Blog @ MoreWhat.com

In an election year like 2012 the following information cannot be overstated. Dramatic changes can be realized in 2012 if we keep our eye on the prize. Too many individuals focus on their own situation, e.g., voting their ‘pocketbook’ or ‘wallet’ while ignoring major economic implications regarding that very concern. So here’s the replay on unemployment in America.

(CNSNews.com) – The “real” unemployment rate – a broader, more inclusive measure of the country’s jobless picture than the one usually used – remained unchanged at 14.5 percent in April, as the economy created a paltry 115,000 jobs.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the U-6 unemployment rate remained flat in April at 14.5 percent – meaning some 22.8 million people are either unemployed, have stopped looking for work, or need full-time work but can only find part-time employment.

The Democratic Party has controlled the US Senate for some time now. Their reluctance to face the music on the economy is demonstrated by the fact they have not passed a budget in more than three years. Republicans and Democrats have at least twice rejected a budget proposal from the liberal leader President Barack Hussein Obama. These facts underscore the failure of the liberal agenda.

This is the defining political calculation suggesting the need for, if you will, ‘hope and change’. By the time election day rolls around it will have been four years into President Barack Hussein Obama’s first term with no relief in sight.

It is time for a new President in America. Given the political reality we only have one other choice as usual. The thing is, this time as in times past, Mr Romney presents a realistic option for getting our fiscal house in order.

If as in the 2010 midterms voters send more tea party candidates to Congress than the losing liberals we will have a chance to realize a House and Senate majority filled with conservatives to allow a Romney Presidency to reach those solutions that the Dems have been unable or unwilling to achieve.

There is no question. Electing conservatives will provide the fix America needs. RINOs will not do. We must have conservatives. If we do, conerned Americans will see the vision they pursue. We can get it right.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(The Founding Fathers who were delegates to the Constitutional Convention are featured in this series of posts starting with number 98. Not every entry after 98 is about the delegates.)

John Langdon, New Hampshire

Langdon was born in 1741 at or near Portsmouth, NH. His father, whose family had emigrated to America before 1660, was a prosperous farmer who sired a large family. The youth’s education was intermittent. He attended a local grammar school, worked as an apprentice clerk, and spent some time at sea. Eventually he went into the mercantile business for himself and prospered.

Langdon, a vigorous supporter of the Revolution, sat on the New Hampshire committee of correspondence and a nonimportation committee. He also attended various patriot assemblies. In 1774 he participated in the seizure and confiscation of British munitions from the Portsmouth fort.

The next year, Langdon served as speaker of the New Hampshire assembly and also sat in the Continental Congress (1775-76). During the latter year, he accepted a colonelcy in the militia of his state and became its agent for British prizes on behalf of the Continental Congress, a post he held throughout the war. In addition, he built privateers for operations against the British–a lucrative occupation.

Langdon also actively took part in the land war. In 1777 he organized and paid for Gen. John Stark’s expedition from New Hampshire against British Gen. John Burgoyne and was present in command of a militia unit at Saratoga, NY, when the latter surrendered. Langdon later led a detachment of troops during the Rhode Island campaign, but found his major outlet in politics. He was speaker of the New Hampshire legislature from 1777 to 1781. In 1777, meantime, he had married Elizabeth Sherburne, who was to give birth to one daughter.

In 1783 Langdon was elected to the Continental Congress; the next year, to the state senate; and the following year, as president, or chief executive, of New Hampshire. In 1784 he built a home at Portsmouth. In 1786-87 he was back again as speaker of the legislature and during the latter year for the third time in the Continental Congress.

Langdon was forced to pay his own expenses and those of Nicholas Gilman to the Constitutional Convention because New Hampshire was unable or unwilling to pay them. The pair did not arrive at Philadelphia until late July, by which time much business had already been consummated. Thereafter, Langdon made a significant mark. He spoke more than 20 times during the debates and was a member of the committee that struck a compromise on the issue of slavery. For the most part, his sympathies lay on the side of strengthening the national government. In 1788, once again as state president (1788-89), he took part in the ratifying convention.

From 1789 to 1801 Langdon sat in the U.S. Senate, including service as the first President pro tem for several sessions. During these years, his political affiliations changed. As a supporter of a strong central government, he had been a member of the Federalist Party, but by the time of Jay’s Treaty (1794) he was opposing its policies. By 1801 he was firmly backing the Democratic-Republicans.

That year, Langdon declined Jefferson’s offer of the Secretaryship of the Navy. Between then and 1812, he kept active in New Hampshire politics. He sat again in the legislature (1801-5), twice holding the position of speaker. After several unsuccessful attempts, in 1805 he was elected as governor and continued in that post until 1811 except for a year’s hiatus in 1809. Meanwhile, in 1805, Dartmouth College had awarded him an honorary doctor of laws degree.

In 1812 Langdon refused the Democratic-Republican Vice-Presidential nomination on the grounds of age and health. He enjoyed retirement for another 7 years before he died at the age of 78. His grave is at Old North Cemetery in Portsmouth.

Gee, what to do about a leak regarding ‘intelligence’?

“One thing we know is that it didn’t come from Congress,” said King on Tuesday. “My understanding is that until yesterday the Speaker of the House and the chairman and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee weren’t informed of it and yet somehow this leaked out over a week ago. This isn’t an ordinary leak.”

What the hell is an ‘ordinary leak’? One of the problems in Washington, DC is no one seems to take anything seriously. In past events regarding ‘leaks’ I have been of the opinion that ‘treason’ should dominate the discussion. What happened to the idea of a firing squad when one violates rules regarding treasonous behavior? There have been those who were spies against the US who were not ‘terminated’. I’m sorry, but if you divulge state secrets you should pay with your life.

But recent reports by the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times claim the bomber was an informant recruited by Saudi intelligence and working with CIA to infiltrate the Yemen terror cell, known as al Qaeda in the Arabia Peninsula (AQAP).

A CIA spokeswoman declined to comment on the accuracy of these recent reports.

Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told a local radio station on Monday that the charges against Pvt. Bradley Manning are worthy of capital punishment.

“I argue the death penalty clearly should be considered here,” he said. “He clearly aided the enemy to what may result in the death of U.S. soldiers . . . If that is not a capital offense, I don’t know what is.”

I agree. It is well past time to once again have those who take it upon themselves to undermine the United States by leaking ‘top secret’ or other information that places Americans at risk pay with their life for these high crimes.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

What are you to think when you read a headline and story like the following:

House GOP seeks austerity

Republicans and Democrats clashed Monday on what is expected to be a chief battleground of the 2012 election — the fiscal plans of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and House Republicans.

A day after voters in France and Greece toppled governments in a European backlash against austerity measures, Republicans moved forward with legislation to replace $78 billion in automatic spending cuts to defense and discretionary domestic spending with a much larger $261 billion cut focused only on domestic spending.

You could think the hill dot com is suggesting the GOP should not attempt to decrease spending or voters in America will revolt like those in the EU. Or you could realize that every number for cuts presented by the GOP or others is in terms of ten years rather than the one or two years that most budgets cover. So while $261 billion is a good number for one year budgets, if this is a ten year idea it is almost useless.

Then there is this headline and story reported here in a previous post:

Cantor distances himself from Lugar despite GOP ‘Young Guns’ support

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Tuesday distanced himself from the candidacy of Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), saying he had “not gotten involved” in the closely watched race even though a group linked to Cantor is backing the embattled Indiana senator.

Which of course leads to the following headline and story:

Indiana state Treasurer Richard Mourdock defeated Sen. Dick Lugar in Tuesday’s Republican primary in Indiana, ending the career of the longest-serving Republican senator and putting the seat in play for Democrats in the fall.

So, are the ‘young guns’ playing the party strategy? Do they think it is better to have a RINO in office rather than the risk new blood will lose to the Dems? Is the $261 billion in cuts all they can do with only a House majority?

More to the point, are Republicans in fear of standing on principle to win political battles including electoral challenges? If they have not the intestinal fortitude to fight for conservative princples that embody our nation’s founding what good are they?

One of many of the phrases I remember from various sources makes the point of this post. You cannot govern if you don’t win. While that may be true, if you have no principles you cannot govern if you do win.

How about this? Why can’t Congress see its way to cutting 15 to 20% across the board in terms of budget cuts? Could it be due to the fact the Senate hasn’t passed a budget in more than three years?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(The Founding Fathers who were delegates to the Constitutional Convention are featured in this series of posts starting with number 98. Not every entry after 98 is about the delegates.)

Caleb Strong, Massachusetts

Strong was born to Caleb and Phebe Strong on January 9, 1745 in Northampton, MA. He received his college education at Harvard, from which he graduated with highest honors in 1764. Like so many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, Strong chose to study law and was admitted to the bar in 1772. He enjoyed a prosperous country practice.

From 1774 through the duration of the Revolution, Strong was a member of Northampton’s committee of safety. In 1776 he was elected to the Massachusetts General Court and also held the post of county attorney for Hampshire County for 24 years. He was offered a position on the state supreme court in 1783 but declined it.

At the Constitutional Convention, Strong counted himself among the delegates who favored a strong central government. He successfully moved that the House of Representatives should originate all money bills and sat on the drafting committee. Though he preferred a system that accorded the same rank and mode of election to both houses of Congress, he voted in favor of equal representation in the Senate and proportional in the House. Strong was called home on account of illness in his family and so missed the opportunity to sign the Constitution. However, during the Massachusetts ratifying convention, he took a leading role among the Federalists and campaigned strongly for ratification.

Massachusetts chose Strong as one of its first U.S. senators in 1789. During the 4 years he served in that house, he sat on numerous committees and participated in framing the Judiciary Act. Caleb Strong wholeheartedly supported the Washington administration. In 1793 he urged the government to send a mission to England and backed the resulting Jay’s Treaty when it met heated opposition.

Caleb Strong, the Federalist candidate, defeated Elbridge Gerry to become Governor of Massachusetts in 1800. Despite the growing strength of the Democratic party in the state, Strong won reelection annually until 1807. In 1812 he regained the governorship, once again over Gerry, and retained his post until he retired in 1816. During the War of 1812 Strong withstood pressure from the Secretary of War to order part of the Massachusetts militia into federal service. Strong opposed the war and approved the report of the Hartford Convention, a gathering of New England Federalists resentful of Jeffersonian policies.

Strong died on November 7, 1819, 2 years after the death of his wife, Sarah. He was buried in the Bridge Street Cemetery in Northampton. Four of his nine children survived him.

Merriam-Webster dot com defines socialism as ‘any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods’.

Obamacare, if allowed, will control what is now 1/6 of the American economy as it takes over healthcare for everyone. If you don’t believe it just ask the company executives who have expressed the fact they will likely jettison employee benefit plans that offer private health insurance. It will be cheaper to pay the fine for not offering it than complying with Obamacare rules and regulations that skyrocket the already crippling price of health insurance.

Individuals purchasing private health insurance outside of group arrangements from employers may find their coverage is unacceptable to Obamacare and thus have to enter Obama’s ‘exchange’. There is no escape clause for Obamacare with the possible exception of those exemptions Obama gave his cronies because they know no one can afford it. Obama did this for votes.

General Motors, aka (G)overnment (M)otors, still owes the taxpayer since President Obama decided to enter the automotive industry and buy GM and Chrysler for organized labor with your money. That brings to mind a widely expressed comment about socialism. The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. Once again, buying part of the American automotive industry was an Obama plan to buy union votes.

Here’s a little reminder expressed by many but this one is from econlib dot org.

Socialism—defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty. Yet the idea and the ideal of socialism linger on. Whether socialism in some form will eventually return as a major organizing force in human affairs is unknown, but no one can accurately appraise its prospects who has not taken into account the dramatic story of its rise and fall.

A little more from econlib dot org on this topic is compelling. It may explain why I have always viewed socialism and communism or Marxism as the same thing.

It is often thought that the idea of socialism derives from the work of Karl Marx. In fact, Marx wrote only a few pages about socialism, as either a moral or a practical blueprint for society. The true architect of a socialist order was Lenin, who first faced the practical difficulties of organizing an economic system without the driving incentives of profit seeking or the self-generating constraints of competition.

The Russians gave the world a great weapon, the AK-47. They also gave us Vodka. Okay, there is some debate from ‘scholars’ that Poland may have been the first to produce the product. Either way I do not disagree. But for now I will simply repeat that Russia gave us the AK-47, Vodka and a reason to support capitalism as if we didn’t have one from the start.

President Obama on the other hand has given us reason to reject the Marism and socialism of Russia, China, the EU and elsewhere along with his own efforts to ‘fundamentally transform America’.

Is it any wonder why I am quite content to vote for both Mitt Romney for President in November 2012 and Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin on June 8th given their opponents are fully invested in the socialist or Marxist ideologies?

I believe in the America of our nation’s founders. I believe in the America we grew up knowing. I want that America back. I am so tired of mindless liberals looking for utopia when they already have the world’s best example of government by consent of the governed.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Federalist Papers are the work of John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. The 85 essays were published in New York newspapers in 1787 and 1788 to urge the ratification of the proposed US Constitution.

A portion of one of these essays is presented below. The idea of ‘faction’ is described by James Madison along with commentary on handling it as well as its necessity in civil society and balance with liberty.

A variety of social and economic issues as well as defense and other topics have caused much debate and conflict in an important election year. The wisdom of James Madison, as always, may be helpful for those interested in these current issues.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from James Madison in the Federalist Papers No 10:

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

source:
Thomas – Library of Congress and the Gutenberg Project

crossposted at Maggie’s Notebook

May 12, 2012 from VOA News…

Romney Praised for Supporting Traditional Marriage

Mitt Romney, the presumptive U.S. Republican presidential nominee, drew rousing support Saturday at a conservative Christian university as he defended traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

Romney, often viewed with skepticism by the most conservative ranks of the Republican party, stressed the importance of personal faith and commitment to families in a speech to the graduating class at Liberty University in the eastern U.S. state of Virginia.

But days after U.S. President Barack Obama declared his support for legalizing same-sex marriages, Romney won his biggest cheers from the crowd of more than 30,000 with brief comments supporting heterosexual marriage.

“Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.”

Obama’s new support for same-gender marriage is controversial in the U.S., where six states and the District of Columbia have laws permitting men to marry each other and women to wed other women. But 31 states have banned it, including North Carolina in a referendum earlier this month. Nonetheless, surveys show that nationwide the acceptance of gay marriages is growing and that a slight majority favors it.

But the surveys also show there is a split politically, with Democrats, like Obama, lending widespread support for same-sex marriages, and Republicans mostly opposed. Younger voters also are more accepting, with older voters less so.

from MoreWhat.com:

What is the strongest case for electing Mitt Romney for President in 2012? The simplest answer: He is not Barack Obama. The controversy surrounding Mitt Romney’s conservative credentials requires a longer explanation. Given the field of Republican candidates in the 2008 presidential campaign my choice was enthusiastically Mitt Romney. While many favored Fred Thompson I chose Romney because Thompson’s ‘heart’ wasn’t in it. Others had too much baggage and even though Romney was not without fault our nation desperately needed an individual with his skill set and intangibles.

I did not support Romney in 2012 because of the way he caved to the GOP allowing McCain to be the nominee. That said and the fact that Bachmann and Santorum withdrew and the new Newt is not the old Newt I once again enthusiastically throw my support behind Mitt Romney. He still has the skill set we need. And if he had made the argument that Romneycare was a matter of giving Taxachusetts what they wanted I would be supporting him without reservations. Of course it didn’t help that argument when revelations were reported that ‘his people’ helped author Obamacare.

So now you have your arrows ready to impale me from afar. Not so fast. Provide me with a candidate who is not without fault. The problem is finding one who’s faults are manageable. Mitt Romney has an impressive resume’ of success that dwarfs any failures. Barack Obama cannot make the same claim.

In the report offered at the top of this post that fact is clear. On one of the most basic of traditional American values Mitt Romney stands strong while Barack Obama once again changes his position in light of what he sees as necessary to attract part of his leftist base.

Mitt Romney supports the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Barack Obama has gone on record as opposing that value. With a sustained majority in the House of Representatives and a new conservative majority in the Senate a Mitt Romney presidency will return America to its former self. A land of prosperity where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is available to any American willing to do the hard work to make it happen.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Tuesday distanced himself from the candidacy of Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), saying he had “not gotten involved” in the closely watched race even though a group linked to Cantor is backing the embattled Indiana senator.

This is another piece of troubling news. About the time that you may think there are some in the Republican Party who share the values of the Tea Party comes news that the younger ‘establishment’ GOP members support a RINO.

That Cantor supporters have provided at least $100K to support Lugar speaks the proverbial volumes. Cantor distanced himself from the money. Cantor’s rhetoic avoided the connection and spoke of big gov’t, big spending and controls that are needed to avoid financial ruin.

Then the GOP House Majority Leader dsitanced himself from other PACs viewed as controversial. The point is, where are these people? Either you are for new faces or you are not. Either you are for the Constitution or you are not.

This may be a year where conservatives are once again hoping for advances in conservative members to the House and Senate. But one must stay vigilant as to how the GOP is working on that idea.

Stand on principle.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com