Blog @ 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

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

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

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

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Arizona voters, taken after the ruling was issued, finds that 66% still favor the recently passed immigration law. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are opposed. Support for the law is unchanged from when it was first passed in April.

By a 59% to 34% margin, Arizona voters disagree with Judge Susan Bolton’s decision to block implementation of some parts of the law.

Not surprisingly, voters favor Governor Jan Brewer’s decision to appeal the ruling by a 59% to 29% margin. Brewer has risen in popularity since signing the law and is now well ahead in the Arizona governor’s race.

Nationally, 59% of voters support passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state, and 50% disagree with the judge’s ruling.

It is extremely rare that this blog author watches television. Before last Sunday I can only guess that it has been many months with the exception of the occasional online news video featured on this blog. So what was the attraction to listen to Meet the Press this week?

I couldn’t resist the appeal to confirm my suspicions that listening to Gregory’s guests would be excruciating. It was. Governor Rendell, Mayor Bloomberg and former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan were predictable as well as annoying.

Either during a commercial interruption or after the programmed concluded I took a quick look at what was on the other channels. My location features 11 off-air OMG digital broadcast channels. That’s right. No point in subscribing to cable or satellite if I don’t watch TV more than once every few months for less than an hour.

The local public television station offers three channels. One of them was airing a public affairs program populated only by liberals and perhaps a token conservative. The liberals were whining about Arizona’s state immigration law. Along with that they were whining about all the racism and inequality in America.

The point is this. One of the fine liberals concluded the poll data above or other polling data like it was wrong. He did his level best to convince the viewers he was right and most people opposed the Arizona law.

The problem is he had no data, no evidence or any other information to support his opinion. He simply presented his opinion as fact. This is exactly the reason I do not watch television very often. Given the financial woes of most broadcast and print media it may be the only people watching regularly are liberals.

Where else would anyone agree with their fantasies? And how long will it be until the rest of the liberal media goes the way of Air America? (bankrupt and out of business)

With any luck at all a return to the rule of law will begin after Novmeber 2010. Then the simple method of cutting off taxpayer provided benefits, free education for illegals, anchor babies and chain migration as well as sanctions against employers who hire illegals can begin in earnest.

For a return to national security and border control we can borrow a currently familiar phrase. ‘Yes we can.’ To anyone who claims it is not possible to remove all illegals from the US I say you are a closet shamnesty supporter. The simple method outlined above is more than possible. It is necessary and will work. Those who oppose it support illegal immigration.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Some good news just keeps coming. A testament to the fact big government, bailouts, stimulus and other liberal dreams are not necessary nor wise.  In February this blog pointed to the success of Ford amid troubles all over the auto industry. It seems the old slogan ‘Ford has a better idea’ is once again noteworthy. They never took a bailout and are experiencing a string of very successful quarters.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Ford posts another quarterly profit as sales climb
07/23/10 5:40 PM

With its two longtime Detroit rivals still finding their way after spending time in bankruptcy last year, Ford, which never took government bailout money, extended its success story.

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

Hardly a day goes by without some ‘rights group’ being featured in the MSM. There are groups that could be defined as ‘responsibility groups’ but they receive little attention from those individuals that regard themselves as journalists or organizations that claim to present news and information based on standards of journalism.

Last week one report opened by describing Human Rights Watch as a ‘leading human rights group.’ Could the author be referring to the executive director’s salary? Since 1993 a lawyer named Kenneth Roth has been the executive director of HRW with an annual salary of $350,000. That’s nearly 18% of HRW’s management and general expenses for the year. And they may have 275 employees. And let’s not forget their fundraising expenses of $8,641,358 for 2008 (according to Wiki).

The non-governmental organization claims they do not accept government money directly. But they receive funds from other groups who may. And they supported ACORN at least in 2000 and/or 2001 to the tune of a half-million dollars.

So what’s this all about? The report out last week has Human Rights Watch whining about the rights of illegals. And for all their whining the problem they perceive could be solved if no one entered the United States illegally. They bad mouth countries all over the world for claimed wrongdoing. It is interesting that they say nothing about Mexico’s ‘responsibility’ to correct their own problems and eliminate the attraction to cross the border illegally into another country.

Here’s the report. Have a good laugh. HRW is a scam. The last three paragraphs assume the reader is extremely gullible. Correction, the entire report assumes you are gullible.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA News….

A leading human rights group is calling on the U.S. Congress and the Obama administration to include protections for immigrants’ rights in their proposals for immigration reform.

New York-based Human Rights Watch released a report Friday saying more needs to be done to protect undocumented immigrants in the workplace and in court.

The group says at work such people are vulnerable to exploitation - including sexual abuse and poor working conditions - and should be allowed to find other jobs in such cases.

It also recommends giving undocumented immigrants a path to legalization that includes government protection, so they feel safe to report crimes.

Earlier this month, President Obama called for bipartisan support for immigration reform. He described overhauling the system as a “moral imperative.” Congress is sharply divided over the issue, with Republicans generally opposing what they call amnesty programs.

The Human Rights Watch report also urges the government to allow immigration judges to consider the ties legal permanent residents have in the United States before deporting them for minor crimes. The group says thousands of legal residents are deported each year without having their family connections or past military service considered.

Human Rights Watch also calls on the government to limit immigrant detentions. The group says those who have committed nonviolent crimes should be exempt from detention.

For President Obama the honeymoon has long since past. The first 100 days analysis of each new American president is more common these days since ‘honeymoon’ characterizations may have faded with frequent two term administrations like Reagan, Clinton and Bush 43. The question in either case was how long will it take for the promises of a campaign to be discarded after election.

Hope and change was as pathetic a slogan as one might hear from a snake oil salesman. But the distinction between the ambitions of a community organizer and a seller of dubious liniments can no longer be defended.

With the midterm elections approaching Democrats prove the pundit forecast predicting the probability of the GOP retaking the congressional majority. Rather than a carnival atmosphere liberals appear as cannibals feeding on their own to redirect blame for their failure to govern properly.

Democrats are having a jolly good time beating up the White House.

You can see why. President Obama has caused the party to squander a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reclaim permanent majority status.

An example of how bad things are for Dems in the report above has this little tidbit:

Out in Iowa, the Democratic Governors’ Association spent money on mailers trashing Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad for being too much like Obama on health care.

Who’s selling the snake oil now? But it gets better.

WASHINGTON — Republicans are outraising Democrats in nearly a dozen open Senate races, increasing their hopes of significantly narrowing the Democrats’ majority in November.

Money as the root of all evil is not a phrase lost on politics. The idea that he who has the most money wins may be a subject for debate given the strength of the tea party and new conservative candidates. But outdoing your opponents on fundraising suggests more people support you than your opponent.

What else does the money game offer POLS?

WASHINGTON — A Republican lawmaker says documents show more senators and staff members than previously known received sweetheart mortgages from the former Countrywide Financial Corp., based on their perceived ability to help the company.

It wasn’t just Chris Dodd or Kent Conrad who took perks from Countrywide. This is no different than money from lobbyists or other special interest powerbrokers. Then there’s vote selling (bribes) like Cornhusker Cash (Sen Ben Nelson), the Louisiana Purchase (Sen Mary Landrieu) and the following:

GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Scott Brown of Massachusetts voted for the bill after Democrats agreed to drop a provision to raise $19 billion by imposing fees on banks.

It’s not quite that innocent. Collins, Snowe and Brown received perks for their states as the price paid for their vote to pass the bill. How is that different from Dodd or others taking perks from Countrywide in exchange for political favors?

That’s right. Throw the bums out. Repeat as necessary.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This video presentation is dated from the end of June 2010. Although DeMint is speaking about a particular piece of legislation he also expresses the continuing need for our US government to abandon an agenda that does not work and runs counter to our founding in addition to the immediate need for economic recovery.

That is why this video is presented. It emphasizes the desire by most Americans to adhere to those principles that have served us well for so long. The notable and well-known examples are to stop spending, stop increasing deficits and the national debt and above all get government out of the way of Americans who are the engine that drives our economic prosperity.

Thank you Senator Jim Demint (R-SC)

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)

Wow, RINO McCain does it again! The same man who conspired with Bush 43, Ted Kennedy and others in the 2007 push for shamnesty now says in an election year that we should deport illegals.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Tuesday he would favor immigration reform that would deport many of the residents of the United States who are here illegally.??

McCain, who at one point had been the top Republican advocate for immigration legislation promising a pathway to citizenship for some illegal immigrants, said he favored establishing a guest worker program. But McCain expressed opposition to any program that would give illegal immigrants a way to become citizens.

“No amnesty. Many of them need to be sent back,” McCain said during an interview on KQTH-FM in Tucson, Ariz.

McCain aka McShamnesty, also favors a guest worker program for the guest worker who never leaves. This is no different than before. Neither is his flip-flop on shamnesty. Sounds like John Kerry. I was for it before I was against it.

RINOs are disgusting. As much as I oppose liberals, RINOs are worse. At least you know where a liberal stands even though they are wrong. With RINOs you may get fooled if you haven’t paid attention to them for a while.

Right or wrong I have more respect for someone who stands up for what they believe in than those like McCain who play politics all the time. A liberal example more principled than John McCain is when vulnerable Democrat Blanche Lincoln said win or lose she’s a Democrat and will pursue re-election as a Democrat. McCain is a RINO and only talks conservative as a political strategy.

Voters in Arizona would do well to vote for JD Hayworth. He may not be perfect but what has Arizona gained by having McCain in the US Senate? How about the need for SB1070 although Jan Brewer supports McCain. Go figure.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The previous post touched on President Obama’s recent immigration speech. Reviewing the speech once again compels commentary. The first excerpt to be evaluated demonstrates that Mr Obama can present inspirational messages.

I was a candidate for President that day, and some may recall I argued that our country had reached a tipping point; that after years in which we had deferred our most pressing problems, and too often yielded to the politics of the moment, we now faced a choice: We could squarely confront our challenges with honesty and determination, or we could consign ourselves and our children to a future less prosperous and less secure.

That IS the speechmaking undoubtedly responsible for many casting a ballot for then candidate Barack Obama. But as Mr Barone pointed out in his writing at the Washington Examiner referenced in the previous post this particular immigration speech was all about election year politics. The very plague that then candidate Obama denounced to get elected.

It gets worse.

I believed that then and I believe it now. And that’s why, even as we’ve tackled the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, even as we’ve wound down the war in Iraq and refocused our efforts in Afghanistan, my administration has refused to ignore some of the fundamental challenges facing this generation.

Sorry Mr President, you have not ‘tackled’ the economic problems. And you and your liberal followers used anti-war rhetoric, campaigning and personal attacks on the very man you now hail as the best choice to lead the military operations in Afghanistan, General Petraeus. In addition you and your crew have refused to acknowledge the success of the surge in Iraq for allowing the winding down in Iraq. Your senate leader Harry Reid went so far as to say the war was lost.

But you are correct on the last point. Your administration has refused to ignore ’some’ of the challenges. Those items you choose to target are for purposes of your liberal agenda. The items you mention in this speech: the economy, healthcare, Wall Street, energy and immigration are all targets of your liberal agenda and your attention to them has nothing to do with ‘confronting the great challenges of our times’.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com