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

One of the leaders of the Tea Party movement warned Sunday that Republicans could face as big of an electoral backlash as Democrats if they don’t “get some courage.”

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), now the chairman of Freedomworks, a major backer of the Tea Party movement, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the modern Republican Party’s lack of courage is a “big reason” for widespread frustration with both Democrats and Republicans.

You can argue whether or not the Tea Party is a movement. You can argue whether or not Dick Armey is a leader of it. But it is tough to argue against the suggestion the GOP needs some stones.

Just like the football wisdom that suggests on any given Sunday either side can win the same applies to elections. Granted, there are those pundits who regularly predict the outcomes correctly in either event. But when they don’t the word ‘upset’ enters the discussion.

The story linked above provides another reference to Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for America. It also indicates Armey’s support for the economic strategy. And his discontent with the failure of the GOP to support it other than 13 members of Congress currently on record with Ryan.

Give former House Majority Leader Dick Armey his due as one with some political street ‘cred’ and a voice for conservative values that extends beyond his time in the US Congress. Another quote from Mr Armey puts relevant perspective on what the Tea Party mood in our nation really means and why it is so important.

“We’re saying to the Republican Party, get some courage to stand up for the things that are right for this country. Don’t stand there and hide from the issue because you’re afraid of the politics,” Armey said. “The issue of public policy that governs the future of my children is more important than your politics, and if you can’t see that, we’ll replace you.”

That’s what I’m talkin’ about. Democrat or Republican if they’re bums throw them out this November. When the next election comes around, do the same. Eventually the slow learners will get it.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

While reviewing some documents on the four American presidents who were assassinated at least one fact unknown to this blogger was revealed. I was reading about President Garfield because he was the one of the four about which my memory was the least clear. And it was the initial reason for conducting the search.

The senseless act of violence known as assassination defined as the murder of a public figure not only reminds us of how depraved humans can be but how senseless the perpetrator is.

Garfield had little time to savor his triumph. He was shot by Charles J. Guiteau, disgruntled by failed efforts to secure a federal post, on July 2, 1881, at 9:30 a.m. The President had been walking through the Sixth Street Station of the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad (a predecessor of the Pennsylvania Railroad) in Washington, D.C.. Garfield was on his way to his alma mater, Williams College, where he was scheduled to deliver a speech, accompanied by Secretary of State James G. Blaine, Secretary of War Robert Todd Lincoln (son of Abraham Lincoln[25]) and two of his sons, James and Harry.

Were it not for this despicable act the setting described above suggests a pleasant situation not likely a regular routine during anyone’s presidency. Further reading provided a glimpse of how history and the lives of presidents dramatically impact a nation and its citizens. And occasionally how they impact those who are not citizens.

Garfield was one of three attorneys who argued for the petitioners in the famous Supreme Court case Ex parte Milligan (1866). The petitioners were pro-Confederate northern men who had been found guilty and sentenced to death by a military court for treasonous activities. The case turned on whether the defendants should, instead, have been tried by a civilian court. Garfield went on to plead other cases before the high court, but none was as high profile as his first argument before the Supreme Court in Milligan.

President Lincoln has been criticized by some for his suspension of habeas corpus. Before James A. Garfield was president he was involved in Ex Parte Milligan as described in the preceding paragraph. And of course Presidents George Bush (43) and Barack Obama have been in the center of the controversy over those held at the military facility at Guantanamo Bay, Gitmo, and whether the trials should be military tribunal or held in civilian court.

The first case to be tried in civilian court is presently being determined. Which causes this blogger to present the following excerpt from Ex Parte Milligan. It has to do with the notion of Lincoln suspending habeas corpus as viewed by the Supreme Court in 1866.

An armed rebellion against the national authority, of greater proportions than history affords an example of, was raging, and the public safety required that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus should be suspended. The President had practically suspended it, and detained suspected persons in custody without trial, but his authority to do this was questioned. It was claimed that Congress alone could exercise this power, and that the legislature, and not the President, should judge of the political considerations on which the right to suspend it rested. The privilege of this great writ had never before been withheld from the citizen, and, as the exigence of the times demanded immediate action, it was of the highest importance that the lawfulness of the suspension should be fully established. It was under these circumstances, which were such as to arrest the attention of the country, that this law was passed. The President was authorized by it to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus whenever, in his judgment, the public safety required, and he did, by proclamation, bearing date the 15th of September, 1863, reciting, among other things, the authority of this statute, suspend it. The suspension of the writ does not authorize the arrest of anyone, but simply denies to one arrested the privilege of this writ in order to obtain his liberty.

This blogger by no means suggests any personal expertise in matters of law. But the passage above seems to indicate the court agreed on Lincoln’s right to suspend habeas corpus. That would seem to indicate a current suspension would be valid also. And in much of the content of the court’s opinion in Ex Parte Milligan there seems to be a recurring theme.

The rights and rule of law are being considered in terms of citizens. That is to say it seems the discussion centers around the rights of citizens and not non-citizens. It seems to me that those confined at Gitmo are seeking their ‘liberty’ by a process not afforded them under US law. And that those who support their ‘civilian’ day in court are co-conspirators.

That’s just my humble opinion.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Leave it to the Politico. While appearing to report on reaction to Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling on Prop 8 the Politico apparently could not resist, like Walker, in allowing their personal opinion to be embedded in the article. More about that later but what did House conservatives say about the ruling?

Rep Lamar Smith of Texas said, ‘Legalizing an alternative form of marriage dilutes a long-standing and widely accepted standard of marriage as a union between a man and woman. We should adhere to such standards rather than undertake a massive social experiment with perhaps unknown consequences.’

Rep Michele Bachmann of Minnesota said, ‘This is yet one more example of a judge substituting his moral pronouncement under the guise of constitutional law, and I think that’s what people are upset about.’

Rep Steve King of Iowa was not quoted. Rep John Fleming is from Louisiana.

Fleming said he and his fellow conservatives were expressing their genuine displeasure with the ruling.
“I know that these people on the platform for me, we would be up here today if this were unpopular to have this resolution,” he said.”We’ve run no polls. We’ve not discussed this with our leadership. This has to do with our belief in our commitments and it also has to do with the Constitution of the United States.”

The resolution Fleming mentions is a symbolic gesture opposing Walker’s ruling against Prop 8.

Here’s the Politico getting their jab in.

Walker’s ruling was hailed as a step forward for civil rights, though conservative groups said they looked forward to an appeal.

Once again this issue involves homosexual marriage and there is nothing ‘gay’ about it. In terms of civil rights a fallacy exists also. Homosexual marriage and related issues are simply special interest attempts to get special treatment. As for equal protection if a homosexual wants to get married they need a spouse of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

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

There are those who favor tax cuts and reduced government spending. There are those who favor uncontrolled spending and tax increases. Those on the right promote tax cuts. Those on the left promote tax increases.

Those on the right do not oppose spending for constitutional requirements like national defense. Those on the left enjoy defining what spending for the general welfare includes.

The liberal majority in the US Congress backed by a Democrat in the White House have passed legislation in this session like healthcare for everyone regardless of ability to pay. And there is the recent extension of unemployment benefits that begs the question at what point do the employed stop subsidizing the unemployed. But then really it’s all borrowed money anyhow so we should understand the nation is broke.

But even news reports out today as in many days gone by will not convince the majority of a need to stop spending. Continuing to borrow money for their agenda on the backs of the wealthy now and future generations to come will fail.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency over California’s finances last week and ordered three days off without pay per month for tens of thousands of state employees. The state’s government is projected to run out of cash no later than October should its budget stalemate persist as expected.

The poster child state for economic ruin will run out of cash. How’s that for reality? And most of the other states are in serious trouble as well. If any state is surviving right now it is probably only a matter of time before their fate mirrors California.

The 50 states have racked up a record $2.4 trillion in bond debt during the economic downturn – the highest level of state and local indebtedness in history, economic analysts warn. State and local bond debt now consume a whopping 22 percent of the nation’s annual Gross Domestic Product – a bigger slice of the economic pie than ever before, say experts.

Here’s another hint for President Obama that he will ignore:

CBO Warns Obama: Exploding US Debt a Huge Risk

Many have said the current situation is the worst since the Great Depression of the late twenties and most of the thirties. Do we really have to experience a full fledged depression before America’s so-called leaders wake up and smell what they’re selling?

The GOP went a little nuts the last time they had the majority and spent way too much. Then the GOP was invited to become the minority at the ballot box. Now the Democrats are following that game plan and taking it to new levels of the absurd. November 2010 is the next opportunity to throw the bums out.

Voters have to do this every two years from now on until POLS learn. Do the right thing or find another job. Hopefully one not paid for with taxpayer dollars.

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.

Not like the NAACP calling the Tea Party phenomenon racist or multiple blunders related to the employment of Shirley Sherrod were not enough to fuel more race debates but now another hot button is pushed.

It seems there’s an IG report describing the methods used in determining which dealerships would cease to be after Obama took over government motors, etc.  Besides criteria like how new the dealership or its importance to wholesale parts distribution at least two other factors were considered.  If the dealership was minority or woman-owned.

At first you might say ‘that is reasonable’.  But you may not be considering the fact that successful businesses not meeting the criteria may understandably take offense to such an arbitrary selection process.

And you can also see if the situation was reversed how offended all the liberals would be. That is why criteria based on anything other than the numbers, meaning financial success, is not the way to go.  Let performance be your guide.

If you had 100 dealerships and were forced to eliminate 20 other than keeping a presence in all markets the best performers should stay regardless of ownership demographics. But then that is just common sense talking. Some think we should make those decisions based on personal preferences or other bias rather than impersonal data like performance and viability.

But coming from an administration willing to take over the private sector their action on this is no surprise. Rather than economic survival based on free market principles their preference is to choose the winners and losers.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Read the rest here. (click)

If you are looking for another reason to vote against tax and spend liberals, here it is.

Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I.

That opening paragraph from the Boston Herald says it all. ‘Repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress’ yet denies the state of Taxachusetts their due. And of course the senator’s chief of staff denies the mooring location was selected to avoid paying the tax.

As the article states, Kerry is skirting a Massachusetts sales tax of 6.25%. The same sales tax ordinary citizens are required to pay and likely cannot avoid. If Kerry and his rich wife can afford a MULTI=MILLION dollar plaything paying a 6.25% sales tax should be no problem. If you can pony up $7 million plus for the boat you can afford to pay the tax.

For instance, those paying a similar duty after purchasing an automobile have little choice but to pay it. And the car, truck or other vehicle is probably a necessity rather than a luxury.

When the liberals once again target the public for the cap and trade burden let’s see if Senator John Kerry stands to profit from carbon credit exchanges like Al Gore and friends. John Kerry’s leader, Barack Hussein Obama said their will be no taxes on those earning under $250K. Will Kerry once again vote for increasing taxes when his leader promised not to do so?

That’s really a rhetorical question since Obamacare and other legislation passed by Dems with purchased votes already place new burdens on taxpayers. By increasing the national debt and deficits or directly raising taxes for specific items the Obama Administration and their liberal allies in Congress have broken any campaign promises about no tax increases.

Come November 2010, throw the bums out. Repeat as necessary.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The name says it all. Wikileaks produces ’sensitive materials to communicate to the public’. In the name of a self-proclaimed ‘multi-jurisdictional public service’ this organization displays information without regard for the damage it may cause. In their own words the material is sensitive. They should understand that no matter how noble their intent might be the consequences of their actions can be viewed as irresponsible. That reasonable distinction between transparency and irresponsible behavior trumps any noble intent.

Of the nine people listed on their board for 2007 five are described as activist, dissident or social justice advocate. The other four are listed as writer, security expert or physicist.

If the actions of others resulted in the death of an activist, dissident, advocate or writer, etc., it would be no surprise if these same people at Wikileaks expressed outrage and a desire for justice. If death is caused by their brand of ‘transparency’ to someone outside their sphere of influence it is predicted no such outrage or call for justice would be forthcoming from Wikileaks.

In the days ahead a more complete accounting of Wikileaks latest crusade will develop. Questions about the content and validity of ’sensitive materials’ displayed will be raised. The effect and possible ‘unintended consequences’ may also be analyzed.

If harm to anyone comes from this action by Wikileaks fair is fair. They should be held accountable for their actions. Like most other things in life you can take whistleblowing too far. Any reasonable method for any reasonable purpose can be misused. It is only a matter of time before a group like Wikileaks finds that threshhold and violates standards of ethics and good judgment.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

story source:

WikiLeaks Founder Defends Releasing US Documents on Afghanistan

Afghan, Pakistani Reactions at Odds Over Leaked US Documents

Analysis: Leaks Only a ‘Snapshot’ of Afghan War Effort

You might find this press release interesting. It also explains why the Ixquick logo and link are displayed prominently on this blog. Although this blog reserves the right to withdraw support for Ixquick in the future if circumstances warrant, much about Ixquck features a refreshing change from other search engines.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Ixquick: Search Engines Should Become Government Spies, Says EU Parliament
Ixquick and Startpage will fight “Big Brother” data retention clause in Declaration 29

June 28, 2010 03:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time

BRUSSELS & NEW YORK & ZEIST, Netherlands –(BUSINESS WIRE)–A draconian proposal to retain all Internet search traffic, known as “Written Declaration 29,” was adopted by the European Parliament last week. Framed as a measure to crack down on paedophiles, the controversial Declaration calls on the EU to require that search engines store all search traffic for up to two years for possible analysis by authorities.

Search engine Ixquick (www.ixquick.com), widely regarded as the world’s most private search engine, has built a strong privacy reputation by storing no search data on its users. The company believes it has been singled out by the data retention proposal, and it has vowed to strongly oppose the measure becoming law.

“Since Google, Yahoo, and Bing already retain users’ search data, this proposal is clearly aimed at Ixquick and our English-language subsidiary Startpage (www.startpage.com),” said Robert Beens, CEO of Ixquick. “We have worked hard to create a privacy-friendly search engine that embodies the spirit of EU Privacy Protections, in line with the strict recommendations of the EU Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. This Declaration is evidence that the left hand of the EU does not know what the right hand is doing.”

Mr. Beens fears that if the measure becomes law, it will vastly undermine the privacy of over 500 million law-abiding EU citizens. Storing everyone’s search data, rather than restricting surveillance to known or suspected offenders, would give the government access to a rich trove of political, medical, professional, and personal data on virtually every person in Europe. And critics say it will do little to stop child pornography.

“Sex offenders exchange files through underground networks. They don’t find this stuff through search engines,” said Alex Hanff of Privacy International, an advocacy group that is launching a campaign against the measure. “I spent eight years helping law enforcement track down online sex offenders and never once did we see a case where search engine data was useful.”

Ixquick will join the public campaign started by Privacy International to stop the provisions of Written Declaration 29 from becoming law.

“Privacy is a fundamental right and the basis of a free society. The phenomenal success of Ixquick and Startpage proves that people don’t want to be watched by their governments,” said Mr. Beens. “Spying on law-abiding citizens is not the way forward, and we will stand by our principles to protect the public’s ability to search in privacy.”

About Ixquick and Startpage

Ixquick is an international, award-winning search engine with an industry-leading privacy policy. Ixquick has been awarded the EU Privacy Seal by the independent certification authority Europrise. Further information can be found at www.ixquick.com and www.startpage.com.

For press inquiries, please contact:

EU Media Relations, Ixquick
Alex van Eesteren, +31-30-6971778
alex@ixquick.com

OR

U.S. Media Relations, Startpage
Dr. Katherine Albrecht
877-434-3100 (U.S. toll free)
+1-973-273-2125 (for International access)
kma@startpage.com

Say it ain’t so. Harry Reid is abandoning cap and trade? Or was this simply one of those times the House passed a bill knowing all the while the Senate would kill it? Dems like to claim cap and trade, aka the national energy tax, was proposed over concern about global warming. The GOP claims it is a tax on energy and job killer. Truth is that many including Al Gore and many in the federal government stand to profit through carbon credit exchanges.

It is easy to doom a legislative proposal by adding additional language making the bill a multi-purpose scam. Loose references to bipartisan negotiations were reported to break down over offshore drilling disputes and the immigration reform issue. But all that could have been intentional poison pills inserted to guarantee failure.

The strategy being those supporting it really oppose cap and trade but look good to eco voters and other liberals in an election year. The other side gets their pick of items in the bill to mask their true intentions. All in Congress get political cover in an election year with such tactics and then wonder what causes voter outrage.

It is interesting that some state the reason the bill would fail is the need for 60 votes. That did not seem to stop passage of Obama’s financial fiasco commonly and mistakenly referred to as Wall Street reform.

Bribes for votes were offered to three RINOs named Collins, Snowe and Brown. Just like the 60 vote hurdle was overcome in a similar fashion for Obamacare by offering Cornhusker Cash and the Louisiana Purchase for Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu.

The titles of ‘Senator’ were intentionally omitted for these elected officials as their actions do not warrant the respect. If what they did is not a violation of their oath or affirmation, nothing is.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Read the complete article here. (click)

BTW, by the time this post is published all this could change.

It would be comforting if politicians would tell you what they are going to do and then deliver as promised. And party affiliation would not matter. That is because all POLS tell you their intentions are good and they govern for your benefit.

Republicans long on optimism, short on specifics
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent
July 19, 2010

Top Republicans are forecasting big wins in November and could even take over the majority in the House, but still struggle to say how they would run the government.

In the brief article from the Washington Examiner some words of top Republicans and the Vice President on the Sunday talk shows demonstrate it’s an election year. Democrats will continue with their agenda if left in the majority after November. Republicans will tip toe forward until after the elections fearful that major blunders right now will keep them in the minority.

If you are the minority party in Washington your options are limited. If you are a weak majority in Washington your options are limited. Both major political parties in America are pursuing the brass ring of politics. Having an overwhelming majority that allows either to do as they please.

Which brings us back to their intentions, governing and delivering as promised. None of that is necessary if you own a powerful majority. Protecting your political career, pandering to lobbyists and legislating favors to some constituents keeps you in office. And that’s the problem.

It’s okay if the GOP is short on specifics this election year. Specifics from previous campaigns and delivering as promised rarely pans out. And if you think the current administration is any different, think again. What they promised is not what they delivered.

If you pay attention long enough that will become clear. But they’re hoping you won’t. Thousands of pages of legislation and timelines that stretch out for decades do not produce good results. But it does hide the truth.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

H/T: http://www.marktalk.com/blog/
From CNN: Roland Martin and Mark Williams debate on AC 360
July 15th, 2010

Once again a familiar expression on this blog must be repeated. Some people believe if you are white you are racist. And once again Tea Party participants are described as racist. And once again ‘new’ Black Panther members who dress in para-military gear sporting night sticks to intimidate voters or call for killing white people are given a pass. That’s right. No accusations of hate crimes or hate speech or proceeding with violations of, go figure, civil rights and voting laws. But white people are racist.

Okay, I’m white. Based on recent stories on the topic of ‘race relations’ that suggests I’m racist. Sorry, I disagree with that assessment.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The de Rothschild’s fortune may be a publicly unknown quantity but theories abound on its size. It has been estimated by some as in the trillions and some accounts place it in the hundreds of millions when at first the dynasty was born.

David de Rothschild may not be your typical or average limousine liberal. With the size of the family fortune a whole new label may be required. But what de Rothschild shares in common with the long car lefties is an affection for anthropogenic global warming.

Why is it that well-heeled individuals take a Hollywood approach when telling the rest of us how to live? Is it possible that those who shoulder the burden of living with massive fortunes the rest of us can only dream about have no clue? It would make more sense if those short on targets for their fortunes invested in practical solutions to the issues they embrace.

But that would illuminate the real story. It is not about AGW or any real issue. It’s about them and their personal interests.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA News….

A British adventurer is spreading his own message in a bottle by crossing the Pacific Ocean aboard an 18-meter catamaran made of thousands of plastic soda bottles.

David de Rothschild’s unusual boat is his way of drawing attention to the plastic polluting the world’s oceans while also showcasing a solution. The 31 year old hopes to inspire followers with the boat he calls the “Plastiki.”

Global mission

“We’re on a mission to beat waste,” says de Rothschild. “The Plastiki project is really trying to showcase that waste is inefficient design and that we can reuse everyday materials and rather than them ending up in landfill, or in our oceans, or being incinerated and ending up in our atmosphere, we can repurpose and build items that can be reused so we can close the loop.”

After reading a United Nations report about the huge swirls of plastic trash in the oceans, the British banking heir thought up the expedition to draw attention to the problem.

The name Plastiki echoes the Kon-Tiki, the raft that Norwegian anthropologist and adventurer Thor Heyerdahl built to cross the Pacific in 1947.

His grandson, Olaf Heyerdahl, was one of six crew members on the first leg of the Plastiki voyage, from San Francisco to Christmas Island.