Blog @ 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

This blog posted a comment at Maggie’s Notebook on the 4th predicting failure Fiorina would not oust Barbara Boxer for the US Senate. And imagine that, just today, Carly falls victim to the Meg Whitman syndrome. This is reminiscent of an old West Wing episode where Bartlett (Martin Sheen) comments he opposes people who seek public office because they ‘think it’s a good gig’.

For Whitman it may be a matter of pursuing another goal or challenge. For Fiorina, what does she have left? Conservatives do not need Republicans looking for a good gig any more than they need RINOs or liberals. If a candidate could not even find the time to vote through out most of their life what does that say about their chances for effective performance in public office? It probably says they will fit well in the culture of corruption but will not adhere to principles layed out in the founding documents of this great republic.

This great nation deserves better. Hey Carly, go help trash another iconic American business. You have plenty of experience from HP. Leave the governing to someone who at least votes.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Fiorina: ‘Shame on Me’ for Not Voting More

Thursday, November 5, 2009 9:55 PM

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Weeks after Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman was criticized over her poor voting record, U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina tried to fend off a similar line of questioning by owning up to her spotty past.

The former head of Hewlett-Packard, who is running for the seat now held by Democrat Barbara Boxer, said she has no excuse for not voting more often when people have died for that right.

While returning to research for updating a previous post series, Women in Politics, the following editorial was found. It provides a little light onto Dems, California and the energy situation in the US. Although some of the points have been expressed elsewhere, nonetheless, it is a good brief read. As we approach the November election and the Dems hold there convention in Denver, this item from the Lompoc Record is especially timely.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Move over, Dems, let oil flow

Why aren’t we drilling for more oil in Santa Barbara County?

Ask the Democrat movers and shakers on the South Coast. While you’re at it, ask the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Lois Capps and Senator’s Feinstein and Boxer and the entire California Democrat delegation.

Locally, on July 3, the Board of Supervisors at the urging of 1st District Supervisor Salud Carbajal placed an “emergency item” on the agenda “to consider opposing the opening of federal waters to oil drilling” after President Bush lifted a moratorium on offshore drilling.

Then, when it was learned that several well-informed citizens would speak on the issue, it was suddenly dropped from the agenda. My, that’s a brave move, but not unexpected in a political environment dominated by overanxious liberal environmental activists who favor shrill rhetoric over an objective analysis.

Looking back at Hillary Rodham Clinton’s criticism of Barack Obama as naive and irresponsible, the statement should be left on the table while everyone considers recent actions by the former First Lady. Her campaign finance irregularities are as bad as those of Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff yet few if any in the liberal ranks will press the issue as they would if she were a Republican. Jefferson’s $90K in the freezer is evidence of that.

Promoting a transparent remake or sequel to her failed health care idea more than a decade ago is as irresponsible as anything with which she accuses Obama. Add to that her lame energy and education policies and a manic attachment to the fringe left with a global warming panic and this self-proclaimed centrist earns her socialist moniker.

But for Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards inventing villains and feeding on their campaign designed victims is not enough. Perhaps the stress of a longer than usual campaign season is beginning to crumble their plans. Lately, HRC can’t find enough gaffes to fill a day on the trail with the TipGate and QuestionGate to follow ChinaGate and TravelGate. So the planted questions story now has Clinton and Edwards feeding on each others carcasses and looking all the naive and irresponsible which she accused Obama of being.

‘Planted’ questions: Edwards compares Clinton to Bush; she says it won’t happen again

Clinton The news — and now confirmation — about instances when the presidential campaign of Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton “encouraged audience members to ask her specific questions” (as The New York Times rather cautiously puts it this morning) has opened up another round of sharp words with one of her Democratic contenders.

As our Gannett colleagues at the Des Moines Register write:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign was acting like President Bush’s when it recently planted a softball question from an Iowa audience member, rival Democratic candidate John Edwards said Sunday.

Clinton camp accuses Edwards of acting like Bush
DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) — In a sign of the increasingly bitter feud between the leading Democratic presidential contenders, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign Monday accused John Edwards of acting like President Bush and dividing Democrats.

A student says she was told what to ask during a Clinton event in Newton, Iowa.

On Saturday, Edwards, while campaigning in Iowa, criticized the Clinton camp for planting a question in the audience, saying the practice is “what George Bush does.”

“George Bush goes to events that are staged, where people are screened, where they’re only allowed to ask questions if the questions are favorable to George Bush and set up in his favor,” the former senator from North Carolina said.

But it is Edwards who is acting more like the sitting Republican president, the Clinton camp says.

“What George Bush does is attack Democrats and divide the country,” Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee said Monday. “Sen. Edwards’ campaign resembles that more and more every day.”

This sort of behavior is problematic for the Democrats and is present throughout the party. Their strategy to attack the Bush Administration, appeal to the fringe left by condemning the military, maverick missions to appease state sponsors of terrorism and generally characterizing all conservatives or Republicans as evil is as complete a failure as one could imagine.

The Congressional majority owned by the Democrats since the November 2006 midterm elections has once again delivered proof that their party is not capable of leading a scavenger hunt much less a government. Their giddiness at winning the last Congressional majority omitted any consideration that one has to actually bring forward sensible initiatives to perform adequately in politics and have any chance of success.

This post ends with an excerpt from a WaPo item.

The Can’t-Win Democratic Congress
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007; Page A19

Democrats in Congress are discovering what it’s like to live in the worst of all possible worlds. They are condemned for selling out to President Bush and condemned for failing to make compromises aimed at getting things done.

Democrats complain that this is unfair, and, in some sense, it is. But who said that politics was fair?

Over the short run, Democratic congressional leaders can count on little support from their party’s presidential candidates, particularly Barack Obama and John Edwards. Both have decided their best way of going after front-runner Hillary Clinton– who has been in Washington since her husband’s election as president in 1992 — is to criticize politics as usual.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Random Yak, Right Truth, The Populist, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog’s Weblog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Wake Up America, Public Domain Clip Art, third world county, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

In the Senate No Amnesty Scorecard post series this is the fourth of six planned posts. The first post describes the best the Senate has to offer. Twenty-three senators including four Dems and an Independent voted consistently against amnesty. The first runners up list features seven Republicans and four Democrats who voted essentially to debate each bill but likely realized debate controlled by Sinister Harry Reid is no debate at all. Their no votes on the subsequent cloture for each bill defeated amnesty on both measures. The 2nd runners up have votes that assisted the defeat of both amnesty measures yet their intentions are still unclear. Now a quick review of the bills and on to the first list of dishonorable mention. While not the worst list, it is the first of three bad lists of Senators no one needs.

There were two bills for amnesty in the Senate this month. The first was S.1348, the famous back room deal between the Bush White House and primarily Senators Kyl, Kennedy, McCain and Reid. President Bush and these Senators as well as many others are in favor of amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. The bill they offered reflected that desire. The desire to abandon the rule of law and increase the risk to the United States with reckless legislation for political gain.

The first list of dishonorable mention features Sinister Harry Reid. You might expect him to be on the worst list but his votes earn him only the first dishonorable mention. He is accompanied by other senators prominent in the amnesty fight and they always end up on the wrong side of the argument. They are in no particular order, Senators Graham, Kyl and Specter. Specter was intent on amnesty last year while a GOP majority was in place. Kyl is credited with getting the first back room deal of this year going. And Senator Graham believes the American people are really stupid the way he continues to claim amnesty is good for us. Bayh and Lugar have been sited in articles and reports as the two Senators from Indiana who are ‘out of touch’. No kidding. With eight Dems out of 19 senators on this list and the actions of the GOP counterparts, it is obvious we’re talking RINOs here. So here’s the list.

(D-IN) Bayh
(R-UT) Bennett
(D-NM) Bingaman
(D-CA) Boxer
(D-OH) Brown
(D-ND) Conrad
(R-ID) Craig
(R-SC) Graham
(R-NH) Gregg
(R-NE) Hagel
(D-IA) Harkin
(R-AZ) Kyl
(R-MS) Lott
(R-IN) Lugar
(R-FL) Martinez
(D-NE) Nelson
(D-NV) Reid
(R-ME) Snowe
(R-PA) Specter

There votes were either in favor of one amnesty bill or the other. They cannot claim they didn’t know this was amnesty. By choosing one amnesty bill or the other they only indicate a preference for one of two bad bills. Maybe they had ‘pet’ amendments connected to one or the other. They likewise cannot claim one bill was not amnesty while the other was for, of course, both bills featured amnesty. About all they can claim is in their dark pursuit for amnesty they were fussy about other details of the flawed bills and were greedy for more perks with amnesty. They should also be ashamed of their amnesty efforts beyond the floor activity on these two bills.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Over the years the two major political parties have been known to refer to themselves as all-inclusive parties. Apparently that notion also applies to fund raising. Ray Jinnah, a native of Pakistan and California businessman wanted to be a political power broker. The FBI determined he had violated the law with his fund raising and campaign contributions but the Democrats had no such problem with Jinnah.

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barbara Boxer had no problem taking money from this man. You can hear the excuses already. Something like we don’t handle the money. Or maybe the excuse will be we had no way of knowing this. Most people would probably agree that US Senators should be smart enough to have mechanisms in place to determine who they should take money from and who they should not.

The proclamations of Speaker Nancy Pelosi after the midterms indicated she intended to ‘drain the swamp’ in Congress due to the GOP ‘culture of corruption’. Again, most people were aware that corruption is not an exclusive domain to either party. All the probes and hearings initiated by the Dems through Henry Waxman since the 110th Congress convened mysteriously overlooked allegations against Senator Dianne Feinstein and her involvement with MILCON. Now there is the Jefferson indictment as well as fund raising irregularities with Clinton and Boxer.

Perhaps the Dems should refrain from taking every opportunity to point out the faults of others and start cleaning up their own backyard.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Fundraiser allegedly demanded stock

Now awaiting trial, businessman is said to have sought interests in firms he introduced to a top Democratic official.
By Robin Fields and Chuck Neubauer, Times Staff Writers
June 14, 2007
Jinnah’s current legal troubles arise from his fundraising activities in 2004, when prosecutors say he violated federal law by reimbursing employees and associates for nearly $60,000 in donations made in their names to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s political action committee, HillPac, and California Sen. Barbara Boxer’s reelection campaign.

Authorities allege he fled the country after being indicted in May 2006, taking refuge in his native Pakistan. Jinnah’s attorneys said he left to care for his ailing mother and stayed because of his own poor health. Jinnah, a legal U.S. resident, surrendered voluntarily to the FBI on May 29 and is awaiting trial.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Right Pundits, Perri Nelson’s Website, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Pet’s Garden Blog, stikNstein… has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

This is easily the fourth or fifth time a post on this blog has urged citizens to continue pressing Congress and the White House to abandon S. 1348 and simply enforce current immigration law. More information has surfaced on why the Senate amnesty bill is bad legislation.

A Kennedy aide said lawmakers are negotiating to pair Republicans amendments with Democratic ones should the bill resurface. The amendment strategy also includes an overall “manager’s amendment” with language proposed by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., on H-1B visas and employer-based green cards as well as changes to two amendments adopted by the Senate on guestworkers and confidentiality rights for illegal immigrants.

As if it was not bad enough Senators like Dick Durbin claim to be opposed to illegal immigration and immediately submit amendments on visa matters but now Maria Cantwell is pushing the same thing and worse. For those who claim an intention of bringing illegals out of the shadows, hard coding ‘confidentiality’ seems an odd way to do it. This is just another example of all the political deals associated with this legislation. The worst is it offers amnesty and just as bad it will increase visas, quotas and every other way to accommodate the rest of the world and ignore the needs of US citizens.

How can any bill be worthwhile with 350 amendments waiting that are published on the Congressional information website Thomas (click here) The reasonable conclusion to draw is the bill will essentially be rewritten on the fly. So, they cannot pass a flawed bill, they will weigh it down with amendments and to buy votes they’ll pass some of them. No one will take the time to read what they really have and the bill will be dumped on the American public.

This amendment situation is such a mess it is nearly impossible to tell the good guys from the bad or who is trying to do what with the amendments. One can only assume they are meant to sway votes one way or the other or simply cause so much frustration the bill dies. The bottom line is everyone still needs to urge their reps to kill S. 1348. There is no chance it will do anything but deliver amnesty for illegals and do nothing to solve the problem.

One of the most disturbing items aside from the list of amendments being at 350 and counting is a sentence that accompanies many of them. Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. Nothing like being kept in the dark while you’re being kept in the dark.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

We all know that political matters can rarely be taken at face value. The saga developing over S. 1348, a so-called bipartisan compromise bill claimed to be immigration reform, is proving to be the evidence that the White House and Congress are incapable of abandoning special interest or ignoring election politics. This senate bill is more accurately characterized the amnesty bill as those referred to as the ‘architects’ (Kyl, Graham, Kennedy and McCain) all seem to favor amnesty.

This is the first of what may be a series of reviews on this week’s amnesty battle. On Tuesday June 5, there was a vote on an amendment proposed by GOP Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado. If one takes the amendment at face value, it appears to be a fair request to not give preferential treatment to those who enter the US illegally. For the moment, this post will skip over the visa dilemma for now. Except to say there are plenty of flaws with how that item is treated also.

Senator Kyl tried to appear opposed to amnesty when the Senate took up this matter after the 2005 House vote which passed HR 4437. During the debate in the Senate then, Cornyn and Kyl were sending mixed signals. This time Kyl is given credit for spearheading this effort to provide amnesty. And he voted against this amendment. This would be an example of why things cannot be taken at face value. The big question mark on Kyl should be changed to calling him in favor of amnesty. And that would not be a good thing.

Below is the Allard amendment description. After that is the roll call results which tell much of the story.

Allard Amdt. No. 1189; To eliminate the preference given to people who entered the United States illegally over people seeking to enter the country legally in the merit-based evaluation system for visas.

Not Voting - 6

Brownback (R-KS)
Dodd (D-CT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

Four Presidential candidates for 2008 again declined to vote on the issue of illegal immigration. Apparently for them, political considerations are more important than doing their jobs and going on the record. As much as one can find fault with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her support of amnesty, to be fair, at least she voted this time. The no vote list is next.

NAYs —62

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

The usual suspects voted against the amendment that claims to remove preferential treatment for illegals. The most notorious or significant among the no votes are:
Bayh, Biden, Boxer, Chambliss, Clinton, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Craig, Domenici, Feinstein, Graham, Hagel, Kennedy, Kerry, Kyl, Leahy, ….. all hell, they are all significant and notorious. These people do not have the best interest of American citizens in their agenda. Not like that is a big surprise but it should be pointed out again.

Now for the yes votes and what it may mean.

YEAs —31

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Coburn (R-OK)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

One item worth mentioning here is the Missouri Senators, Bond and McCaskill, are on the record as opposing amnesty and being strongly in favor of strong border security and control over illegal immigration. Yes, they are in the ‘yes’ column for this amendment. Cornyn is on this list whereas Kyl is on the ‘no’ vote side. What does that tell you? This list is something to consider when trying to separate the good guys from the bad guys. Stay tuned and keep contacting your elected reps on this issue.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It was encouraging to see these headlines and the lead story that produced them prominently displayed on Google News’ front page this morning. They are presented here for your benefit. At the bottom of the list is Ted Kennedy’s take on S. 1348. The bottom is a fitting location for anything Kennedy has to say. It would appear he expressed an expectation of a ‘close’ vote on the bill. Sure he did. Sounds more like wishful thinking. Was that thought produced before or after cocktail hour?

By the sounds of things on the radio this a.m., S. 1348 is all but dead and Harry Reid and others have indicated it is time to move on to other things. This would be where their threat of accept this crap now or forget about immigration reform until after the 2008 elections. If we let this happen, nothing will change. Obviously, the open borders crowd, including McCain, Kennedy, Reid and the California girls (Pelosi, Feinstein and Boxer) like that idea. If they were allowed to visa everyone they wanted and fill their personal quotas with illegals until now, they have no interest in enforcing immigration controls or advancing border security.

What do you need with immigration reform when the broken system is working for your selfish gain? What’s a couple of terrorists now and then if you can supply your business donors with unlimited cheap labor to harvest your soon to be tainted food supply?

There is every reason to believe that this is one of those rare moments in politics where the public has applied sufficient pressure on Congress to thwart one of their stupid ideas. But don’t get over-confident. Congressional leaders as well as the White House have plenty of tricks. Continue to apply the pressure and thank those who are doing the right thing in opposing amnesty. This fight won’t be over at least until the condition of illegal immigration begins to be reversed.

The public outrage and opposition to S. 1348 comes from both sides of the issue. Illegals had plenty they did not like about this bill. That means those opposed to amnesty cannot relax. Your efforts to contact Congress and the White House on this issue is working. Do not stop now. The House won’t take up the issue until the Senate passes a bill. Do not allow it to be S. 1348 and do not allow the Senate to postpone this fight until after the 2008 elections.

A solution that has much support is one that was mentioned here a long time ago. New legislation is not required if you enforce the existing laws. The best solution would be to force the executive branch to enforce existing law and the legislative branch to add language that, for instance, provides the verification systems and severe penalties for employers who hire illegals as well as border security enhancements that make sense. Pass the word to your elected representatives. More on this later.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Senate deals major blow to immigration bill

Immigration compromise suffers crushing blow

Immigrant Bill, Short 15 Votes, Stalls in Senate

Immigration compromise suffers crushing blow in Senate

Divisions over stalled immigration bill reflect public’s doubts
Divisions over stalled immigration bill reflect public’s doubts

Deep Divisions Derail Immigration Bill
Deep Divisions Derail Immigration Bill
Deep Divisions Derail Immigration Bill

Deadlocked US Senate Shelves Immigration Overhaul (Update1)
Senate Refuses to Limit Debate on Immigration Plan (Update5)

Kennedy Sees Close Immigration Test Vote

What has Barack Obama done? He knows that, based on race, color or creed, not to mention a host of other demographic details, the race card is always available for counter-attack on anyone who expresses objections on an issue or proposes solutions that annoy the left. That’s right. If you have no substantive argument and therefore can only offer race card rebuttals, you are free to say whatever you want. Even if what you say is as racist as those you accuse of being that way.

On a radio program this morning, a talk show host and his guest were discussing this story. The question came up on why Obama is using this particular stand and why now? The guest answered that the left’s 43 year exploitation of civil rights issues as a manufactured wedge against the right is their standard approach. Use this emotional theme to gain support from those who feel ‘disenfranchised’. The left fringe including Hollywood celebrities and other guilt-laden rich employ public relations strategies of appearing concerned about the less fortunate to improve their status. Other less wealthy left-leaning ideologues find these false causes appealing to enhance their standing among certain groups.

The theory here would be that Obama realizes that his fears of losing a Presidential run were based on his lack of experience, any relevant history and only a weak campaign strategy of relying on his public speaking skills. He continues to worry about setting himself apart from other candidates without a convincing strategy or anything more than he has already presented. Obama knows he needs something more and he just doesn’t have it. This is real simple politics. So what do you do? Raise a fabricated issue and try to make it hot button. It must also be something only you can use. What better choice than the race card. Speak of Katrina, Rodney King and race riots.

The masks are coming off the Democratic candidates. Edwards is all about betting on trashing the troops as a winning strategy. Hillary Rodham Clinton is all about socialism and the impossible task of reinventing your deplorable personal history. And now Obama stoops low enough to use the race card as his central theme. The GOP may have their own demons to exorcise. But at least that possibility still exists. As a matter of fact, most voters can get a real sense of practical solutions and good old-fashioned American leadership in candidates like Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. The lack of realistic criticism for these candidates causes opponents to reach for imaginary problems as their weapons. Those attacks are easily dispatched.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama fears frustrations will lead blacks to violence

Associated Press
Posted Wednesday, June 06, 2007
HAMPTON, Va. — Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Tuesday the Bush administration has done nothing to defuse a “quiet riot” among blacks that threatens to erupt just as riots in Los Angeles did 15 years ago.
The first-term Illinois senator said that with black people from New Orleans and the Gulf Coast still displaced 20 months after Hurricane Katrina, frustration and resentments are building explosively as they did before the 1992 riots.

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
FaultlineUSA

OMG, so much political suspense and intrigue. Can Speaker Pelosi hide the fact that she will sell out anyone and anything for her personal political agenda? Doubt it. Is the Congressional Black Caucus beginning to regret any previous support of Speaker Pelosi? How does Steny Hoyer feel about Pelosi picking Murtha first for House Majority Leader? How does Murtha feel about his party ignoring him? Like that would matter to Jack Murtha.

This story illuminates the other failures of the Democratic majority in Congress. The Dems continue to claim the midterms were a voter mandate giving them license to torture the American people while they accuse President Bush of doing the same to terrorists. The Dems also claim ‘the American people have spoken’ and given the Democratic party their approval for surrender in Iraq and on the war on terror. Their illustrious candidate for President, John Edwards, refers to the war on terror as a ‘bumper sticker’ slogan. That is because he doesn’t have a clue and like other Dems will pander to the fringe for votes.

Besides Pelosi, other prominent Democratic party members like Feinstein and Boxer want all the illegal immigrants they can fit in California. Not because the illegals yearn to be free, but the money is good in illegal immigration. All at the expense of American citizens and the future of this nation.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards all favor surrender, amnesty and any position on any issue that will get them elected. So it makes you wonder why the Congressional Black Caucus ever trusted Pelosi to respond in a manner that supports their goals. Talk about a party of lost sheep. And Harry Reid climbed on board as he saw his political fortunes in last year’s midterms. Rather short-sighted and naive of old Harry, wasn’t it.

The GOP deserved to get their due in the midterms. But only as a throw the bums out in terms of incumbents in which case the only alternative is usually the Democratic challenger. And the Dems thought the American public would buy in to the mandate speech. Sure, that is why the Congressional approval rating sank lower than the President’s all time low after the midterms. One could really look forward to more voter solutions in 2008. And the party pundits should reload their calculators. So far they haven’t understood the public is not happy and party favoritism is fading on both sides.

definition:
political hack - a politician who belongs to a small clique that controls a political party for private rather than public ends
source:thefreedictionary.com

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Democrats Fear a Wider Black Caucus-Pelosi Rift

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 5, 2007; A04
Democratic leaders fear that Rep. William J. Jefferson’s indictment yesterday on racketeering and bribery charges, coming exactly one year after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi engineered his ouster from the powerful Ways and Means Committee, could rekindle a smoldering dispute between the speaker and black lawmakers who were once pillars of her power.

It may sound outragious to the casual observer or typical apathetic or bleeding heart version of American, but the laws against treason should have a section that addresses politicians who sell this country by accepting money from every special interest and who do their bidding regardless of the negative impact on this nation.

A report from Politico has it right and wrong. The report describes the power and influence, meaning political contributions, etc., of the ‘goliath’ supporting amnesty in immmigration legislation. Senate bill 1348 is the culmination of Harry Reid’s push via Kyl, Kennedy and others to circumvent existing legislation that has been rendered useless through the Bush Administration and others before them refusing to enforce immigration and border control.

Amnesty lobby is immigration Goliath

Nearly every major corporation, trade association, union and civil rights group has a dog in this fight — but most of them seek slightly different things. Companies and trade associations mainly seek reforms in the green card and visa process, while most unions want changes in the guest worker program; civil rights groups press for a path to citizenship above all. The challenge, lobbyists say, remains for these groups to band together to thwart anti-immigration groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA and others trying to fan the flames of grass-roots angst against illegal — and legal — immigration.

The Politico report describes the ‘goliath’ push for easing unenforced immigration laws against what it called the grassroots angst against illegal and legal immigration. That part is wrong. It is not angst. And it is not against legal immigration.

There are seven immigration ‘reform’ bills on the active legislation list at the Senate. This is just a dog and pony show to mask the elimination of immigration and border control as ‘’immigration reform’. The middle class will pay for the crushing burden of opening the immigration flood gates while the politicians and corporate interests line their pockets with the profit from illegal immigration in the form of cheap labor and campaign contributions.

The result will include an increased risk in attack by terrorists that is being sanctioned by political and corporate wrongdoing that explains the ealier suggestion of expanding the laws against treason in this country to include this type of criminal behavior.

But the vast majority of Americans have not the vision to see what is being done to them and have developed such an iron clad shield of apathy they simply nod in agreement and continue to bend over and let it happen again. To which the powerful interests are unable to ignore the opportunity to abuse it again. The few individuals and ‘grassroots’ groups that continue to oppose such travesties are mostly ignored and the cycle repeats itself.

While some of us lobby our representatives and get involved in local, state or national efforts to thwart the open borders crowd and other threats to this nation, the rest of you sit idly by with a front row seat watching the ease with which special interest steals the country from under you.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Gonzales v Carhart, a press release by the ACLU and actions by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and others have presented a reason for this writer to reconsider a position of favoring what may be called a pro-choice stance on abortion.

More accurately, my personal view toward pro-choice was primarily governed by a reluctance to support the complete elimination of any choice a person can reasonably select especially when the public is largely divided on the topic. Allowing a woman to abort a pregnancy that resulted from rape, incest or one which threatened her own life did not seem to me to be unreasonable. And in general, choosing to abort shortly after conception, while not a choice to be advocated, may prove reasonable under some circumstance.

I never believed it was proper to perform an abortion on a whim or as a convenience or as contraception for dummies. And under no circumstance do I believe a partial birth, late term, 2nd or 3rd trimester abortion or whatever you choose to call it, is an acceptable abortion choice.

The Supreme Court decision to uphold a ban on what may be characterized as late term abortions, as defined in the majority opinion of Gonzales v Carhart (click here to download pdf file), the reaction to the opinion by what appears to be most pro-choice advocates and a redundant legislative proposal supported by Senator Barbara Boxer and others has caused me to reexamine my position on this topic.

If the details of ‘ending fetal life’ as discussed in Gonzales v Carhart are not sufficient to convince every person as to the barbaric nature and unnecessary selection of this particular ‘medical’ procedure and that no one should be allowed to make this selection, the ability of our species to advance beyond our current condition is severely limited.

While many arguments could be presented to compare and contrast my conclusion in the preceding paragraph, how anyone can defend the use of the procedure described above is beyond my ability to understand. Therefore, I honestly submit that the ACLU, Senator Barbara Boxer and others are entirely and completely misguided in opposing the Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v Carhart. And even if it were put to a public vote as to whether or not Roe v Wade should be upheld or discarded solely based on late term abortions I would have to agree with it being discarded. And that comes from a largely pro-choice advocate.

Of the many other viewpoints and arguments available, I would like to add that there are many other issues within this topic that need to be addressed. A brief example would be that if men are to held liable for the care and well-being of any child for which they are the biological father, then allowing the woman to have complete control and rights over whether to complete or terminate a pregnancy is largely flawed. If two people are responsible for a pregnancy, then both should share the responsibilities and rights for the consequences of their actions. This of course addresses what might be described as a ‘normal’ pregnancy and not one caused by rape, incest or other situation that complicates the point. I know I just added to all the potential criticism with this last set of statements, but I trust that most readers will understand what has been expressed.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The press release from the ACLU is presented below as well as references to proposed legislation intended to circumvent the Supreme Court decision.

ACLU Applauds Introduction of the Freedom of Choice Act (4/19/2007)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed its strong support for the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D - CA) and Representative Jerrold Nadler (D - NY). This legislation would preserve women’s health and reproductive rights by protecting their right to privacy and ability to make their own reproductive choices.

This new legislation is especially important in light of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision upholding a federal ban on certain abortion procedures over the strong objections of the medical community, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, an organization representing 90 percent of the country’s OB-GYNs.

“This latest attack on women’s reproductive health shows once again the pressing need for legislation keeping personal medical decisions in the hands of doctors and their patients,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, we still believe that doctors, not politicians, are most qualified to determine the safest course of treatment for their patients. The Freedom of Choice Act will protect women’s relationships with their doctors from political intrusion.”

The Freedom of Choice Act would restore critical protections for women’s health, a core principle of Roe v. Wade that was undercut by yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling. It would protect the right of women, in conjunction with their doctors, to make personal medical decisions and prohibit the government interfering in those decisions.

Said Fredrickson, “At a time when the core protections of Roe v. Wade are under attack, FOCA is essential to guarantee reproductive freedom in federal law for future generations of American women. The ACLU strongly supports this important legislation and urges Congress to lend the bill its support.”

2. [110th] H.R.1964 : To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman’s freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] (introduced 4/19/2007) Cosponsors (71)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 4/19/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

3. [110th] S.1173 : A bill to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman’s freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 4/19/2007) Cosponsors (15)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 4/19/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R.3719
Title: To prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman’s right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] (introduced 1/21/2004) Cosponsors (87)
Related Bills: S.2020
Latest Major Action: 3/1/2004 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

S.2020
Title: A bill to prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman’s right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 1/22/2004) Cosponsors (17)
Related Bills: H.R.3719
Latest Major Action: 1/22/2004 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.ALL ACTIONS:

1/22/2004:
Introductory remarks on measure. (CR S186-187)
1/22/2004:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Big Dog’s Weblog, The Pet Haven Blog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein… has no mercy, , Pirate’s Cove, The Right Nation, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, A Blog For All, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.