Blog @ 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

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

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.

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the finance committee and key player in passing Obamacare posted an item in Roll Call defending his work. The November 2010 elections are approaching and apparently Mr Baucus, like Mr Obama is focusing on damage control. If that were not the case and if Obamacare was inspired legislation that is good for the nation he would not have to defend it.  But defend it he does, again.

I have some questions for you Senator Baucus. But you probably will never read them on this tiny and obscure little blog in cyberspace.  And I do not have the time or patients to try to get your attention by other methods.  So let’s just give it a go and see how it works out.

The first question has essentially been asked at the top of this post.  If Obamacare, Demcare, HillaryCare, LiberalCare is so wonderful why do you need to defend it?  Good legislation that can stand on its own merits does not need to be defended.

Question two: Given the CBO estimates, your own actuary reports from HHS and numerous other sources, how can you claim Obamacare will ‘lower skyrocketing costs’ of healthcare? Just the half trillion dollars to be removed from Medicare plunges an iceberg into this titanic.

Question three: Given the power to be bestowed on bureaucrats to decide what constitutes insurance coverage, how doctors will be paid and what treatments are authorized how can you claim the quality of care will be improved?

Your anecdote on Billie Jo Meglen is heartwarming Mr Baucus.  But tell me; if the doughnut hole is $2000 and your fine legislation provided Billie Jo with a $250 ‘rebate’ check how does that really help? $250 is 12 1/2% of $2000.  Put another way, the $2000 she would pay without benefit of the $250 ‘rebate’ is 14.28% higher than with the $250 from the taxpayer. I can get a bigger discount by haggling with the pharmacy or the drug company.

And question four: I know, you said after that a 50% discount would be in place for drugs, etc.  Is that what the $80 billion payoff from Big Pharma was for or will the taxpayer be on the hook for the difference? Unless the drug companies keep handing you billions those discounts will be paid by taxpayers.

Mr Baucus, where is the offset to pay for the 35% discount to employers who provide health insurance?  And by the way, there’s a rumor out there that 60% or better of the current employer based plans will be disallowed once this thing gets going.  What say you, Senator?

And Senator, how is it you can magically make things disappear?  Like annual and lifetime claim limits and pre-existing conditions? If there is no limitation on claims a not-so-unlucky insurance carrier could easily go bust with too many high cost customers. How does Obamacare establish or maintain the basic idea of insurance for pooling risk?

And I really am unsure if I understand your terms when it comes to insurance company disclosure. If what you pay for claims are ‘costs’ how do you ask them to pay 80% of profits on those costs? Isn’t profit what you hopefully have left over after paying costs? BTW, just what is an ‘exorbitant salary’?  Who gets to make that determination?

Your claims and defense of Obamacare seems vague and ripe with generalities.  Like how ‘Americans and small businesses’ (interesting distinction) will receive billions in tax credits without, shall we say, breaking the bank?

‘The new law is fully paid for and won’t add a dime to the national debt.’ That’s a real difficult claim to believe Mr Baucus.  I didn’t believe it the first time I heard it.

Do you really expect American taxpayers to accept these claims? Especially given all the evidence to the contrary.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Sometimes one could understandably draw the conclusion the current President of the United States may need the help of a therapist. Not like his liberal agenda isn’t reason enough to be concerned about his mental health. And a report this week certainly supports such a concern.

President Barack Obama accused Republicans on Saturday of blocking legislation that would boost the nation’s economic recovery and lift a $75 million cap on what oil companies must pay to families and small businesses affected by an oil spill.

Look at the information on either side of the word ‘and’ in the report’s opening paragraph provided. A most hideous feature of most if not all legislation is characterized in a common phrase found in most bills. ‘And for other purposes’ is the phrase that plagues most legislation. Mr President fails to mention this fact while criticizing the loyal opposition.

Not that Republicans, Democrats, Independents or simply all POLS are not guilty of allowing this tactic but it needs to be addressed. The habit of placing bad legislation along with possibly good legislation in most or all bills is the problem. In voting for or against any particular bill each politician is likely forced to support or oppose items that are good and bad.

Here’s more of the nonsense Mr President would like you to believe in his weekly address.

“Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the Senate won’t even allow this legislation to come up for a vote,” the president said in his weekly radio and Internet address. “And if this obstruction continues, unemployed Americans will see their benefits stop. Teachers and firefighters will lose their jobs. Families will pay more for their first home.”

Mr President really wants to spend more of your money. He also wants to spend more of the money of those he defines as villains, like oil companies. Mr President should remove the liability cap proposal from so-called recovery legislation if he wants to bring it to a vote.

As stated earlier in this post, ‘and for other purposes’ is a phrase that needs to go away. Let an idea for a bill stand on its own merits. Don’t continue to spew the rhetoric that the other guys are the problem. With that old ploy of mixing good and bad in legislation everyone loses.

Bad legislative items are simply bad. Good legislative items are only the least bad the government can do. Getting rid of ‘and for other purposes’ would force legislative items to be less problematic for citizens and more of a proble for POLS. We need to take away the POLS excuse that the mixture of items in a bill was responsible for their voting choice.

And BTW, Mr President coerced BP to agree to a $20 billion contingency fund for claims related to the Gulf oil mess. Never mind that this may give BP a leg up in likely court battles in the future but that fund and the fact BP has already paid out more than the $75 million limit renders Obama’s argument moot. He simply wants to gouge his defined villains for more money than current law allows.

That he expects you to believe his rhetoric is the cause for concern about his mental health.

Recently Mr Obama was heard to say he is tired of talk and wants action. Mr Obama, you are the President. Do something impressive. Do something most Americans can support. Or is that asking too much?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If a candidate or other political personality is not featured on this blog or in the sidebar it does not indicate whether or not they are supported or opposed here. At any given time the decision to support or oppose said political person may be withheld until more information is collected.

Such is the case for this site and California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman. But given the latest news about this ‘Republican’ candidate related to illegal immigration opposition to her election can now be expressed here.

Whitman Disses Ariz. Law in Spanish to Court Calif. Latinos

Republican Meg Whitman is translating her message into Spanish, and emphasizing her opposition to Arizona’s controversial immigration law, to court Latinos in her quest to become California’s next governor.

Is there any other way to interpret this move by this candidate than to say it’s an obvious sellout for votes? If there is this blog hasn’t found it. No amount of campaigning can convince this blog author that Whitman’s immigration blunder simply means she opposes illegal immigration and may support another solution for the problem. She simply sold out in public for all to see.

The candidate who doesn’t vote has more money than California and is looking to be CEO of the land of fruits, nuts and flakes gives that state what it deserves. A choice between herself and Moonbeam Brown.

Add to this another story that should rally the troops against the shamnesty scam by larger numbers than ever.

Obama Administration to File Lawsuit Against Arizona’s Immigration Law

Obama administration officials have decided to file a federal lawsuit to block a politically popular Arizona law cracking down on illegal immigration, Fox News and other news organizations reported Friday.

There are some interesting details from these reports. Liberals at the Justice Department and other ’senior’ officials are anonymously stumbling all over themselves to spin the latest development.

The confirmation comes after an inadvertent confirmation by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in an interview last week with an Ecuadorian journalist.

If the healthcare ripoff, national debt, deficits and the Gulf oil mess were not enough to rile voters in an election year the libs are apparently willing to go all in on their agenda bets for this cycle.

Regardless of any other considerations regarding Arizona’s new immigration law those who support Governor Brewer and this effort would do well to financially support the state of Arizona in their fight against the lame Obama administration and its desire to allow anyone to enter our country whenever they feel like it.

As a reminder, when immigration meant those coming to America brought something to the table rather than simply pursuing handouts or to do this country harm the melting pot was a good thing. All that changed when libs decided to put up the sign ‘free for all’ opening the floodgates to illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration must be eliminated.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Upon reading an article from the Washington Examiner this morning I was once again reminded of the timely work of Michelle Malkin and her book the Culture of Corruption. This story has a connetion to the University of Chicago, the Obama administration and funny business going on in public office. Maybe not so funny for those affected by the acts of those in public office.

Fenty administration raided workers’ insurance fund
June 19, 2010

The Fenty administration took $10 million from a workers’ insurance fund that is now the center of multiple investigations, sources told The Washington Examiner .

Fenty and his attorney general, Peter Nickles, have now acknowledged that hundreds of disabled workers were charged for life insurance but weren’t actually given the policies. The administration announced that it was handing the matter over to the city’s inspector general last week.

The workers’ money, which might be worth up to $6 million, went into the city’s workers’ compensation fund.

And now for the Obama administration connection…..

Dan Tangherlini was the city administrator at the time and determined the city was safe in ‘raiding’ the fund. Tangherlini has been with Obama’s Treasury Department for a while now. The Examiner said he wasn’t available for comment on the story. Imagine that.

And the connection to the University of Chicago is, you guessed it, Dan Tangherlini. And even though the report states ‘authorities have not found any evidence of corruption’ you can bet there is.

It seems the Obamanation just can’t get enough people with questionable pasts to work for them. The only annoying part of the story is a common problem. ‘Sources familiar with the investigations’ and ’speaking on condition of anonymity’ appears in the report.

Tangherlini has been busy. He has had more than a few jobs at different levels of government. You can get his official info at Treasury simply searching on his last name. He seems a compatible match for tax cheat Tim Geithner. Although after AIG and his history at the NY Fed, Geithner’s tax problems may decline on the corruption scale.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If you are the most liberal president the United States has ever seen and you give a speech that is panned by the mainstream media what does that tell you? If you cannot win the praises of the liberal media who fawned all over you since you declared your intention to run for the White House in 2008 it’s time to consider a career change.

For those who are interested and haven’t had a chance to review the commentary on Obama’s Tuesday night Oval Office speech two links are provided below:

Media on Obama’s speech: Did we mention it was short on specifics?

Reaction to President Obama’s Speech

Then there is the review from this blog. The handy White House transcript of the speech provides the targets. In just the third paragraph Mr President raised a question or two.

Because there has never been a leak this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology. That’s why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation’s best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge — a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation’s Secretary of Energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.

Not having any evidence to the contrary the size and depth of this gusher is not contested. But Mr President, if you ‘assembled a team’ of the best and the brightest to ‘tackle this challenge’ almost immediately what does that say about two months passing with little to show for it? And stating the event has ‘tested the limits of human technology’ is hard to believe. If reports are correct it appears you have declined assistance from those who have offered to help. A good example would be the Dutch offering to perform skimming operations.

The very next paragraph Mr President you claim the brain trust results had you tell BP to bring out more stuff. Hardly a testament to the limits of human technology if you simply ordered more stuff. And if, as you say, up to 90% of the gushing oil can be captured in weeks why wasn’t it possible before now? Or is ‘up to 90%’ a set of weasel words allowing for nothing more than has been done to date?

And it just gets better in paragraph number six.

But make no mistake: We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever’s necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy.

That pretty much leaves everything open to interpretation. That may why the MSM said the speech was short on specifics. Think of the words in paragraph six as you would when discussing work to be performed by a potential contractor for your home repairs after some disaster. ‘For as long as it takes’ and ‘whatever’s necessary’ are not phrases you want to hear. Making someone pay for damage they caused is subject to legal challenge and in any event can take years longer than anyone can wait. So there you are, nowhere.

Obama says the federal government has been in charge of the cleanup since the beginning. But carefully says ‘we now have nearly 30,000 personnel’ cleaning up. Meaning ‘now’ and not since the beginning. Mr Obama also urges governors in the region to activate the National Guard yet carefully mentions he authorized it but when…. just before the speech?

It gets worse from this point. There is no reason to continue but feel free to review the video or transcript which is widely available and of course the White House website has it.

This is just pathetic. And yes, President Obama does not warrant all the blame for the spill. But his performance as President of the United States regarding this matter falls miserably below any minimum standard acceptable. If the person sitting in the Oval Office cannot muster the resources public or private to address the issue in a timely manner this country is in real trouble.

Gee, what will he do when a real disaster occurs? By his actions this apparently was not considered a disaster of the magnitude he describes in the speech. Or at least not until public opinion changed his mind.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Even the NYT has a hard time avoiding the obvious about President Obama. That is, his speech ‘to the nation’ on Tuesday night will be exactly that…. a speech. All the President is really concerned about is his tanking poll numbers, stalled agenda, a potential election thumping in November and not being adored.

The only fun thing about his speech this evening will be guessing how long it takes for him to shift blame for any bad news to someone else. That should be followed his list of villains, victims and why the nation should allow him to spend whatever he wants.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama Will Take to Oval Office With a Familiar Theme
By JACKIE CALMES
Published: June 14, 2010

WASHINGTON — The venue says it all. By choosing to speak to the nation on Tuesday night for the first time from the Oval Office, where his predecessors have spoken of wars and disasters, President Obama is conveying the gravity of the spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Yet his theme should feel familiar to the millions of Americans who tune in. Aides say Mr. Obama will describe the eight-week-old oil spill as a slow-motion crisis, resistant to the best efforts and billions of dollars from government and industry. Ultimately, he will say, the nation will recover, just not soon.

If you really thought government bailouts were a good thing for our nation you might want to reconsider that opinion. It is refreshing to have someone express Wall Street has nothing to do with this latest chink in the bailout armor.

Banks defaulting on arrangements related to acceptance of bailout funds, aka, taxpayer dollars may not receive as much criticism as the defaults of others where financial transactions are concerned.

Is there anything positive about taxpayer’s propping up failing enterprises whether they are public or private? Probably not.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Small banks a growing drag on bailout program
More than 100 have missed dividend payments to government

WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department’s financial bailout has a growing problem on its hands, and this time it has nothing to do with Wall Street.

A new report from the agency shows that community banks continue to plague the program.

A total of 101 bailed-out banks - nearly all are small - have missed paying the government a dividend, which was a condition of taking the aid.

That number is up 25 percent since February and has nearly doubled since November.

President Barack Obama on Tuesday sought to shift the nation’s attention to a sunnier topic: the coming benefits from the Democrats’ recently-passed healthcare reforms.

Surrounded by a sea of seniors in Wheaton, Md., Obama defended the legislation from GOP attacks and trumpeted the arrival of one of earliest benefits of the new law: a $250 rebate to tens of thousands of seniors caught in the coverage gap of Medicare’s prescription drug benefit — a gap known unendearingly as the “doughnut hole.” The government will begin mailing out those checks on Thursday.

That Barry, what a joker. Does he know anything at all about the ‘doughnut hole’? A $250 check to cover the gap would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic. Aside from being able to carry your lame-ass live-at-home 26 year old children on your health insurance nothing much happens with Obamacare until 2014. Well, except for all the new taxes and reductions in Medicare to pay Medicaid for all the new participants Barry wants.

No point in retelling all the sad points about Obamacare here. If you have not learned about it by now you are either disinterested or one of those nut cases believing Barry is going to pay for everything you want.

BTW, the only reason President Obama is ‘trumpeting’ Obamacare is he knows most voters will thump Democrats at the polls this November and he is in campaign mode as usual doing damage control. He should have thought about that before the Cornhusker Cash or Louisiana Purchase bribes he gave Democrats to pass his legislation.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Republicans are banking that anti-health reform ballot initiatives will give them a significant edge in the November midterm elections.

The debate on the measures, which will be voted on in a half-dozen states, comes as Democrats are increasing their efforts to bolster support for their signature domestic achievement during the 111th Congress.

South Carolina and Missouri have health reform questions on their primary ballot, while three states — Arizona, Florida and Oklahoma — will give voters a chance in November to amend their state constitutions to say residents of those states can’t be forced to pay a penalty if they don’t buy health insurance. The amendment seeks to nullify the individual mandate, which consistently polls as one of the law’s most unpopular provisions.

Amending state constitutions for an opt out is good, pardon the pun, ‘insurance’ if liberals maintain a majority after November 2010. But let’s not forget about repealing Obamacare. It’s a good idea if for no other reason than President Obama does not like the term obamacare. He doesn’t like having his name associated with legislation most people oppose. You would think he would be proud of it if he genuinely thinks the legislation is worthy.

Guess what? He doesn’t and neither should you. But if you are about 2 out of 3 voters no one has to tell you that. You already know.

Tell a friend.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Not like the report below from CNN is earth-shattering news. Ealier this year reports revealed significant growth in temporary employment. Then there is the fantasy world of President Obama who continues to maintain nanny state temporary census jobs in the latest monthly data demonstrate the recovery is in progress and the employment picture is rosy.

Many of the jobs employers are adding are temporary or contract positions, rather than traditional full-time jobs with benefits. With unemployment remaining near 10%, employers have their pick of workers willing to accept less secure positions.

Given the restrictions and burdens placed on employers from Obamacare who can blame them for hiring temps or treating workers as contractors? When the government mandates how you must manage your business if they haven’t already nationalized it there is little room for anything beyond closing the doors.

But hey, liberals can rejoice now that they are destroying the very economy that pays for all their entitlements. Well, it doesn’t really pay for them. It passes the debt on to the next generation. Current taxpayers are merely making what amounts to interest only payments on debt as far as the eye can see.

If the big spenders and program generators are thrown out of federal, state and local government starting in November 2010 we might be able to save our nation from the crippling agenda of the Democratic party majority.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Can’t help but display the image below once again…..

To that must be added the following image for contrast….

Fresh concern about the health of the U.S. and European economies sent the Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbling back below 10000 and drove the euro to new four-year lows against the dollar.

Friday got off to a struggling start as investors reacted to comments late Thursday from a Hungarian official who likened his nation’s debt woes to those of Greece. Then, before the New York open, the Labor Department released U.S. jobs data that was much weaker than expected.

Remember the markets tumbling dramatically some weeks ago initially blamed on a trading mistake and later liberals everywhere were outraged including President Obama? Ya, they used the event to push their so-called Wall Street reforms.

Funny, much about this decline in the markets is credited to ‘weaker than expected’ jobs data. The same jobs data where all but 41,000 or so jobs of the more than 400,000 are due to the liberal majority government hiring temporary census workers.

President Obama was still trying to spin this week’s news as positive and claim it demonstrates his agenda is working. Which is more than you can say for the record number of people not working because of it.

Yes, the agenda of President Obama and his liberals is working. That is if you believe the same socialist agenda is working in the EU. Places like Greece and the US state of California are finding out how well that agenda works.

Once those US census jobs dry up, the tax increases and restrictions of Obamacare cause more jobs to be lost Mr President will have some more explaining to do. That is if the oil spill in the Gulf ever gets off the front page.

Can you identify one item initiated by President Obama that provided a positive outcome for the United States?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com