Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Ruth Marcus wrote a piece last week entitled, ‘Why Congress should let the Bush tax cuts expire.’ There is very little right and too much wrong in her column. Who is Ruth Marcus?

Ruth Marcus is an editorial writer for The Post, specializing in American politics, campaign finance, the federal budget and taxes, and other domestic issues. She writes a weekly column that appears on Wednesdays.

The best thing about the column is the use of one of Bush 43’s best quotes.

“The people of America have been overcharged, and, on their behalf, I’m here asking for a refund,” Bush told Congress in February 2001.

Marcus claims ‘the social security surplus was spent.’ If Marcus specializes in the federal budget and taxes you might expect her to know what the CBO knows about social security and other government trust funds. They are ‘accounting mechanisms.’ Meaning there is no little piggy bank where everyone’s SSI benefits are waiting for their retirement.

Marcus uses references from the OECD, the OMB and Alan Greenspan to make her points. A breakdown of who pays taxes in the US may have been a more efficient choice. From the IRS via the National Taxpayers Union one fact is clear.

Those whose incomes are in the top 50% nationwide pay more than 95% of US income tax. Those in the bottom 50% pay less than five percent.

The part where Marcus almost gets it is demonstrated in the excerpt below.

I expressed frustration a few weeks back with the denialism among some liberal Democrats about the need to curb entitlement spending and the conviction that simply socking it to the rich would solve the fiscal problem. But the Republican position seems even more intransigently divorced from reality. Perhaps there is some magical point at which Republicans might accept the reality that the government needs more revenue than it is currently set to take in — but I haven’t heard it yet.

Yes, liberals do not want to reduce or eliminate entitlements.
Yes, liberals want to redistribute wealth.
No, the government DOES NOT need more revenue.

Entitlements account for the majority of the federal budget. Government spending will always exceed the ability to pay for it. That is one reason why goverment must be limited. And it is why the government does not need more revenue. It needs to end the spending spree.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Highlighting some important issues is good even if politicians do it for the wrong reasons. It is up to the public to pressure their reps to do what is right. Some POLS are finally making statements about the need to examine anchor babies and other misuse of US immigration policy.

We need to remember people like Sheriff Joe are the good guys. Arpaio, Brewer and Pearce have started what needs to be done. While Clinton-nominated Judge Bolton slowed the progress of SB 1070 in Arizona there is reason to believe the fight has just begun in earnest and the will of the people will win as shamnesty advocates will be sent home in November 2010.

For instance, a recent report indicates Sharron Angle is once again gaining on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada. Opposition to incumbents across the nation indicates voter anger will clean house this fall.

Some of the stories below demonstrate the continued efforts to restore traditional principles and values to our great nation. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Throw the bums out in November 2010, 2012 and repeat as necessary. Liberals and RINOs must go along with illegals. Do not tax our economy into oblivion. Eliminate debt and deficits by cutting entitlements and other waste. Stengthen national security and border control. Return to the founding principles and the rule of law.

Liberal agenda be damned. Restore America. Do the right thing.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

	Leading Republicans Push 4 Review of Birthright Citizenship
	Justice Gives Az. Sheriff Deadline in Rights Case
	Mo. Voters Reject Key Provision of Health Care Law
	Virginia AG Cuccinelli: Obamacare Ends Federalism
	Wave of Health Reform Provisions Coming Next Month
	Lieberman: ‘Put the Brakes’ Ground on Zero Mosque
	Panel Frees Way for Ground Zero Mosque
	Pelosi strikes confident note on midterms: ‘I’m not nervous
	Kerry would reject a Petraeus request for more time, troops
	Levin: Media too focused on negative….
	Dem leaders, donors to hold Rangel birthday bash…
	Agency Weighs Skirting Congress On Immigration
	Gingrich: Obama Repeating Mistakes From the Great Depression
	CBO Warns Obama: Exploding US Debt a Huge Risk

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

Sunday seems as good a time as any for another rant about media and the news. Like anyone else who struggles to keep up with what is going on in the world I have my routine. As much as it bothered me Google News was one stop regularly checked for a cross-section of stories from the MSM. Could they leave it alone. Of course not for as useless as it was to begin with they decided to make it worse.

I stopped relying on Google as a search engine with the advent of Ixquick. Seems we should spread the traffic around and while Ixquick is not perfect it is a reasonable alternative and may get better if we use it and submit suggestions for improvements.

This was another day in an effort to alter my news scanning routine. And it was the cause of another lament on the state of media or MSM and content. A roll of the dice so to speak selected USA Today as the first stop. Without a one stop aggregation of news to view from around the planet I was trying a few quick hits for headlines, etc.

Gannett, the owner of USA Today and too many other print sources allows their navigation bar on the main page to highlight part of what is wrong. While the top navbar features general categories of topics like news, travel and money the second navbar suggests what is ‘essential’.

Markets, scores, games, lotteries, video, photos, opinion, blogs, subscribe, classifieds and jobs make the list. After ‘markets’ which seems to indicate business information the rest is not essential nor necessarily worthwhile.

Hey, I have nothing against Chelsea Clinton and I hope she and her husband have a wonderful life. I honestly mean that. But when Chelsea is the obvious big splash on a typical MSM front page and the most popular reads for the USA fishwrap feature three stories about Chelsea and one about the disfunctional Jersey Shore television series something comes to mind. Actually many things come to mind but here’s the second one. (The first was who reads the MSM and why?)

87% Feel Media Covers Celebrities Too Much

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Americans feel the media pays too much attention to celebrities, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. But 84% of Adults also admit that Americans pay too much attention to celebrity news and not enough attention to news that has real impact on their lives.

Just one percent (1%) do not think media outlets cover celebs enough, while nine percent (9%) say the coverage is about right.

That may explain why traditional media sources are failing. The one and nine percent figures above may reflect the number of people attracted to the trash most media outlets publish or broadcast.

BTW, the rest of USA Today’s front page was populated with other useless or redundant coverage on items that are common knowledge. And of course they offered unwavering support with their coverage of things Obama and liberal.

Fortunately I can get along with the critical content of my routine. The trustworthy sources I use for the bulk of what is important do not fail me. But trying to cover it all and make judgments about decisions to be made is still a challenge and too time consuming.

Too bad so many in the media world refuse to address this simple problem. But then that is not what most of them are about. If their biz model of catering to the lowest common denominator and filling that demand with cheap stories to present is no longer a golden goose you might expect they would change. Or maybe they’re just waiting for their bailout from the Obamanation.

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

Porkulus has been one of the most absurd political disasters in our lifetime.  The remainder of the liberal agenda will bring more of the same. Hope and change is coming in November 2010.

Here’s a report highlighting some of the stupidity of PORKULUS.

Stimulus fails, Blue States hardest hit

ProPublica’s “Recovery Tracker” has an interesting chart listing how much federal stimulus funding went to each state, juxtaposed with that state’s rate of unemployment from 2008 to 2010. Remember, the main purpose of President Obama’s $850 billion stimulus package was to “save or create jobs,” 

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

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

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

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Here’s a report from VOA…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cuomo Accepts Millions From Interests He Assails (NYT)

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

from Wiki….

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

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

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

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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

Gore Was Accused of Sexual Advances

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

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

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

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really, in America itself.

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

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

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

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

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Nothin’ like throwin’ a little mud on the liberals. For all the years of adoration toward the Kennedy administration, Camelot and the popular fascination with such American icons one thing seems certain. No matter how good some works are in politics there always seems to be a downside. That which can cause one to shake their head in disappointment.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Kennedy orgies in romper room
FBI’s XXX files on John, Bobby & Ted

The file on the mob plot began with the informant’s disclosures to the FBI’s Milwaukee office. The FBI added an unsigned statement that said a multimillionaire Manhattan divorcée knew about the orgies.

“It was reported that Mrs. Jacqueline Hammond, age 40, has considerable information concerning sex parties,” the statement said.

Among those who took part were John, Robert and Ted Kennedy, Monroe, Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr. and Lawford and his wife, Patricia Kennedy, it said.

The statement indicated Hammond, who was divorced from a US ambassador, was credible.

It was widely reported in the early 1960s that John Kennedy kept a two-bedroom apartment at The Carlyle, and it was later claimed that he spent the night there with Monroe after she sang “Happy Birthday, Mr. President” at his 45th-birthday celebration.

Republican Rand Paul said Tuesday he differs with the Libertarian Party by opposing abortion and supporting judicious overseas troop deployment, distancing himself from the party his father once represented in a presidential election.

The U.S. Senate candidate from Kentucky told syndicated conservative talk show host Sean Hannity that he doesn’t fit the mold of a Libertarian. Paul said his conservative social views and willingness to send troops abroad to protect the U.S. set him apart from the party some have tried to associate him with.

An earlier post on this blog reminded readers that Rand Paul is a Libertarian and not a conservative. It would be nice to think that is responsible for his statements on Sean Hannity’s radio show. But then this is just another insignificant blog and could not possibly influence big time politicians.

Mark Levin supports Rand Paul and from what I heard considers him a conservative. I respect Mark Levin and his opinions but am reminded of Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts. I don’t believe Scott Brown is a conservative either.

Maybe Rand Paul could explain in detail what he means by ‘judicious overseas troop deployment.’ Is this someone carefully dancing around the facts or is he truly a conservative in libertarian’s clothing. Or maybe it’s the other way around.

If politics was an honest living it might not be necessary to be so skeptical. (or cynical if you prefer that word)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com