Blog @ MoreWhat.com

In an August 1994 Washington Post-ABC News poll, 49 percent of respondents said they would vote for the Democrat while 42 percent said they would back the Republican. Last month, 47 percent said they would support the Republican while 46 percent chose the Democrat.

Overconfidence may be what turns winners into losers. And while nearly every forecast or prediction currently held indicates a dramatic loss for Democrats this November now is not the time to claim victory. It ain’t over till the fat lady sings. And it is more than two months until the midterm elections.

One problem with overconfidence approaching elections is the typical dismal turnout percentage tends to fall. That would likely benefit the majority party as midterms generally favor the minority party when bad times persist.

Democrats have wasted what some have called a rare opportunity to become the permanent majority in Congress. Likewise the GOP failed in that effort on their last attempt. And the Tea Party mood that defines widespread voter outrage at both political parties represents an extremely rare opportunity for citizens to regain control of government.

Perhaps a once in a lifetime chance allowing citizens to match the power of politics as usual at the national, state and local level is upon us. Divide and conquer may be the strategy of career politicians but the usually disorganized American public has reached the tipping point. Voters of all political stripes are adopting the anti-incumbent sentiment. The one voter strategy that can change American politics.

It is a simple strategy. Do the right thing or you are gone in one term. And it’s fair. So let’s do it at every election. If a politician has not performed to expectations in their current term, throw the bums out.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Two stories demonstrate some of the problems of public education in the United States. One is from March of 2010 and one from this month.

Singapore Math is a curriculum modeled on the way math is taught in Singapore.

“It’s a curriculum that helped Singapore math students skyrocket to number one by the 1990s and that’s where they’ve stayed ever since,” says Scott Baldridge, an expert on this approach.

Baldridge has designed a training program for elementary school math teachers who want to use it.

He says Singapore used to import all of its mathematics textbooks from other nations. But in 1980, they started to develop their own math curriculum. Baldridge explains that they prioritized the concepts they wanted their students to learn.

Note this ‘curriculum’ has Singapore on top in math. Also note if you follow the link that this process was introduced through the ‘home school market’. And people scoff at the idea of eliminating the Dept of Education. Speaking of the fine Dept of Education, what have they been doing?

The US Department of Education has announced an investigation into the teaching of English-language learners in Los Angeles public schools. These students, who are immigrants or the children of immigrants, make up one-third of the LA school population. The investigation is the first of a number of civil rights actions planned for local school systems around the United States.

The first story suggests why students taught at home are successful. The second story suggests why public education in America fails the student. The liberal agenda strikes again.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s just my humble opinion.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For those unaware of Rasmussen Reports here is the link to the site (click here). For everyone here is an excerpt from the American Spectator about Rasmussen’s current view on voting in America. For some it will be an uplifting bit of news.

“If you look at polls of generic congressional preference, Democrats do well in polls of all adults, Republicans do better in polls of registered voters, and better still among likely voters,” Rasmussen said. “Groups most supportive of Democrats, young and minority voters, are less likely to be registered and less likely to go to the polls.”

Rasmussen said the youth turnout wasn’t even that impressive in 2008, with a rock star at the top of the ticket. He said he’d be “shocked” if the youth vote turned out this year. He pointed out that in 2008 McCain won among voters who were 40 or older. Rain or shine, these folks show up to the polls, and they lean Republican.

Being forty or older is a good place to be. We show up at the polls and we lean Republican. Lean being the key. Bob Bennett is a recent example of how important that distinction is. Those who vote party all the time whether left or right will be wrong some of the time. Those who vote principle will be right all the time.

In the last presidential election a vote for Obama was a vote not on principle but some other measure. Hope, change or pick the other party this time. That is not voting on principle. That is wasting a vote.

While voting for McCain required holding one’s nose a principle was nonetheless involved. A president cannot ignore the party in which they hold membership. John McCain would have been required to alter his own agenda in order to maintain support from his own party. Much the same as Obama has had to do much to the detriment of our nation. But the chance of a common sense conservative approach was a possibility with McCain and the GOP as opposed to the left and Barack Obama.

The baby boom generation is old enough to remember the work of what has been referred to as the greatest generation. (by Tom Brokaw) Understanding the greatness of America through their eyes and that of those before them will vanish if our nation does not return to those principles in the near future. Few of the newer generations are willing or able to carry that torch.

We have let them down by not passing on this information or allowing them to understand the necessity for protecting the founding of this nation by the way we live.

For the first time in many years there is reason to believe a reawakening has begun. Call it voter anger (or sour voters as Chuck U Schumer said) or outrage, the Tea Party phenomenon or whatever you like. But polls like those of Scott Rasmussen and others have been suggesting for months on end something big will happen in November 2010.

It is this blogger’s expectation that the GOP, conservatives and like-minded Americans will have a rare opportunity to put our nation back on its proper course and correct the problems for which we are all responsible. That requires supporting candidates who oppose the liberal agenda with your vote this time around.

It also requires a similar approach to each and every election. If a person in elected office has not lived up to their oath or affirmation they need to be replaced. You get the time between elections to prove your self. If you fail you should be voted out. It is that simple.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

There are a few posts on this blog discussing Rand Paul. In Mr Paul’s pursuit of a seat in the upper house of the US Congress he has faced some typical challenges. As expressed here earlier he is not shy and has expressed his opinions. It may be refreshing honesty and what politics should embrace but he was, of course, criticized by some for his statements.

With one minor controversy regarding a discussion on civil rights law and perhaps another attempt to create scandal and political fallout Rand Paul marches on. This blogger was concerned about Rand Paul and his father’s libertarian views. He is cast by some as a conservative and has obvious links to the Libertarian party. Whether he is conservative or whether libertarian in today’s politics mirrors libertarian historically certainly raises questions.

The view from this blog finds it surprising that a Rand Paul opinion piece is featured at USA Today if only because the publisher is the Gannett Company. But there it is and here’s an excerpt of Mr Paul stating his case about libertarians and constitutional conservatives. The question that remains for this blogger is still the same. Was he distancing himself from libertarians as a political strategy or has he always been essentially a conservative?

You decide.

Rand Paul, libertarian? Not quite.
By Rand Paul

It’s often repeated in stories about me or my race for U.S. Senate that I am a “libertarian.” In my mind, the word “libertarian” has become an emotionally charged, and often misunderstood, word in our current political climate. But, I would argue very strongly that the vast coalition of Americans — including independents, moderates, Republicans, conservatives and “Tea Party” activists — share many libertarian points of view, as do I.

(Click the excerpt to read the rest.)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It takes some work to push the rhetoric aside to focus on the real information and find leadership. A few recent items in the media demonstrate the point. The first item was rather shocking. Peggy Noonan actually expressing something that makes sense. The sad part is you must read past her continued dismissal of the Tea Party to find it.

‘The problem for the Democrats, however, is not a new Contract With America, or the Tea Party. Their problem is Chris Christie.’

She adds, ‘The public thinks we’re sinking as a nation. They want to know someone has a plan to help. The most promising leader in that respect is Mr. Christie, the New Jersey governor, who just closed an $11 billion budget gap without raising taxes.’

Those excerpts are from a column at the WSJ on July 30, 2010. Forget that Noonan thinks the Tea Party and other conservatives have ideas that are too radical if only because few have had the stones to express them in many years. That is why the following excerpt from a piece by Perry Bacon, Jr. has a title that says it all.

Rep. Ryan pushes budget reform, and his party winces

Viewing him as a rising star in the party, Republicans in Congress often talk up Rep. Paul Ryan as a potential governor, senator or House leader. The lanky, youthful-looking congressman from Wisconsin has begged off, citing his young children and limited desire to spend all his time raising campaign money.

Instead, Ryan is running a campaign of a different sort, one his party has so far refused to adopt: He is determined to persuade colleagues to get serious about eliminating the national debt, even if it means openly broaching overhauls of Medicare and Social Security.

With that in mind understand that establishment POLS like John Boehner have said the GOP will unveil the party agenda after the August recess. The Democrats love calling the GOP the party of ‘no’ simply because they oppose the liberal agenda and use the few tools available to the minority party.

The Tea Party demonstrates voter outrage and a call for the return to common sense governing. Chris Christie and Paul Ryan demonstrate the kind of leadership that is lacking but nonetheless what our country needs. So how surprising is it that liberal icons like Paul Krugman would criticize someone like Paul Ryan and look the fool doing it?

Paul Krugman’s latest New York Times column, in which he calls Rep. Paul Ryan a charlatan and his Roadmap for America plan a fraud, is unusally partisan even by Krugman’s standards.

The reference above is a good example of how silly Krugman looks. But you can simply use your favorite search engine and the terms ‘krugman’ and ‘ryan’ to find more. Ryan’s rebuttal to Krugman is linked with an excerpt below.

Krugman’s detour on ‘Roadmap’ to solvency
By Paul Ryan
Aug. 7, 2010

Despite watching European welfare states collapse under the weight of their own debt, those running Washington are leading us down precisely the same path. With the debt surpassing $13 trillion, we can no longer avoid having a serious discussion about how to address the unsustainable growth of government.

Unfortunately, rather than make meaningful contributions to this conversation and bring solutions to the table, Democrats have attempted to win this debate by default. Relying on demagoguery and distortion, the left would prefer that entitlements - often labeled the “third rail” of American politics - remain untouchable, and the column by Paul Krugman of The New York Times is indicative of the partisan attacks leveled against the plan I’ve offered, a “Roadmap for America’s Future.”

Voters of any political stripe should have the sense to support leaders like Paul Ryan and Chris Christie. We dismiss the value of their leadership at our own peril.

Stanford Matthews
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

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

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

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

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

California voters are giving U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer some of the lowest approval ratings of her career, as the three-term Democrat is in a statistical dead heat against first-time GOP office-seeker Carly Fiorina, according to a new Field Poll released today.

Not unlike the no choice situation in the California governor’s race the contest for US Senator between Boxer and Fiorina allows voters to lose either way. For governor the state of California will elect either Moonbeam Jerry Brown or Shamnesty Limousine Liberal Meg Whitman. For one of California’s US Senate seats the no choice is incumbent Boxer with a tanking approval rating or RINO Fiorina who is no different than Specter, Collins, Snowe or McCain for conservatives.

One of Boxer’s more vexing problems, analysts say, is that opposition to her is not just about her. She has become an avatar for broader voter frustrations about the struggling economy, President Obama and the growth of the federal government.

The article also expresses Boxer’s ‘close relationship with the White House’ as a problem and that Fiorina won the nomination running as a conservative and gave up independent votes to Boxer.

Anyone who believes Fiorina is a conservative would hold the same opinion of the other RINOs mentioned. But liberals in California have kept Boxer for three terms and NOW have a problem with her? The land of fruits, nuts and flakes deserves what it gets.

Welcome to the People’s Republic of California: no money, no borders, no brains.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

I don’t know what Stephen J. Rose is smokin’ but his pie in the sky forecast is exactly that.

Morning Is Coming
Four reasons why the economy will roar back to life.
Stephen J. Rose

From April of this year to the end of 2011, I predict GDP growth of 3 percent to 5 percent per year and five million net new jobs (about 250,000 jobs a month) from the lowest level of the downturn, along with an unemployment rate of 8 percent. The recovery should continue in 2012 and the unemployment rate should dip below 7 percent by the summer of 2012.

Am I crazy?

He points to four items he views as positive for recovery. The first is ‘real private investment spending’. Following his link does not explain how he arrived at his numbers. But it does show nothing but bad news.

His second item, rising inventories, leads to the same link, the same outcome and the same conclusion. A poll of business owners is his third item. While the link offers a view of the poll for subscribers and he suggests more businesses are ‘planning’ to invest such information is of limited usefulness.

The value of polls and surveys and their usefulness is again demonstrated by the author’s fourth item. Consumer confidence has contrasts and contradictions this time out not unlike the views of economists.

U.S. Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index Rose to 75.5 (Update2)
June 11, 2010, 11:56 AM EDT
Shobhana Chandra

June 11 (Bloomberg) — Confidence among U.S. consumers rose in June to the highest level in more than two years, a private survey showed.

Wow, consumer confidence is way up. Wait a minute. What’s that? Consumer confidence cratered?

Consumer confidence tumbles in June
By ANNE D’INNOCENZIO (AP) – 2 days ago

The Conference Board, a private research group based in New York, said Tuesday that its Consumer Confidence Index dropped almost 10 points to 52.9, down from the revised 62.7 in May. Economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters had been expecting 62.8 for June.

June’s reading marked the biggest drop since February, when the index fell 10 points. The index had risen for three straight months since then.

Based on market data presented in the previous post, the items in this post and other indicators you may care to browse, the economy stinks and there’s no relief in sight contrary to the Rose article.

The economy needs less government as in no takeovers, bailouts, porkulus or other nonsense and lower taxes, less spending and reducing debt. The same people (politicians) who criticized others for greed and poor judgment leading to the so-called meltdown do not practice what they preach. But then it was never about the truth or doing the right things.

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

During the last 12 months or so a local radio station began airing the Allen Hunt Show. The station describes itself as ‘news/talk’ and gives the impression they offer conservative talk shows. A local radio personality has a talk show for about 2 1/2 hours in the morning. That is followed by Rush Limbaugh, then Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Mark Levin during the week.

There is a mixture of syndicated programming on the weekends that now includes the Allen Hunt Show. I never heard of Allen Hunt before this local programming began. One weekend evening as I worked around the house I listened to the show. I was not impressed. Tried to listen again a couple of times but was not interested as I was opposed to many of this man’s opinions.

Now comes a reason to seriously oppose the Allen Hunt Show. His take on illegal immigration includes his statement that he believes in open borders/immigration. This past weekend I listened to the last hour of a financial program that was pre-empted for sports programming for the first two hours. That was followed by the Allen Hunt Show and his topic from the 16th according to the website was aired today on this station.

Allen Hunt believes a man who was brought here illegally by his parents when he was 4 should be allowed to stay. The man is now 19 and finished his first year at Harvard. Hunt says Obama will deport all those fitting this description and that ICE or CBP have apprehended this man and have him in custody scheduled for deportation.

First it was a student here in Georgia. Now the controversy has moved to Harvard. A student there was arrested for being an illegal immigrant in the country even though he has been her since he was 4, and can’t remember not speaking English. It’s just another example of how messed up our immigration policy is, and how we are targeting the wrong people.

One caller to the show made the correct rebuttal to Mr Hunt’s misguided kindness. Don’t blame the US or Americans for this person’s situation. The blame falls on his parents. If this man is unhappy with his situation he has no one else to blame other than his parents.

If you give this man a pass on immigration laws it simply gives other illegals another reason to break the law. You cannot reward people for breaking the law. It is unfortunate that this man has to suffer the consequences of his parents’ actions. But it is not for the US or its citizens to ignore the rule of law.

Laws are necessary for a civil society to exist. Laws maintain order, protect citizens and their liberty and keep things from getting out of control. Not enforcing the laws related to immigration is why illegal immigration is, go figure, out of control. Eliminating the laws will not solve the problem. Enforcing them will.

Had the law been enforced effectively about 15 years ago the man mentioned on Hunt’s show would not be in the position he is in now. His parents plan to break the law would have been thwarted and we would not be having these discussions.

My conclusion about the Allen Hunt Show early on was correct. His opinions are flawed. He says he is not a liberal. But his opinions say otherwise.

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

Just a little note on da big futbol event this year. Those who hope to have soccer become as pppular in the US as it is elsewhere were given a leg up this week. It seems World Cup Soccer shares at least one characteristic with American sports… controversial calls by game officials.

The Americans frantically charged back from a 2-0 deficit at halftime and seemed to go ahead, 3-2, in the 86th minute on a goal that was nullified by a controversial and unexplained foul call from the referee, Koman Coulibaly of Mali.

It is axiomatic to state a given in athletic competition and the use of scoring to determine the winner. You must be ahead of your opponent by a score capable of rendering bad calls inconsequential.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Even though the national debt, budget deficits, unemployment, a recession, global economic turmoil and an absence of lending and investment plague the planet the liberals among us seem to think we can spend our way out of trouble. The question would be where does the money come from for that spending?

“It is essential that we continue to explore additional measures to spur job creation and build momentum toward recovery, even as we establish a path to long-term fiscal discipline,” Mr. Obama said in the letter to congressional leaders, a copy of which was seen by The Wall Street Journal. “At this critical moment, We cannot afford to slide backwards just as our recovery is taking hold.”

Mr President, where do you get the idea ‘our recovery is taking hold’? And even if it was where do you get the idea you can spend money we don’t have to create jobs? Just like the 410,000 jobs in the latest government report were all temporary census jobs save for 41,000 private sector additions make work jobs do not improve the economy.

Here’s the real deal.

…policymakers, who want to boost the economy and create more jobs ahead of midterm elections in November, but who worry about increasing the federal government’s record budget deficits. Polls have suggested that voters are concerned about both issues.

Duh, POLS want to look good in advance of re-election bids. So let’s spend taxpayer money we don’t have to ‘create’ jobs that won’t exist for long. Or if they do it will simply mean continuing to spend that taxpayer money we don’t have. If enough taxpayers are not working that piggy bank you keep raiding will certainly not contain adequate funds.

You cry about public jobs lost as in police, fire and teacher positions. Reports indicate pay and benefits for public sector jobs far outweigh the private sector. So let’s see. You want to extend and increase public sector jobs at rates higher than those paid for private sector jobs from taxpayer money.

Your nanny state agenda where the government pays for everything is failing. The simple truth is you cannot expect taxpayers to provide the source for all your spending. If you strangle the private sector by your policies there is nothing left to pay for your nanny state ideology.

And yet there are liberal politiicians trying to figure out how to run for re-election and at the same time spend more taxpayer money we don’t have.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com