Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Has anyone out there noticed this practice before at CBS News (online)? Featuring an article from National Review Online seems a new choice for an MSM entity. It was the article title that appeared on this blog’s radar not the source. Once the source was identified publishing this post became a must for more than one reason. If this has not happened before then some obvious suspicions arise. One would be in the form of a question. Are members of the MSM worried about their liberal bias and impending doom from a flawed business model? But that is a question perhaps for another post. Obama as Jeckyll and Hyde is today’s focus.

Mr Apology and the echoes of Rev Wright damning America has been the all too familiar Obama foreign policy since the inauguration. Being characterized as Jeckyl and Hyde may be too kind. Nonetheless it is disturbing to many. It could be those who still support the Obama administration are ignoring the questionable policies of President Obama or consider this problem ‘just words, ‘just speeches’ in a manner which distorts the purpose of these phrases when used earlier by the current American President.

The author of the NRO piece divides Obama’s actions as Obama I and Obama II. One frustrates the left and one frustrates the right. The problem is he still risks national security, defense and the projection of power through strength. The US is further weakened by the new President when he couples these risks with off the chart economic policies and an overall thrust toward socialist doctrine. Simply stating that the GOP fall from grace initiated a lack of fiscal discipline does not provide a valid excuse for its continuation.

The shrouded past, the broken promises, the links to political corruption, surrounding himself with tainted staff are just a few of the unresolved issues for which too many give him a pass. That may render those who support this president as equally tainted and offering a sad reflection of changes in this great nation of ours. No time like the present for correcting these flaws. But it will take more time and more disasters until the majority of Americans wake to these facts and respond to stop the decline to an America none of us know.

This more Machiavellian Obama in theory could advance roughly the same bipartisan foreign agenda as previous Presidents Clinton and Bush. Both sought to spread capitalism and democracy abroad to lessen the chances of regional conflicts, and were not so averse to using force to remove genocidal tyrants like Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein.

In this scenario, Obama apologizes abroad and trumpets his nontraditional background and Islamic familiarities as clever ways to preempt and nullify third-world cheap shots taken against the U.S. Given his popularity with the global masses, the new, more effective Messenger Obama could send America’s largely unchanged message directly to the people.

So which Obama persona is the real president - Obama I, more radical than Jimmy Carter, or Obama II, a smoother centrist than Bill Clinton? I don’t think Obama himself quite knows - and that’s quite scary, as we don’t know either what to expect next.

The article above made mention of Obama giving the go ahead to ‘take out’ the Somali pirates holding an American hostage. There may be some question as to how that story really played out. That is the only statement from the piece at odds with the view from this blog. The article also appears to be a relatively calm assessment of the President which is something of a surprise. But it is unlikely further actions from the White House will be surprising. More Obama change that resembles other socialist moments in history are the likely menu items from Barack Obama. The question is how much damage will be inflicted on our country before one more socialist movement meets with failure as all the rest of them have?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

CBS/NRO article source format choices:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/30/opinion/main4980440.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/30/opinion/printable4980440.shtml

Most reports on the official political treason of Arlen Specter were limited to rehashing the current troubles of the GOP or announcing that Specter will now cast his liberal votes for the Democrats rather than the Republicans or more correctly as a Democrat rather than a Republican. It that is what is important or meaningful about this story than he might as well take Snowe and Collins with him. But a blog post at USN&WR may be more on point.

On the flip side, once Franken is seated, the Democrats will have that magical thing, a “filibuster-proof majority.” But that presupposes a level of ideological cohesion that may not be possible in American politics. Will everyone in the Democratic caucus, from Joe Lieberman and Arlen Specter all the way through Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer, be able to agree on a reform of the healthcare system? On a second stimulus package? On an immigration reform? I’m not so sure.

That is just the final paragraph from the post but ideological cohesion is the theme. How often do you suppose a Congressman’s vote is determined by ideology? Isn’t it more likely that it is based on political considerations? Does party line vote mean political cohesion or mass political cover? Even if a Congressional voter actually votes their conscience you can be certain political survival entered the analysis just like Specter changing to the opposition party.

And where is Joe Lieberman in this discussion? How is what Lieberman did any different from what Specter did aside from the fact the party consideration was essentially reversed. Talk radio and GOP members who expressed an opinion seemed quite pleased with Lieberman’s decision. So is it strictly political how they are reacting to Specter’s decision now?

This is the nonsense that needs to be eliminated from ‘governing’ just as much as corruption, earmarks, pork or any other plague which reduces the process to something less than of, by and for the people.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Approaching the 100 day milestone of the Obama Administration the following information is presented to give some historic reference to the occasion. 100 days for Napoleon does not seem to have worked out so well. Since FDR’s New Deal has a connection to the Obama agenda the item below suggests he is having similar luck with Congress but perhaps for different reasons. And last but not least some quotes from Barack Obama to highlight his 100 days.

Other related items may be presented during this week. Thanks to Wikipedia and AP for the excerpts.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Hundred Days, sometimes known as the Hundred Days of Napoleon or Napoleon’s Hundred Days for specificity, marked the period between Napoleon Bonaparte’s return from exile on Elba to Paris on 20 March 1815 and the second restoration of King Louis XVIII on 8 July 1815 (a period of 111 days)

This set the stage for the last conflict in the Napoleonic Wars, the defeat of Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo,[5] the restoration of the French monarchy for the second time and the permanent exile of Napoleon to the distant island of Saint Helena, where he died in May 1821.

The First Hundred Days

Having won a victory in the United States presidential election of 1932, and with his party having decisively swept Congressional elections across the nation, Roosevelt entered office with unprecedented political capital. Americans of all political persuasions were demanding immediate action, and Roosevelt responded with a remarkable series of new programs in the “first hundred days” of the administration, in which he met with Congress for 100 days. During those 100 days of lawmaking, Congress granted every request Roosevelt asked.

Quotes for Obama’s 100 Days….

“I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years. … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” — Interview aired Feb. 2 on NBC’s “Today” show. (from AP)

“I’m here on television saying I screwed up.” — Interview with NBC’s “Nightly News with Brian Williams,” on Feb. 3, after abruptly abandoning his nomination fight for Tom Daschle a little more than 24 hours after he had said he was “absolutely” committed to his health nominee. Obama did similar interviews that day with all five television networks. (AP)

“It’s hard to move around out there sometimes, so I’ve got to bring the world to me.” — At a March 4 dinner with congressional leaders, Cabinet members and White House aides. (AP)

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

Hillary Clinton and other pro-choice liberals carefully use the words ‘family planning’ to describe what they view as a right to have an abortion. More often it seems they prefer to call abortion by the words, women’s reproductive rights. The report from AFP states Hillary ‘defended the right to abortion worldwide’ and the Obama Administration’s approval to pay for it with taxpayer money.

“We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women’s health and reproductive health includes access to abortion, that I believe should be safe, legal and rare,” Clinton added.

You will notice that Clinton carefully words her response like most other pro-choice advocates who apparently feel the need to make killing babies sound better. Funny how the same liberals who have spat on returning US troops and called them baby killers have no such problem with those who really do kill babies.

First Clinton uses the phrase, ‘family planning’ and then the word women’s and reproductive both having the word health added to each phrase. Gee, family, planning, health, reproductive, all such natural sounding words when it comes to childbirth. But make sure you never speak about ending someone’s life or killing them by using abortion. No, no, no that would make it sound bad. Well it is bad. It is wrong and it is bad. It is not the way to solve any problem Clinton or those who agree with her on this topic can present. It is not about planning and it is not about planning reproduction. If it were sincerely about health then a proactive couple would have avoided the pregnancy.

Certainly when a woman becomes pregnant against her will such as in rape you can make the case she could do little or nothing about it. But even then there are other options. Stats indicate pregnancies from rape represent a tiny number of abortion requests compared to other reasons. The leading statistic for most women having an abortion in any given year indicates it is not their first one. Abortion is primarily used as contraception for dummies. Choices have consequences which the pro-choice crowd prefers to ignore.

Abortion solves nothing since the desire for them by some continues. It is the death penalty for babies who had no say in any of it. How many liberals are opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of a capital crime? Do those same liberals oppose abortion?

And the current President of the United States said he doesn’t want his daughters to be burdened with a baby for making a mistake. What does this say about his other statements suggesting people have to take responsibility for their actions? It is just another lie from Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton.

This was just a little warm up post for the coming week. The rather impractical key performance measure for Presidents will likely dominate political discussions for some time. President Obama’s first 100 days in office ends mid-week. The relative merits of this analysis are subject to debate. But it has become something of a ritual fair or not.

In advance of what will probably bring as much criticism of the President as praise and not serve any useful purpose it is what there is. So, kindly refrain from regarding those who oppose the current President’s agenda and actions as racists. Many describe Mr Obama as the first African-American President. Are you forgetting his mother was white? Simple math would suggest Mr Obama is as much black as he is white and the reverse is true. So if there is some discrimination going on it is forgetting his whiteness and focusing on his blackness. Perhaps as he said when asked if race was an issue after taking office that it only lasted about an hour and a half and we are fast approaching 100 days.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The first video may not be so impressive unless you are familiar with the history or background of the Messerschmidt Me 262 jet aircraft. That’s why the second video is presented. Although this story is not new bringing back something which barely missed extinction in the face of historic events is a good thing in this case.

The next video is by description a clip and ends rather abruptly but you’ll get the idea if you need some background information. The introduction of jet engine technology and jet powered flight was being developed around the time of WWII. This bird is certainly part of that chronology and history. An impressive early entry into this technology.

Just a little Sunday distraction the selection of which was influenced by the blog author’s personal bias and serious interest and participation in aviation. (and partly by chance)
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

How perfect is this? Those who work in law enforcement or other government entities related to national defense or security are rarely given a break by their critics. The article posted below is no exception. After 9/11 there was no shortage of criticism when law enforcement and intelligence agencies or departments came under fire for dropping the ball on terrorism. Some time later the public had their nose out of joint over delays at airports across the country. From time to time complaints of people being unfairly added to watch lists is raised. And there is the brief respite before the ACLU sticks their nose in it. This story features the OMG I’m on a list report.

From September 11, 2001 to November of 2008 there was little cause to worry about whether or not we would be attacked again on American soil by terrorists. As the months went by from that dreadful event each day served as evidence those involved in national defense and security were successful. If President Bush can sustain near continuous insults from his critics then it is certainly fair to give him credit for no attacks since, along with everyone under his leadership. But it’s a new day. Who knows how long it will continue. And in this case the FBI is still taking flak.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, or FBI, says the government’s terrorist watch list of known or suspected terrorists has grown to one million entries. The list - used by intelligence and law enforcement agencies to prevent terrorist acts - has been growing steadily since 2003 when the FBI set up a terrorism screening center to store, analyze and share information about suspected terrorists. While the list is touted by the FBI as an important counterterrorism tool, it has generated controversy and complaints.

Caught in a security net

For some travelers, passing through airport security isn’t easy. David Nelson says he is often detained at check points. “I said what do you mean, terrorist? Do I look like a terrorist,” he asked. “I mean come on now.”

Another man called David Nelson also has been routinely detained by security screeners. They are among hundreds of travelers named David Nelson who have been stopped because they are on the U.S. government’s so-called “No Fly” list of known or suspected terrorists.

David Nelson says he is often detained by airport security

The list has been a source of frequent complaints by thousands of innocent travelers whose names have appeared on the list.

The No Fly list

The FBI says the No Fly list is a small part of the government’s consolidated terrorist watch list, which is compiled mostly by intelligence and homeland security agencies.

All the information is managed and housed at the FBI’s Terrorism Screening Center outside Washington. The agents gather and analyze information daily. They then pass it along to other law enforcement agencies.

“You want it (the watch list) to be accurate and complete. Complete is the key word because you do not want to miss anybody,” said Tim Healy, the Center’s acting director. “It is a balancing act between private citizens and their concerns and the safety of the United States and that is a balancing act that occurs everyday.”

Tim Healy

Audit findings - watch list is growing

An audit by the Government Accountability Office found that the TSC’s consolidated watch list has grown significantly from 288,000 entries in 2005 to a million entries in 2009, containing 400,000 names.

Authorities say the watch list is one tool used to reduce the terrorist threat. Its main purpose is to make sure individuals on the list are properly screened when they are stopped by police for traffic violations, or when people try to enter the country from international destinations. A call by police to the Terrorist Screening Center can quickly determine if the name on the list is a positive or negative match.

“We are involving state and local law enforcement in information sharing and we are involving other federal entities in information sharing of known and suspected terrorists, which is a good thing,” Healy said.

Procedure to get names removed from list

But some say this government effort is flawed. Jay Stanley of the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington says the watch list violates citizens’ rights.

“Everybody agrees that Osama bin Laden and his henchmen should be on a terrorist watch list. We don’t have a problem with that,” Stanley said. “But the government needs to do this very carefully, they need to set up extremely strict procedures. Not only do they have to be very careful before you’re put on the list but that you have the right to get off the list.”

Jay Stanley

The Department of Homeland Security says 51,000 people have filed so-called “redress” requests since 2007, claiming they were wrongly put on the watch list.

The FBI will not disclose specifics of how the records or names on the list are generated. But the FBI’s Tim Healy says there is a procedure in place to get names removed.

“If you have experienced an encounter when you are flying and you think you are on the watch list or even if they told you, you are on the watchlist there is a process you go through,” he said. “The TSA (Transportation Security Administration) will start going through their process and say is this guy actually watchlisted and what can we do to help this individual out.”

The FBI says 33,000 entries were deleted from the watch list last year based on outdated information and cleared investigations. And it says 95 percent of the people on the list are not US citizens. But Rachel Meeropol, a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, says with a million entries the watch list has grown too big.

“Whenever you cast a net that wide you are diffusing law enforcement resources from focusing on the individuals for whom there actually is evidence of a connection to terrorism,” Meeropol said.

As security at the nation’s airports and on the borders has been tightened, the FBI defends the watch list as a valuable counterterrorism tool not just for the United States.

They say information from the list is also being shared with Canada, Australia and other US allies in the global effort to track down known or suspected terrorists.

Trackposted to Nuke’s, The Pink Flamingo, Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Welcome to Blog @ MoreWhat.com’s Open Trackback

Secure the Borders Linkfest

This is an open trackback linkfest. For now it opens on Saturday and closes by Monday. The Secure the Borders theme is intended as a reminder to all for obvious reasons. If you have any suggestions, criticisms, questions or just feel the need to communicate, trackback or post it in the comments. If you want to be added to the Blogroll, register and/or inquire to make arrangements. The Honor Roll is reserved for blogs viewed as special by this blog’s owner.

JIHAD stands for Jesus I Have A Deathwish.

This linkfest is dedicated to the guest worker who never left.There are plenty of illegal immigration posts on this blog.

If you’re here legally and behavin’ yo self, welcome aboard.
.
.

We suggest using the Linkfest Haven Deluxe Trackback pinger for ease of use and time savings to catch all the festive linking activities today. Or, if you have done this less than we have, the permalink for this Open Trackback is the title link and the trackback is located near the bottom of the permalink page for this post. Just poke around, you’ll find it.

links in the sidebar

NOTE: It may be worthwhile to comply with the unofficial standard of submitting your blog’s best work for open trackbacks whether here or at multiple sites. The practice may have been inspired by a desire for increased quality versus quantity as well as providing greater impact from the power of the blogosphere.

(Video below provided for perspective)

Among a long list of other witnesses providing testimony on The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 at a hearing by the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on Energy and the Environment (whew!) are Newt Gingrich and Al Gore. Mr Gore’s prepared remarks are available on the House website and the linked text below will retrieve it for you. The excerpt below is representative of Mr Gore’s position on this issue. It expresses eminent crisis and his assertion we must act on it now. He has held this opinion for a long time.

By Repowering America with a transition to a clean energy economy and ending our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels, which is the common thread running through all three of these crises, this bill will simultaneously address the climate crisis, the economic crisis, and the national security threats that stem from our dependence on foreign oil.

We cannot afford to wait any longer for this transition. Each day that we continue with the status quo sees more of our fellow Americans struggling to provide for their families. Each day we continue on our current path, America loses more of its competitive edge. And each day we wait, we increase the risk that we will leave our children and grandchildren an irreparably damaged planet.

While Mr Gore expects you to believe his opinion is conclusive his own words, like Rep Lowey in another post on this blog, betray him. His first argument supporting his opinion in the prepared remarks states, ‘the entire Arctic ice cap may totally disappear in summer in as little as five years if nothing is done to curb emissions of greenhouse gas pollution.’ It would be more convincing if Mr Gore’s phrasing here used the word ‘will’ rather than ‘may.’ It underscores that even Mr Gore cannot be certain of his own view.

In another argument presented regarding the salmon population Mr Gore uses the phrase ‘Researchers are now working to determine the cause….’ While he states the dire consequences of not acting right now on this subtopic he admits the cause is not currently known. To be fair, Mr Gore makes other statements and draws other conclusions that would have to be researched to respond to in this post. And that is beyond the scope of this post by virtue of the time required to perform the task. The point is without dissecting every word in his prepared remarks Mr Gore regularly states all the facts are not available yet urges we act this very minute. And they wonder why so many reject his opinion.

A link is provided below from the subcommittee’s webpage on this hearing. It includes a witness list, an announcement that the hearing will be broadcast today on CSPAN and other links and information.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, Day 4

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Thrilla in Vanilla: Gore vs. Gingrich in Global Warming ‘Showdown’? 

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

A resolution dated April 22, 2009 sponsored by Rep Nita Lowey (D-NY) and at the time of this writing co-sponsored by no one was presented at The Hill dot com’s Congress Blog by its author. Dismissing those who do not share her view on global warming as ‘deniers’ Lowey injects plenty of insulting rhetoric but appears to expect anyone reading her post (which is crossposted at HuffPo) to take her claim on faith. Lowey claims the evidence for global warming caused by humans is ‘conclusive’. But of course no details or links are provided to make her case.

The First Step is Admitting You Have a Problem (Rep. Nita Lowey)
April 22nd, 2009

In the past month, the House Minority Leader called the idea that carbon dioxide - a greenhouse gas and known carcinogen - is dangerous “almost comical,” and members of his party suggested that the planet is actually cooling and “carbon-starved” and invited a global warming denier as a public witness to a Congressional hearing on the topic.

As anyone with experience with recovery knows, the first step in addressing a crisis is to admit that you have a problem. Unfortunately, these displays and others make it increasingly clear that, despite conclusive scientific evidence on the existence of global warming and the human role, some elected officials refuse to take Step 1.
As Congress begins the process of legislating to protect humans and ecosystems from the effects of global warming, I believe we need a “temperature check.”

It is interesting that Rep Nita Lowey makes the statements above with such conviction. Yet the resolution she authored and introduced in Congress April 22nd in stark contrast has no such confidence. She offers seven ‘whereas’ statements which list her arguments supporting that human activity causes global warming. But twice she is only mildly hinting that such is the case with two statements. ‘Recognizing that the climate system of the Earth is warming and that most of the increase in global average temperatures is very likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas emissions.’ And ‘Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives– (1) recognizes that the climate system of the Earth is warming and that most of the increase in global average temperatures is very likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas emissions; and (2) recognizes legislation is needed to mitigate risks humans and ecosystems face from a warming climate system.’

Seven details in an effort to support her claim that we are causing global warming followed by two statements in her conclusion that this is ‘very likely’ rather than something reflecting she is convinced by her own argument. Maybe she missed arguments to the contrary or in her zeal to support her political party dismissed everyone that disagrees as a ‘denier’. There was an article in the Politico which offered the following last November.

Scientists urge caution on global warming
By: Erika Lovley
November 25, 2008 04:48 AM EST

Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.

There are scientists on both sides of this issue. Another excerpt from the same article points out one example.

Armed with statistics from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climate Data Center, D’Aleo reported in the 2009 Old Farmer’s Almanac that the U.S. annual mean temperature has fluctuated for decades and has only risen 0.21 degrees since 1930 — which he says is caused by fluctuating solar activity levels and ocean temperatures, not carbon emissions.

The article also stated ‘most’ scientific bodies support the notion of global warming and our involvement in it. Organizations may not reflect the opinion of everyone connected to their organizations. But over 30,000 scientists who signed the Petition Project since 1998 make an even stronger case than global warming or cooling. They have objected to the idea that the debate is over and the science is done. That presents an intelligent and reasonable conclusion. Science has always been about continuing the pursuit and regularly challenging theories and discoveries. Galileo risked his life for that pursuit as did others. Some people take science seriously. Here’s a snapshot of what the project and the signers are ‘about’.

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

In contrast to that and published in 1992 the Union of Concerned Scientists which boasts 250,000 members including scientists and ordinary citizens offered their National Call to Action on Global Warming which proposes essentially taking all sorts of steps to eliminate human causes of global warming. For an organization that gives at least some impression of being science related they have a troubling list of organizations supporting their position. That list may have a political agenda or at least be characterized as special interest. Or another way of putting it is lobbyists. Decide for yourself, here’s the list.

Organizations Endorsing the National Call to Action on Global Warming:

1Sky * ACORN * Alliance for Climate Protection * Audubon * Catholic Healthcare West * Center for International Environmental Law * Ceres * Clean Water Action * Climate Law and Policy Project * Climate Protection Campaign * Climate Solutions * Defenders of Wildlife * Democracia USA * Earthjustice * Eco-Equity * Ecology Center * Energize America * Energy Action Coalition * Environment America * Environment and Energy Study Institute * Environment Northeast * Environmental Law and Policy Center * Green for All * Greenpeace * Health Professionals for Clean Air * Hip Hop Caucus * ICLEI USA * Insitute for Agriculture and Trade Policy * Interfaith Power and Light * International Forum on Globalization * Kyoto USA * League of Conservation Voters * League of Women Voters * League of Young Voters * Massachusetts Climate Action Network * National Hispanic Environmental Council * National Teach-In on Global Warming Solutions * National Wildlife Federation * Oceana * Oxfam * Physicians for Social Responsibility * Progressive Future * Public Citizen * Religious Witness for the Earth * Rock the Vote * SEED Coalition * Sierra Club * Southern Alliance for Clean Energy * Teleosis Institute * The Humane Society of the United States * The Student Public Interest Research Groups * The Wilderness Society * Union of Concerned Scientists

This post does not suggest global warming does or does not exist. It does not even suggest whether humans are or are not responsible in whole or in part. But this is what it does suggest. Those who dismiss opposing viewpoints are ignoring scientific method. Just because you may want the argument resolved or that it would be expedient does not gurantee the science will support it or be available now.

As stated earlier in this post, Lowey is not even convinced it is real. That is why pursuing legislation based on the SWAG method is ridiculous. Check your politics and special interest agendas at the door. Causing panic to rush to legislation is a very good sign the proposal is flawed. That is what the science should help you avoid. Listen to the more than 30,000 scientists telling you the answer is not here yet.

Stanford Matthews
Morewhat.com

It seems every time Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner speaks in public he, perhaps unknowingly, confirms what many are concerned about is reasonable. Except for those who know or believe they stand to gain by out of control spending and debt caused by the US government (the White House and Congress) the rest of us see the situation as dangerous. Here is some of Geithner’s latest nonsensical economics concept.

Geithner made the promise Wednesday in a speech to business leaders and government officials in Washington. He said the administration’s fiscal and monetary actions to address the crisis are “temporary” and must be undone once a recovery is firmly in place.

“With this in mind, this administration has presented a budget plan that charts a path to achieving to sustainable budget deficits in the medium term, so that recovery is not impaired by concerns about excessive government borrowing in the future,” said Geithner. “We are designing our financial programs so that we can reverse them as soon as practical, and avoid the risks that come with sustained government intervention in the financial system.”

With a $3.5 trillion dollar budget and a CBO projection that the 2009 record high deficit will be $1.8 trillion dollars how can he believe this can be undone or reversed? One could reasonably conclude the Treasury Secretary does not have a clue given his inability to pay taxes properly and expecting everyone to believe it was a simple error or oversight after he had been told by his ‘employer’ that some of the money given to him was to go directly to the IRS which is now under his direction.

That the GOP is howling about all that is wrong with the current majority party’s spending craze is another laughable moment since they share equally in the insanity of spending and borrowing for some years now. The only reason their criticism is more than what liberals refer to as the party of ‘no’ rests with the fact they are the only elected representatives available with any interest in opposing more spending and debt. It may be seem disingenuous but it is all citizens have right now aside from the additional fact that the ‘ruling party’ inherits the power and more importantly the blame for what goes wrong. If liberals want to maintain it is fair to bash Bush because he was the President then they need to understand the same applies when their liberal pick enters the White House and his party controls Congress.

Back to Geithner

“The American people and investors need to understand that we will have the will and commitment as a country to go back to the point where we are living within our means, and that is going to require very substantial adjustments to bring our resources and expenditures more into balance,” he said.

Another absolutely mind-numbing preposterous statement from the tax cheat who became Secretary of the Treasury. First, he states the ‘we’ have to understand that ‘we’ have the ‘will and commitment’ to live within our means. And second, if that is to require bringing finances ‘more into balance’ how does he then justify what they are doing now? Again, either those opposing his confirmation were right and he is an idiot or he thinks you are.

It is a classic political sham. Like many who get elected and immediately begin promoting their agenda by stating success will come in their ‘next’ term Geithner promotes the administration’s agenda by stating one day we have to do more of what put us into this mess and then another day claims it will all work out later. That is the political version of sustainability. Blame others for anything that is wrong. Claim that what you are doing will solve what is wrong. And always promise the results will occur after your next election. When more failure results, repeat the process, blame, claim and promise.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Sometimes it is good to delay publishing one’s opinion on a topic even when the facts are right there in front of you and your frustration level could use the release of expressing the obvious about someone who has been entrusted with leading your nation, that you love and is entirely wrong. It is only good when someone with a great deal more credibility does it for you. And that expression includes the credibility of many more who feel the same way. The excerpt below explains it.

The Interrogation Memorandums
By Gary Berntsen
April 22, 2009

President Obama’s release of these memos took place despite substantial protest. The four most recent CIA Directors-John Deutch, George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden-all recommended against the release of these memorandums. President Obama’s own newly appointed Director of CIA, Leon Panetta, also recommended against releasing the documents. Yet President Obama, in a seemingly relentless effort to discredit his predecessor, George W. Bush, made the memorandum available to the public anyway.

As with other references presented on this blog it adds to the growing criticism of a new President and dispels much of the inflamed rhetoric employed by the far left strictly for political purposes. While some on the left may express genuine concern and honest, although misinformed, opinions on critical issues or even which issues are critical the dominant theme especially with regard to national security dooms us to repeat history if we follow suggestions to ignore it.

Which brings us back to the beginning. President Obama like many others in the past expressed an interest in being surrounded by smart people who disagree with him to give him advice. Based on his recent choice for CIA chief who advised him not to disclose the memos it is obvious again Mr Obama had no intention of listening to those who present arguments contrary to his own. Just like calling the GOP the party of ‘no’ and doing your best to shut them out since you have a political majority in Congress.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Jeff Jacoby emphatically emphasizes the need to consider context when discussing the uproar caused by President Obama releasing the so-called ‘torture memos.’ Reading the excerpt below out of context is something else that should be emphasized. Don’t do it. Read the entire piece but start with the quote provided as it is central to this point but does not include Jacoby’s entire opinion. This may put things in perspective for you on the topic of ‘enhanced’ or ‘brutal’ interrogation techniques or if you must, ‘torture.’

The opinion on this blog includes what Jeff Jacoby states below. The remainder of his argument and opinion is compelling as well.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A tortured debate over the ‘torture memos’

Jeff Jacoby (Boston Globe)

What’s missing from all this sanctimony and censure is any acknowledgement of the circumstances under which the CIA interrogations took place, let alone the successes with which they have been credited. That may be a good way to score easy political points. It doesn’t add much to the public discourse.

Context matters. Actions that are indisputably beyond the pale under normal conditions - waterboarding a prisoner, for example - can take on a very different aspect when conditions are abnormal, as they surely were in the terrifying wake of 9/11.

There is a report stating Pew Research has another poll out indicating Barack Obama is the most polarizing President in four decades. Is that really such a surprise? About as surprising as another report of their’s featured on this blog indicating illegal immigrants are having more children. But in terms of the current status on the issue of torture or no torture, prosecute or no prosecute, politicize or not, Mr Obama’s only transparency to date is handling this matter. He indicates he does not want the ‘torture memos’ politicized yet the sequence below suggests just the opposite. Other reports suggest Mr Obama is succumbing to pressure from the left to pursue legal action against justice dept and intelligence agency personnel as political retribution. This blog is of the opinion Mr Obama requires no pressure to do exactly that but is seeking political cover by saying one thing and leaving the door open for his AG to do his bidding and take the political heat.

April 16 report below indicates Obama will not seek retribution.

CIA Off The Hook For Past Waterboarding
Obama Won’t Prosecute CIA Officials Who Used Harsh Interrogation Techniques During Bush Administration
WASHINGTON, April 16, 2009
(CBS/AP) Seeking to move beyond what he calls a “a dark and painful chapter in our history,” President Barack Obama said Thursday that CIA officials who used harsh interrogation tactics during the Bush administration will not be prosecuted.

April 20 report suggests no one will be prosecuted over torture memos.

Aide: Obama Won’t Prosecute Bush Officials
Masterminds, Not Just Underlings, Will Be Immune From Justice For Illegal Torture Policies
WASHINGTON, April 20, 2009

(AP) President Barack Obama does not intend to prosecute Bush administration officials who devised the policies that led to the harsh interrogation of suspected terrorists, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said Sunday.

Then the story is nearly reversed and later Obama says it is up to AG Eric Holder.

April 22, 2009
Barack Obama hints that George Bush ‘torture lawyers’ may be prosecuted
President Obama acknowledged yesterday that lawyers from the Bush Administration who drafted memos authorizing the use of harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects could potentially face prosecution.

Although he once again stressed that it would be inappropriate to take action against CIA personnel — provided they had followed guidance issued by the White House — Mr Obama added that those responsible for writing the rules could yet be pursued through the courts.

There ya go Barry. Nothing is better in the world since you became President. Yes, we know, you’ve only been there a little while. As leaders of the rest of the world are ecstatic about how easy it will be to manipulate the US President, Barack Obama in one week alienates both the CIA and the Justice Department and probably many others in national security related areas including the DoD and FBI. Maybe the NSA is exempt.

Point is, things are not going well whether you’re a conservative or a liberal. And there is not much talk about little details Obama mentioned during all this torture talk. If much of the details were already out in public how come heads aren’t rolling for that? There was a time when leaking sensitive government information (politically correct word) was a serious offense. But then, politicizing the ‘torture memo’ story like Obama said he would not allows one to choose which laws will be applied and which will not.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Although the suggestion that Miss California may have grounds for legal action against the pageant may be a stretch some of the news reports bias there accounts of this story by defining Carrie Prejean’s answer to a question on same sex marriage as ‘anti-gay.’

It is not surprising that of all things, Catholic Online described her answer as ’supporting true marriage’ in their report title. Just from memory after listening to the answer on a news broadcast Miss California said it was good that people have a choice but she was raised to understand marriage is between a man and a woman. If paraphrased correctly that does not represent an ‘anti-gay’ answer contrary to the No Way Jose Mercury News, the Dissociated Press or the Seattle Lost Intelligencer.

The woman gave a proper and intelligent answer. To dumb it down for those having difficulty understanding, she was expressing it is good we have choices but she chooses that marriage be between a man and a woman. So grow up and get over it.

If a person disagrees with the idea of same sex marriage they are called anti-gay or homophobic by those who want it. Just like those who disagree with Barack Obama are called racists. Dismissing others’ positions when they are different than your own by calling them names is the classic case of a weak substitute for an opposing argument.

Did you read that, Perez Hilton, Janeane Garafalo?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

source summaries using the term ‘anti-gay’ in this story:

People: Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean defends anti-gay …
San Jose Mercury News -
By Randy McMullen Still the center of a raging debate two days after her anti-gay-marriage remarks at the Miss USA pageant, Miss California Carrie Prejean went on the “Today” show Tuesday and maintained she was proud of what she had said. …

Hilton, Miss California take sides on `Today’
The Associated Press -
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Miss California says she stands by her anti-gay-marriage comments, even if they may have cost her the Miss USA crown. Carrie Prejean defended her views Tuesday on NBC’s “Today” show, telling host Matt Lauer that she spoke from the …

Did Miss California’s Anti-Gay Marriage Answer Cost Her the Crown?
Seattle Post Intelligencer - ?2 hours ago?
By GINA DINUNNO Miss North Carolina says she has no regrets about her statement against gay marriage when Miss USA judge and celebrity blogger Perez Hilton asked her about the hot topic. But she does admit it hurt her chances for the crown. …

Back when Pelosi and crew tried to replace the State Dept against the wishes of President Bush liberals praised the action of defying US foreign policy in favor of ‘hangin’ with state sponsors of terrorism. President Obama and SoS Clinton continued that agenda in the first 100 days of the new Administration. So how’s that workin’ out so far?

Iranian President Causes Uproar with Anti-Israel Speech
By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, April 20, 2009; 1:57 PM

PARIS, April 20 — In a defiant speech, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad argued before a United Nations anti-racism conference Monday that Israel is a “paragon of racism,” founded on what he called “the pretext of Jewish sufferings” during World War II.

The comments, a hard-edged version of Ahmadinejad’s often-repeated anti-Zionist views, prompted several dozen European diplomats to walk out of the opening session of the week-long Geneva meeting, which the Obama administration and eight other Western nations already were boycotting.

Can’t we all just get along?  The United Nations strikes again. (or strikes out)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com