 64 oz glass vessel for beer called a growler. The author of the piece casually inquires if the parents with ‘babies or toddlers in tow’ are carrying this satchel as a diaper bag. Another inquiry came to mind.

Is there something odd or troubling about parents packin’ up the kids and a half-gallon container then heading for the local beer garden? Oh yes, drink it there or take it out. While I have been in places where the take it out part would be a problem, legally, there remains the good judgment part. Why are the kids going with ya to slosh beer? C’mon, a half-gallon container. We’re not talkin’ sippin’ here.

Am I too old-fashioned or is there a problem with this? You might think the half-gallon growler was being shared with others. But when the article reports couples have his and her’s growlers polite distribution seems unlikely.

Okay, in defense of this arrangement to swill it is nothing new. When Sunday was largely a time to first attend church followed by family or community activities on the day of rest similar situations developed like the Saturday story above. Consider the church picnic or local baseball game or family get together where libations were also in attendance.

Maybe it’s nothing. But it just struck me as a bad idea. Not the growler part but the parents, kids AND growler part. You tell me. Is this much ado about nothing?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Outgoing President John Adams had issued William Marbury a commission as justice of the peace, but the new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver it. Marbury then sued to obtain it. With his decision in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of “checks and balances” created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful. The document shown here bears the marks of the Capitol fire of 1898.

“A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” With these words written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Supreme Court for the first time declared unconstitutional a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Nothing in the Constitution gave the Court this specific power. Marshall, however, believed that the Supreme Court should have a role equal to those of the other two branches of government.

When James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote a defense of the Constitution in The Federalist, they explained their judgment that a strong national government must have built-in restraints: “You must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” The writers of the Constitution had given the executive and legislative branches powers that would limit each other as well as the judiciary branch. The Constitution gave Congress the power to impeach and remove officials, including judges or the President himself. The President was given the veto power to restrain Congress and the authority to appoint members of the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate. In this intricate system, the role of the Supreme Court had not been defined. It therefore fell to a strong Chief Justice like Marshall to complete the triangular structure of checks and balances by establishing the principle of judicial review. Although no other law was declared unconstitutional until the Dred Scott decision of 1857, the role of the Supreme Court to invalidate Federal and state laws that are contrary to the Constitution has never been seriously challenged.

“The Constitution of the United States,” said Woodrow Wilson, “was not made to fit us like a strait jacket. In its elasticity lies its chief greatness.” The often-praised wisdom of the authors of the Constitution consisted largely of their restraint. They resisted the temptation to write too many specifics into the basic document. They contented themselves with establishing a framework of government that included safeguards against the abuse of power. When the Marshall decision Marbury v. Madison completed the system of checks and balances, the United States had a government in which laws could be enacted, interpreted and executed to meet challenging circumstances.

(The order bears the marks of the Capitol fire of 1898. )

(Information excerpted from Milestone Documents in the National Archives [Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration, 1995] pp. 23-24.)

In honor of the current debate on ‘health reform’ this post is presented. It is hoped that if all else fails and the White House and Congress continue to ignore the public on this contrived issue SCOTUS will rise to the occasion and strike it down as, you guessed it, ‘repugnant to the Constitution’. And yes, we have activist judges who legislate from the bench, etc., but perhaps eventually we will return to sanity.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
(this post continues a theme previously initiated here called Rights and Responsibilities in America: Civics Literacy)

Better late than never.  At the end of the Festival of Lights I extend warm wishes to those who celebrate.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The 2009 National Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony The ceremony is a time-honored holiday tradition which includes the illumination of the National Christmas Tree on the Ellipse just south of the White House. Nationally known entertainers and the United States Marine Corps Band add to the celebratory evening in which the President is invited to bring a message of peace to the nation and the world. With the White House as the back drop, in what becomes the “Christmas Pathway of Peace”, the National Christmas Tree and 56 smaller trees - one for each state, five territories, and the District of Columbia - serve as the event focal point.

The first National Christmas Tree was placed on the Ellipse south of the White House in December 1923. The tree was a 48-foot Balsam fir donated by the President of Middlebury College in Vermont. At 5 p.m. on Christmas Eve, President Calvin Coolidge walked from the White House to the Ellipse to light the tree from his native state. The tree was decorated with 2,500 electric bulbs in red, white and green, donated by the Electric League of Washington. Music for this first lighting ceremony was provided by a local choir and a “quartet” from the U.S. Marine Band.

Merry Christmas

from Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

I’ll get back to you on this one….

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

“I do realize that those types of things shouldn’t happen,” Adams said in that statement. “I need to specifically apologize to the Bills, their fans, our fans and the NFL.

That may be. But the goofy NFL makes little sense in handing down this fine. $250,000 from an owner for flippin’ the bird. At least two players have been fined for the same ‘offense.’ One at $7,500 and one at $10,000.

The NFL fined former 49ers owner Eddie DeBartolo $1 million after he pleaded guilty to a felony and suspended him for the 1999 season.

Since then, the biggest fine handed down by the NFL to an individual was $500,000 to New England coach Bill Belichick for the Spygate scandal. The league also fined the New York Jets and former coach Eric Mangini $125,000 in September for violating its rules on injury reporting with Brett Favre last season.

NFL logic apparently dictates one million for a felony, half a million for elaborate cheating, a quarter mil for flippin’ someone off and half that for breaking reporting rules.

This strategy does not seem to be working given all the ‘infractions.’ But then it’s just about the money. Nevermind the ‘bird’ infraction should not equal half of that for cheating or a quarter of what a felony raises for the league.

How much should the league be penalized for extorting the public for stadiums, overcharging for tickets and limiting viewing as they move to pay per view everything? And the college ranks are following suit. Unless you do it their way, you can watch any team but your own on traditional network broadcasts.

None of your tax dollars go to the schools featuring the college football teams, right?

The trends in sports programming combined with the feeble offerings in television overall allow one to drastically reduce if not eliminate old viewing habits. Eventually, only true couch potatoes who would watch anything as long as food and drink are available will be the revenue for the industry. But they probably know that already. Which is why they offer what they do…. too little for too much.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The quote below from Senator Akaka is one of the latest related to constitutional questions being raised about healthcare reform legislation.

Sen. Akaka Says ‘I’m Not Aware’ of Constitution Giving Congress Authority to Make Individuals Buy Health Insurance
Thursday, November 12, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) says he is “not aware” of the Constitution giving Congress the authority to make individuals purchase health insurance, as the health care bills in both the House and Senate require.

Another commonly quoted statement on this issue expresses the notion that state laws require one to carry auto insurance. Several other quotes feature various legislators essentially guessing about the whole matter. These quotes or sound bites may best demonstrate what is wrong with the present push for healthcare reform.

It suggests that many in Congress and the White House may have no idea what they’re doing. Such a sentiment is no stranger to observations of those in public office. The following information is also no stranger in mixing political agendas and legislation.

“We find his statements to be overly optimistic, misleading and, to some extent, contradicted by one of his own advisers,” the Annenberg FactCheck.org Web site reported at the time. “And it masks the true cost of his plan to cover millions of Americans who now have no health insurance.”

Masking the true cost of healthcare is exactly what Democrats have done, Moffit says.

“You’re going to see higher premiums, you’re going to have higher taxes, you’re going to have higher premiums for Medicare,” Moffit tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview. “And you’re not getting a bend in the spending curve, but rather a $1.3 trillion dollar explosion in additional spending over the next 10 years.

“So I don’t know what the White House thinks we’re drinking, but the truth of the matter is, none of this is believable,” he says.

Moffit says taxpayers’ first installment on healthcare’s hidden costs may come as early as next week, when the House is scheduled to take up the $210 billion “doctor’s fix” bill.

Feel free to follow the link and read the rest as it provides an example of what you see is not exactly what you get. Legislative maneuvers by unscrupulous politicians afford them political cover while stiffing the taxpayer and even those who view more government spending as a boon for their wallets. This entire exercise in healthcare reform is the dangerous ruse as it has been characterized by many since the charade began.

Obamacare Vote Chicanery Debunks Moderate Democrat Myth
Thursday, November 12, 2009 3:06 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Don’t assume that the 38 Democrats who voted against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s extremist version of healthcare reform wouldn’t have supported it if their votes had been needed.

The days before the final passage on Saturday were not filled with stirring appeals to get Democrats to back the bill so much as an auction to decide whom to let off the hook.

Knowing that the bill probably be political suicide for any red-state Democratic member of Congress, particularly the freshmen, the House leadership had to negotiate with its members to assure that the 38 defectors were the ones who needed the political cover the most.

This blog published a post on November 8th expressing a similar analysis as the one provided above. Another analysis being supported on this blog deals with the GOP and their alternative reform plan. Just as the CBO has scored liberal healthcare reform plans as too expensive and lacking in benefit to the public, their scoring of the GOP alternative suggests exactly what the GOP claimed. It is a first step for improving healthcare in the US that provides savings and more coverage for uninsured without breaking the bank. Allowing this great nation to move more slowly and carefully with respect to reform and avoid the risk of massive new debt, deficits and taxes that would cripple the economy.

The liberal power grab agenda and its centerpiece legislative coup of healthcare reform should raise red flags on anyone’s political radar. The same attempt to induce massive panic among this nation’s citizens was carried out during the Clinton administration. Healthcare did not cause the economy to collapse then and it will not now. The same cannot be said for legislation like HR 3962 or other liberal proposals currently in Congress.

Addressing healthcare reform as proposed by the GOP alternative in smaller steps is prudent, responsible and logical. Progress can be measured along the way. Problems can be avoided or corrected with much more ease. The nation will not need to accept the risk of an ‘all in’ strategy as suggested by the liberals in Congress and the White House. Their’s is a gambling strategy our nation cannot afford. But then their agenda is not about healthcare reform. It is about the expansion of government and the political power grab they seek.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Perhaps one of the greatest benefits of October in America beyond the fact it is World Series time comes from the opportunity to disconnect for a moment. Remove yourself from all that otherwise dominates your life to absorb the pleasure of an annual ritual. The opening game of the 2009 World Series did not disappoint. Even a Yankees fan should be able to appreciate the performance this evening demonstrated by the picture below. Other characteristics of the event and its broadcast will be reserved for another post. Right now the idea is to relish uniquely American traditions and embrace the ideals they represent and foster.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
(written just after game one)

While being wealthy may not be commonplace, marriages among the rich and famous sometimes are. At least the perceived motives for rich nuptials may suggest alliances among the wealthy more than the storybook theme of love. This post will offer a rare and reluctant topic on this blog. Celebrity stories typically feature content of little value beyond raising revenue for some tabloids due to the insatiable appetite of some for gossip. Starting with a little humor may make it easier to digest.

Ivanka Trump is getting married to Jared Kushner soon, and the happy pair still hasn’t picked out a wedding song. Last night, she announced on Twitter that she was crowdsourcing suggestions for her song.

The excerpt above appears to be from October 18th and based on other reports the wedding is now complete. The only reason the story appeared on this blog’s radar was a scan of Google News and Ivanka Trump listed under ‘in the news.’ If the timing had worked out the obvious choice for a wedding song is offered below courtesy of YouTube.

It is quite possible many people have arrived at the same choice for Ivanka and Jared’s wedding song.

Ivanka and Jared were born in the same year. They are both beneficiaries of their families’ wealth. Both families are involved in real estate. According to Wikipedia Jared graduated from Harvard College in 2003 and prior to admission his father had contributed $2.5 million to the university. For Ivanka it was Georgetown and Wharton with some modeling and much involvement in the family business. Jared’s acquisition of the New York Observer with family funds suggests an interest in appealing to ‘the educated elite’ in New York as this is how the readership is described.

So the suggestion of the commonplace alliance of wealthy families rather than a marriage is supported to some degree with the information above. And Ivanka’s new book does not weaken the argument. ‘The Trump Card: Playing to Win in Work and Life,’ is a title that by itself demonstrates a set of priorities.

Another book related to this post’s topic comes from Carrie Prejean. It is featured elsewhere on this blog. ‘Still Standing’ is soon to be published and comes after the author’s experience of being thrown under the bus by the Trump family and their pageants in favor of those who attacked her for her response to a question she was asked.

It’s not personal. (money, money, money…….MONEY)

All that is supported by the founding of this great nation allowing citizens to reach their full potential is a wonderful thing. Maintaining a principled approach to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness remains a challenge for some. If one adheres to conservative principles and tradtional American values the risk of making less than honorable choices is greatly diminished if not eliminated. We are after all human and not flawless. Keeping that constantly in mind will improve our chances for doing the right thing.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

From the Politico on Sept 25, 2009 the Senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold (D-WI) of McCain/Feingold fame is weighing in on unelected members of the US Senate and what should be done about it. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) has also weighed in.

When Paul Kirk is sworn in Friday, he’ll become the sixth unelected member of the current Senate.

And by Russ Feingold’s math, that’s about six too many.

“People shouldn’t be voting in the United States Senate unless they’ve been elected by the people,” Feingold — a Democrat elected three times by the people of Wisconsin — said Thursday as Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick named Kirk as a temporary replacement for the late Ted Kennedy.

Feingold wants to amend the Constitution so that all Senate vacancies are filled by special elections rather than by gubernatorial appointments. But until that happens, the 17th Amendment allows states to let their governors appoint replacements — and that means that Roland Burris (D-Ill.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), George LeMieux (R-Fla.) and, soon, Paul Kirk will be representing constituents who never had a chance to vote for or against them.

Another example of the public being shut out of the process that requires a look at the 17th Amendment and beyond.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

A few more notes on the amendment…..

Amendment [XVII.] 9

There are those who favor the 17th Amendment and those who would like it to be repealed. Feel free to make your case either way.

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