Blog @ MoreWhat.com

[Trent] Lott is the captain of the K Street team. He told a reporter last month his thoughts on the Tea Partiers: “We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples. As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.”

The story source for the quote above points to a problem that has long been a problem in American politics. We talk about it. We complain about it. But we do nothing to change it. And some ‘voters’ beyond those representing the corrupt power of most special interest cast their votes on ‘wallet’ issues at the heart of this problem.

It is hoped that the Washington Examiner will not be upset by this blog’s use of more than the usual ‘fair use’ of their content. But the following two paragraphs are critical points from the piece that needs to addressed. And of course you are encouraged to the follow the link above for the whole story and make the Examiner your regular read if it is not already.

The current GOP fault line is not exactly conservatives vs. moderates or new guard vs. old guard. For 2010, the rivalry is the Tea Party wing against the K Street wing. To tell which kind of Republican a candidate is, see how the Democrats attack him: If he’s branded a shill for Wall Street, he’s from the K Street wing. If he’s labeled an extremist outside the mainstream, he’s a Tea Partier.

More tellingly, study their campaign contributions. K Street Republicans’ coffers are filled by the political action committees of defense contractors, drug companies, lobbying firms, and Wall Street banks. A Tea Party Republican is funded by the Club for Growth or the Senate Conservatives Fund, which is run by the Republican leadership’s least-favorite colleague, Jim DeMint.

Two things needing emphasis. There is a growing opinion that Senator Jim DeMint is one of the few real conservatives in the US Senate. He needs the support of everyone who believes in the founding of our nation and preserving this republic.

Lobbyists, the money and power brokers have made the two party system what it is…. corrupt. If it wasn’t obvious to you by now, this is the single most important reason to support the Tea Party phenomenon and the current outrage expressed by a majority of Americans. Elections this year can begin the renewal of principles that founded our nation. Citizens can take back our country from the corruptocrats in Washington and elsewhere.

Throw the bums out. Repeat as necessary.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The news, that portion which merely provides data, would seem to support the notion that liberals are wrong and conservatives are right. The items below are presented as cases in point.

Yes, these stories are cherry-picked. But there are more bleak stories than positive ones. Even the good ones are usually accompanied by the fact the government is providing artificial boosts to the economy which are increasing public debt and serving no useful purpose.

Here are four stories about housing, foreclosures and government intervention. In July banks took over homes at a record pace. Obama is giving $3 billion to unemployed homeowners. Unemployment is given credit for a fall in home prices at the same time another report claims housing prices are rising due in part to government tax credits for homebuyers.

The rest of the world is not doing as good as some would like you think. Japan saw lower than expected machinery orders along with lower exports, wholesale prices and a generally gloomy picture on recovery. In the UK consumers are pulling back as food and fuel prices rise and budgets fall. The EU’s 16 countries saw only a 0.2% growth rate in the first quarter.

While liberals resist common sense approaches like that of Gov Christie in New Jersey who tackled a severe deficit without raising taxes places like California are finding out daily the folly of a nanny state of mind. Not only do most Californians lean hard left but now their paychecks are proving them wrong. The liberal mindset has seen their pay fall for the first time since WWII. Will they ever learn?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If you are a conservative it’s one of those good stories you cannot bring yourself to believe if only for the improbable math involved.

The survey, which gauged voter sentiment in 13 of the states with the country’s most competitive Senate races, showed Republican Senate candidates averaging a high single-digit lead over their Democratic opponents, offering the same snapshot of an angry, uneasy electorate shown in poll after poll this year.

At this point there should be no doubt American citizens are angry. The President and Congress have approval ratings so low we may need a new math to keep score. Rather than voters replacing the majority party at the midterms when bad times persist another event may take place.

Some POLS are not facing re-election this midterm. Of those who are the stronger from each party may survive and the weaker links may depart. What if voter anger is so widespread this time around that the two chambers end up nearly and even split in terms of party?

That may introduce a new definition for lame duck Congress. It may last for two years until the next election. The upside might be that no legislation is passed. And by 2012 there would still be time to repeal Obamacare after electing a new president. Meaning the rest of that dismal plan won’t take effect until 2014 or later.

So a long lame duck session from late 2010 forward would allow another election to drain the swamp in addition to the bonus of getting a new president. Most of the damage of the last two years could be resolved.

This fantasy is no less likely than the GOP gaining the majority in the US Senate this November. As for a new president in 2012, the GOP needs a candidate who can win. What are the odds on that happening?

Sorry to wake you up from the dream.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Decades of mismanagement contributed to the mortgage meltdown in recent years. The information that supports the notion government sponsored home buying is a bad idea keeps piling up. Like the fact that Freddie Mac, one of many GSEs or government-sponsored enterprises, is required to pay the US Treasury a dividend. This quarter Freddie’s ten percent annual dividend payment to the Treasury is $1.3 billion. And Freddie is asking for $1.8 billion in additional aid to cover losses. The taxpayer continues to be scammed.

Current economic conditions and the challenge they pose for the housing market found the leader of Freddie stating the following:

“With that in mind, we continue to focus on the quality of the new business we are adding to our book to be responsible stewards of taxpayer funds.”

Sir, if you were not doing it before how do you expect anyone to believe you now?

On Thursday, Fannie Mae asked for an additional $1.5 billion after posting a $3.13 billion loss, although its losses shrank dramatically in the second quarter, down from $11.5 billion in the first quarter.

And yet those in government are talking ‘overhaul’ rather than abandoning this disaster looking for a place to happen. It would make more sense on many issues that we return to values of years past. As for homebuying a return to successful lending policies of the past may inspire a return to the kind of behavior that rewards hard work and discipline.

You want a house? Come back when you have twenty percent down. Have some skin in the game and commitment to doing the right thing long term. If you cannot afford twenty percent you need to work on that problem. Like raising yourself up and expect it may be the next generation that reaches the goal of home ownership. But you have to start somewhere.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Pardon me if I do not accept the rhetoric of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) on the matter of a $26 billion spending bill for public sector employees. Pelosi said, ‘This legislation is about creating and saving American jobs, and preventing a double-dip recession.‘ Van Hollen said, ‘It’s not a gamble,” he said, but “it would be gambling our children’s’ education to have them go back to school and find no teacher in the classroom or a larger class size.‘ The gamble part comes from a question posed to the Maryland Democrat about interrupting POLS summer vacation for votes on a spending bill.

Van Hollen had this to say about the opposition. Defining teachers and police officers as special interests while opposing closing a tax loophole for big corporations “defines the difference between our two parties,” retorted Van Hollen.

Well, Mr Van Hollen you might want to consider what the opposition had to say.

Republicans portrayed the special session as the Democrats’ pre-election gift to their labor union allies and objected to provisions to raise taxes on some U.S.-based multinational companies as a way to partially cover the $26 billion cost of the bill.

Democrats love to characterize public sector employees as something we cannot live without. But campaign promises to lure voters and post-election payoffs in the form of spending taxpayer money on those same voters is corrupt. At the very least, this time the GOP is correct. Charging businesses to pay for a liberal voter payoff is a government-sanctioned bribe. The same sort of ethics problem faced by Rangel and Waters.

Here is part of the teacher mindset these Democrats feel compelled to reward.

Despite Budget Cuts, Layoff Fears, Milwaukee Teachers Fight for Taxpayer-Funded Viagra
Published August 06, 2010
Associated Press

With the district in a financial crisis and hundreds of its members facing layoffs, the Milwaukee teachers union is taking a peculiar stand: fighting to get their taxpayer-funded Viagra back.

Does anyone really need an explanation on how pathetic this is?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Even though White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs expressed what everyone else knows that the Democrats can lose the House and perhaps the Senate this November several stories indicate liberals are in a hole and continue to dig.

Molly Hagerty’s claim against Al Gore will not move forward in criminal or civil court. The liberal mythical god, Al Gore, shares a reputation with another liberal deity known as Slick Willie (aka: former President Bill Clinton) for bizarre sexual exploits. The credibility of the pair may be as suspect as that of two other liberal POLS; 20 term Congressional representative Charlie Rangel and California Rep Maxine Waters. That may be why the White House is hoping First Lady Michelle Obama’s curious popularity will help the liberal cause in the midterms.

Rangel and Waters are facing public ethics trials. One might expect two other high profile libs should also face ethics charges. The pair responsible for Cornhusker Cash and the Louisiana Purchase during the Obamacare vote shopping spree, Senators Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu, illuminate the corruption of Reid and Pelosi. The swamp has never been drained.

For Rangel it seems a settlement agreement failed for his 13 ethics charges. For Waters a single charge over $13 million in TARP funds for a bank with connections to her husband is not mentioned on her website. But her focus on troubles in Haiti is well represented. In addition to her 3 references to Haiti characterizing Gulf residents as victims and Wall Street as villains, pushing public housing, AIDS testing, government flood insurance subsidies and other programs are featured.

It seems those who choose the liberal moniker of Democrat are just as likely to ripoff the taxpayer and the ‘little guy’ they claim to represent while accusing others of doing the same.

President Obama is again blaming the GOP for the failures of Democrats. His latest rant criticizes Republicans for opposing HR 5297 or the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010. Consider it sufficient to say Democrats are willing to exempt paygo requirements for anything they deem an ‘emergency’. Republicans continue to oppose spending given the crushing debt and deficits facing our nation. In other words if you want to spend $20 billion on this legislation you need to cut $20 billion or more elsewhere.

The small business bill is sponsored by Barney Frank and co-sponsored by 20 others including ethically challenged Congress-person Maxine Waters. As if that is not reason enough to oppose the measure.

Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters face public ethics trials in November. Undoubtedly Obama caused the ninth circuit to delay Arizona’s request for expedited appeal on SB 1070 until November also. Should make for an interesting midterm election during the same time since campaigns will obviously increase focus on these items.

So Mr President, keep digging. You and your party are in a hole. Keep digging.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

BTW, the number of laws passed in this session of Congress stands at 210 as of July 27. And without commentary on how unnecessary that is it is safe to say the party of ‘no’ does not say no all the time. The GOP opposition to this small biz legislation as stated has merit. Government needs to reduce spending. Even if the $20 billion of taxpayer money would be spent wisely it requires cutting spending somewhere else. And that is not to suggest this expenditure would be wise.

Yet another news report includes a reference to anonymous sources. Those ‘familiar with the allegations’ are ‘not authorized to discuss them publicly’. And this story is about ethics. Not the lack of ethics of the sources but that same lack ‘alleged’ for Charlie Rangel.

Whether the sources are acting on their own or it’s all a big charade arranged by those in charge of the ‘leak’ it should cease. Of course what renders this episode of anonymous sources more ridiculous than others is the story topic of ethics. Whether Rangel is sanctioned or not the ’sources’ should be out of a job.

As for Rangel, the worst case scenario is expulsion followed by censure or the dreaded committee report. Rangel is charged with misuse of official stationery, rental programs, disclosure rules and accepting improper gifts. Jail time should be an option. Violating the public trust should have severe consequences.

You can read the rest of the story here. (click)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This is no surprise to anyone. Beyond the problem of national security, border control and ignoring the rule of law and founding principles of our nation illegal immigration is a crushing economic burden. It’s time for a reminder to all the liberals supporting shamnesty. Like the rest of the liberal agenda the notion of shamnesty is dangerous. An excerpt from a new report on the economic risks associated with illegal immigration is presented below followed by a link to the full report. Read it and weep, or join the fight against illegal immigration to save our country.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers

Executive Summary

This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84.2 billion at the state and local level.

The full report (click here)

Contrary to some of the information in the report below which may be typical of most news accounts this week the US economy and many of those around the globe have no strength. Just as jobs lag behind other factors related to recovery it may take the public a long time to finally decide things are really bad. The latest consumer confidence report may indicate that time has come. And unfortunately for nearly everything about economies, if the public doesn’t spend the economic engine has no fuel. Talk about your energy crisis.

‘But economists say’ are weasel words. Not all economists hold one view on anything. The same holds true for every other group. The great psychological forces that influence markets are in play. And the liberal majority in the US Congress and occupying the White House are desperately trying to advance their agenda even though it runs contrary to recovery.

The suggestion within the report below that suggests recovery may be illusive for six months to a year conveniently aligns with the 2010 elections and enough time to have new blood reign in government meddling in the private sector. That could spur a recovery.

Check the numbers below after the report from Mil Arcega.

Stocks Fall on Double Dip Fears
Mil Arcega | Washington 30 June 2010

Global stocks fell again on Wednesday on new worries about the pace of the global economic recovery. In the U.S., the Dow Jones Industrial Average has declined more than nine percent in the second quarter, fueled in part by a drop in consumer confidence and continuing worries about the health of the global economy. But economists say speculation that the world economy could slip back into another recession is simply that - speculation.

Falling stocks and a slow recovery in the job market have put many Americans in a pessimistic mood. Consumer confidence fell sharply in June — raising fears that a decline in consumer spending could trigger another recession.

But economist Jim Glassman at JP Morgan Chase says the worries are greatly exaggerated. “When you look at the consumer trends, consumer spending is actually pretty steady, and the job front, we will find out on Friday,” he said.

That’s when the monthly U.S. unemployment report comes out.

Meanwhile, doubts about the pace of recovery continues to roil global stocks. In Asia, key indexes finished the second quarter with the worst performance since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008.

“Of course, the main concern is really the ongoing credit crisis in Europe. The sovereign risk — Greece can’t repay their debt even though the Central Bank and IMF announced a 750 billion euro facility that still has not restored the confidence of the financial markets,” said Francis Lun, the head of Fullbright Securities in Hong Kong.

Some reports added to the pessimism, suggesting the U.S. could fall back into recession as the effects of the 800 billion dollar stimulus begins to fade.
But economist Mark Zandi says a double-dip scenario is unlikely. “I think the economy will make it through. It’s going to be a bit tricky. We’re going to feel uncomfortable over the next six to 12 months. As the reporter said, the benefits of the stimulus is fading, but I think there’s enough good going on that we’ll make it through without a recession,” he said.

Speaking at a town hall meeting in Wisconsin on Wednesday President Barack Obama acknowledged the frustration many Americans feel about the economy and more importantly — jobs. “Today, we’ve added private sector jobs for five months in a row. So the economy is headed in the right direction. But I know that for a lot of Americans - for Racine and a lot of other communities - it’s not heading there fast enough,” he said.

The much anticipated employment report coming out on Friday should give investors a clearer picture of how fast the U.S. economy is growing. Preliminary reports suggest job growth in the private sector is likely to fall short of expectations.

Here are some of the preliminary numbers on the quarter, from the close on March 31 through 4 p.m. Wednesday according to Thomson Reuters data.

S&P 500: -11.86%
Nasdaq Composite: -12.04%
Dow Jones Industrials: -9.97%
Russell 2000: -9.24%
U.S. Dollar Index: +6.19%

Stanford Matthews
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

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

Support him or oppose him the one thing you can say about Rand Paul is that he is not shy. Fresh off something of a controversy over a discussion on civil rights with Rachel Maddow, Rand is mixing it up again on the immigration issue.

Paul Opposes Citizenship for Babies of Illegals
Friday, 28 May 2010 01:27 PM

U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul is stirring it up again, this time by saying he opposes citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are illegal immigrants.

Also in the report above Rand Paul suggests his reason for opposing the above is that Mexican immigrants register 3 to 1 as a Democrat. Is he really against it because liberals are scamming it for votes?

Every indication suggests the Tea Party movement or at least one of the related organizations strongly supports Rand Paul. In another item from Newsmax liberal Lanny Davis has an article entitled ‘Ron Paul Sticks to His Principles.’ That may be. But conservatives may not agree with much of what libertarians have to say. You may remember Ron Paul’s campaign. Not exactly a slam dunk on popular political philosophy.

Here’s part of the Davis’ piece that demonstrates a concern.

That’s when I decided to read the Libertarian Platform, the one adopted at the May 2008 convention in Denver that nominated Rand’s father, Ron, for president. I wanted to understand better why Rand Paul was taking what seemed to be such a politically suicidal set of positions. It explained a lot . . . including about why my and my fellow liberals’ sanctimony about Mr. Paul might have been somewhat misplaced.

This situation is much like that of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Presented as a conservative or anything but a liberal or Democrat yet the new Senator is still an unknown quantity that hasn’t yet passed the smell test. Rand Paul may mirror this situation except that as Davis cites, liberal angst may be misplaced. So may be conservative support.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The second video in this series includes a discussion of Calderon’s errors in his push for shamnesty. It is also interesting the Mexican president criticizes Arizona’s law and how it might be misused yet Mexico was slammed by ‘human rights’ groups for mistreating illegals. Conveniently Mexico claims they no longer view illegal entry as a crime yet their handling of such matters includes more protections than they suggest the US should employ.

Calderon is a liberal PR nightmare in the making. That’s helpful for November 2010.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and other US officials have not read SB 1070, the Arizona law signed by Governor Jan Brewer. Yet they criticize it and those who support it. The race card and other typical liberal tactics are employed to denounce opposition to illegal immigration and efforts to correct it. Both Democrats and Republicans and much of the corporate world support what they call ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ which is nothing more than open borders and amnesty for illegals.

President Calderon of Mexico addressed the US Congress this week. He criticizes US immigration policy even though enforcement rarely if ever exists. Allowing open borders and illegal immigration for decades is what caused the problem. An example of Mr Calderon’s dishonesty on this issue is demonstrated by the excerpt below.

Calderon Criticism of Arizona Law Overlooks Mexico’s Tough Immigration Policy

Mexico repeatedly has been cited by human rights groups for abusing or turning a blind eye to the abuse of migrants from Central America. Until recently, Mexican law made illegal immigration a criminal offense — anyone arrested for the violation could be fined, imprisoned for up to two years and deported. Mexican lawmakers changed that in 2008 to make illegal immigration a civil violation like it is in the United States, but their law still reads an awful lot like Arizona’s.

It’s real simple. The US needs strong immigration laws and associated enforcement. Employer sanctions are needed to dry up the job market for illegals. That effort and related immigration policies would solve the problem in a relatively short period of time.

And after self-deportation of illegals is achieved by eliminating taxpayer handouts that fuel illegal immigration supported by those listed above the liberal argument can finally be defeated. Meaning those who truly and honestly want to come here can get back in line and do it the right way. And those who have abused the situation for selfish purposes will no longer be enabled by lack of enforcement.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:

Mexico Tourism Promoter Running Threatening Ads in Arizona Newspaper?

crossposted at Maggie’s Notebook

The great divide between the political left and right often described as the degree to which America has become ‘polarized’ is present in every debate on issues of the day. National defense, border security, terrorism and illegal immigration are related issues featuring this obstacle to good governance.

Two recent columns from the Washington Examiner highlight the problem. In one, Diana West recounts the Times Square bomber episode and reactions from Mayor Bloomberg and others including the MSM. While they were hoping the bomber was some ‘right wing militia man’ or someone angry over Obamacare or a foreclosure one media marvel hoped it wasn’t someone from an Islamic country and slipped in the race card while she was at it.

West makes valid points throughout the piece not the least of which places responsibility where it belongs.

If our leaders faced facts, you see, they might also have to act. They might have to consider such measures as halting Islamic immigration to stop the demographic spread of Shariah.

Beyond terrorism the issues of national defense, border security and illegal immigration were ignited again in Arizona with the passage of SB 1070. And the rising anger of voters has been felt since last summer’s townhalls and the emergence of the tea party movement. And it should be no surprise that the other column mentioned from the Washington Examiner is another attempt to demonize voter outrage as something it is not.

David Sorota suggests the following:

“I Want My Country Back” — this ubiquitous tea party mantra belongs next to Nike’s “Just Do It” on Ad Age’s list of the most transcendent idioms. In just five words, it perfectly captures the era’s conservative backlash.

And concludes with this:

As a marketing masterpiece, the slogan would certainly impress the old Madison Avenue mavens. The trouble is that as a larger political ideology, its hateful and divisive message is encouraging ever more misguided madness.

Both major political parties in the US would probably like the tea party movement to go away. With the November 2010 midterm elections poised to empty Congress of incumbents both Dems and the GOP are nervous. How else do you explain the preemptive exit by so many POLS? Roll Call has the casualty list. Retirements and resignations alone total 28 house vacancies and 15 in the Senate.

And the first real casualty of the 2010 midterms is Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT). He didn’t make it through the state GOP convention as delegates chose two other candidates who may see each other in the primary.

The story behind this news finds Mitt Romney introducing Bennett at the convention. The same Romney who like Sarah Palin endorsed John McCain in his re-election bid. Palin also sinned again by endorsing Carly Fiorina in the race against Barbara Boxer in California. Fiorina was the failed CEO of HP and an adviser to the McCain/Palin ticket in their failed bid in 2008.

The former Republican vice presidential candidate made the endorsement on her Facebook page, saying Fiorina’s experience running a major corporation is sorely lacking in Washington.

In the Thursday posting, Palin called Fiorina a “Commonsense Conservative” who has the potential to beat “liberal” Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer in November.

But Eric Odom, chairman of Liberty First PAC, a Tea Party-fueled political action committee, called Palin’s endorsement an “unforgivable sin,” and her second strike after endorsing her 2008 running mate John McCain in his Senate race.

That’s a fair assessment from Odom. Conservatives certainly do not need Bennett or Fiorina any more than they need McCain. As for the actions of Palin and Romney this year it would appear they learned little from the 2008 campaign season.

And last but not least, David Obey (D-WI) announcing his retirement this past week is too much of a coincidence to believe being ‘bone tired’ is the primary reason (pun intended) for his decision. Most of those leaving office voluntarily are controversial and vulnerable. Obey was no exception.

The tea party movement contrary to Sirota’s description demonstrates the public is fed up with the ‘establishment’ POLS in our country and yes, we want to take it back from them. So Mr Sirota, given Bennett, a member of the GOP, is the first 2010 casualty try this mantra for your analysis. Throw the bums out!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related: DLTDHYOTWO: Bob Bennett gets the boot. And next…