Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Reports supported by the White House hailing the success of billions in porkulus spending to create or save jobs underscore the liberal need to preempt news their agenda is failing. Other reports tell a different story about stimulus money and jobs.

from the LA Times….
…some federal agencies and recipients of the money provided incorrect job counts. The review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs were credited to stimulus spending when, in fact, none were produced.

from the AP….
Elsewhere in the U.S., some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two, three, four or even more times.

and it gets better…..
Washington, D.C. (AHN) - The White House is pushing back hard against an Associated Press story released late Tuesday saying jobs credited to the Obama administration’s $787 billion recovery package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), were counted more than once in the first audit of the program.

If you review economic data and analysis over the course of this year an abundance of conflicting assessments will be found. From revised estimates and forecasts to suspect reasons given for outcomes suggested any conclusion drawn can be matched with an alternate conclusion that is entirely different. This latest fiasco from the White House demonstrates the widespread disinformation strategy that is collapsing in Washington.

So, what else are they lying about? Stay tuned.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If you are not motivated to pour over thousands of pages of legislation to determine for yourself how healthcare reform will affect you here’s an alternative. On October 29, 2009 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi unveiled the latest bill aimed at passage in the House of Representatives in order to pursue President Obama’s political agenda. Her announcement reflected in a press release available on her website provides insight into an impossible dream.

According to Pelosi……

“This is why this legislation is important: affordability for our middle-class that lower costs for every patient, reins in premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, limits out of pocket costs, and lifts the cap on what insurance companies cover each year.

Translation::

Every item in the quote above suggests the cost to the patient for healthcare will be reduced or limited from whatever it is now. If the patient is not going to pay the increasing costs for their own healthcare, who will? You might want the answer to that question. And even if you believe the insurance companies are the villains as the liberals suggest, you cannot be so naive as to think there are no legitimate costs to providing healthcare insurance. And those costs are rising.

If you do nothing to lower the actual cost of providing healthcare how do you lower the cost to the patient? You get someone else to pay it for them. And that may include the patient themselves in terms of new taxes on their income, etc. In addition, if you expect the insurance company to absorb the increasing costs of healthcare with no mechanism for actually lowering the costs, they will go out of business.

Another claim by Pelosi…..

“That said, the bill is fiscally sound. It will not add one dime to the deficit as it expands coverage, implements key insurance reforms, and promotes prevention and wellness across the health system. The bill will expand coverage, including a public option to boost choice and competition in the health insurance reform.

Translation:

The key here is Pelosi claims it will ‘expand coverage’ and yet magically ‘not add one dime to the deficit’. So the Speaker claims costs will be reduced for patients and coverage will be expanded yet there will be no increase in the deficit. You have to ask yourself how that is possible? She says reform will ‘rein in premiums, co-pays and deductibles’. Out of pocket expenses will be lowered and insurance coverage will be expanded. How does she do that without someone else to pay for it? The math does not work. And don’t think for a minute that the wealthy in this country can cover the entire tab for what the liberals propose.

And yet another claim by Pelosi…..

“Good morning. It is with great pride and with great humility that we come before you to follow in the footsteps of those who gave our country Social Security and then Medicare, and now universal, quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

This may be the only true statement in the Speaker’s press release. Remember how Congress dealt with Social Security and Medicare in terms of the budget. Sometimes it was on the budget. And sometimes it was off budget. The reason was its drag on government accounting. As the baby boom grew the population and the ratio of those paying for benefits versus those receiving benefits headed toward insolvency. Deficits were hidden by taking the costs off budget.

What? You thought Nancy could make the costs go away by waving her magic wand?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

source: http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1424

Perhaps one of the greatest benefits of October in America beyond the fact it is World Series time comes from the opportunity to disconnect for a moment. Remove yourself from all that otherwise dominates your life to absorb the pleasure of an annual ritual. The opening game of the 2009 World Series did not disappoint. Even a Yankees fan should be able to appreciate the performance this evening demonstrated by the picture below. Other characteristics of the event and its broadcast will be reserved for another post. Right now the idea is to relish uniquely American traditions and embrace the ideals they represent and foster.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
(written just after game one)

Absolutely unbelievable! Apparently the audacity of the O is contagious. Or maybe this is a product of his recent World Apology Tour. The UN has raised a question on whether the US is killing people indiscriminately with the use of UAVs. Perhaps they should have first asked this question to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah or any other terrorist group. For that is what terrorists do. Absolutely unbelievable! If anyone requires further explanation of this issue there is no point continuing a discussion. The world is truly losing its collective mind. This is beyond audacity. That the UN is the source is the only thing that is not a surprise.

What the hell do they think 9/11 was if not indiscriminate killing? In more than eight years has the UN accused al-Qaeda of violating international law for that? Nearly 3000 civilians killed in the attack on the WTC and the UN wants to know about drones? Wow! And this same organization is involved with determining whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons. How vulnerable do you feel right now?

It will take some time to nominate another story that even comes close to comparing to this one on the absurd meter.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings says the use of armed unmanned aircraft by the United States to hunt down terrorists could be a violation of international law. Philip Alston said Tuesday that Washington must explain how it is sure the United States is not killing people indiscriminately with these aircraft.

U.S. officials have never confirmed the use of Predator drones, but it is widely reported that the Central Intelligence Agency has used them to kill suspected terrorist leaders operating in Pakistan’s largely ungoverned tribal areas along its border with Afghanistan.

U.N. Special Rapporteur Philip Alston questioned the legality of their use under international law. “My concern is that these drones, these Predators, are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The onus is really on the government of the United States to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions are not, in fact, being carried out through the use of these weapons,” he said.

U.S. officials never acknowledge these strikes, saying they do not discuss operational or intelligence matters.

The Special Rapporteur, who is an independent expert appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, said the U.S. response has been “untenable” and that Washington needs to be more willing to discuss aspects of its drone program. “Otherwise you have the really problematic bottom line, which is that the Central Intelligence Agency is running a program that is killing significant numbers of people and there is absolutely no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws,” he said.

Alston said the United States should explain who is running the program and what precautions are being taken to ensure that these weapons are used within the framework of international law. He added that there must also be accountability and review mechanisms in place regarding their use.

Just a brief reminder for those on the left who object to certain references with respect to the Obama Administration. Criticism of the left from the right is often closely followed by poorly conceived rebuttals.from liberals. The frequency of these replies from the left peak when words like Marxism or socialism are present in the right’s complaint. Some of the chronology of the Obamanation is presented below.

Pressed by “Joe the Plumber” on the purpose of taxation, Obama fell back on the Marxist fragment “to spread the wealth around.” His memoirs contain an oblique mention of a Marxist mentor. He learned his community organizing from Saul Alinsky and his liberation theology from Jeremiah Wright. He blurbed one of the books of a Marxist terrorist and “educator,” Bill Ayers. And until recently, he was stocking his administration with figures like Van Jones, who openly talked of environmentalism as a tool of Marxist change.

That his communications director holds up Mao as a quote-worthy “political philosopher” fits into this picture nicely.

Add to the more or less philosophical expressions from Obamaland the harsh reality of excessive government intervention in domestic policy and sorely absent governing in terms of foreign policy and the Marxist, socialist assertions prove reasonable. Expanding the government’s role by continuing the failed policy of bailouts and controlling private enterprise plus health reforms better described as universal Medicare with the attendant increases in national debt and deficits is certainly not characteristic of this republic or its founding.

Mr Obama’s near obsession with Fox News recently also gives credence to the conservative complaints about the Fairness Doctrine, Net neutrality and the the FCC in general. It was not long ago that Hugo Chavez started taking over radio stations in Venezuela. What would the left call that practice? The left’s interest in stifling free speech applies only to those with whom they disagree. If the situation persists that group may be all inclusive in terms of American citizens. Or at least those who are not liberals.

Although it may not have always been true these days the lines between Democrat, liberal, socialist or Marxist are difficult to see at best. In the last century in the state of Wisconsin for instance, the socialist party and movement was all but eliminated as the New Deal Democrats absorbed those members.into their political party. You have to travel through history for some distance to find the left not having socialist tendencies.

Okay libs, feel free to express how offended you are.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The “media justice” mob strikes again (Michelle Malkin) 

What the hell is Newt Gingrich thinking? For one who decided to either allow his persona to demonstrate what conservative values are or parlayed that perception to be used for political advantage another decision by the former Speaker of the House and focal point of the once proud and subsequently abandoned ‘contract with America’ has produced another obvious contradiction.

He supports Scazzafava (beans) for the NY (23)???

Gingrich is apparently willing to overlook Scozzafava’s support for same-sex marriage and abortion rights.

“The Republican Revolution in 1994 started very much like what we see today,” Gingrich said in his statement. “Like then, our country is reeling from misguided liberal policies, high taxes and out-of-control spending. This special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District could be the first election of the new Republican Revolution, but we need the momentum to get it started.”

That is simply a politically motivated assessment. If you support a candidate based on a belief that they have the best chance to win while ignoring their rejection of conservative and traditional American values the culture of corruption is what you endorse. An absolutely appalling decision by someone whom this blog has always viewed as suspect although few if any posts have expressed that position. Sometimes it is reasonable to withhold comment until more evidence is gathered. The apparent revelation of the Gingrich departure from conservative principle demands notice and commentary.as well as strong support for a candidate previously analyzed as a wild card based on lack of relevant data.

At this point supporting a currently unknown quantity like Mr Hoffman is an easy decision. Scozzafava’s candidacy is also reported to have triggered a deep divide among House Republicans, with some of the most conservative members refusing to support her campaign. And with good reason ‘the most conservative members’ distance themselves from such an alliance.

The most prominent GOP endorser of radical leftist NY-23 congressional candidate Dede Scozzafava is openly musing about running for president in 2012.
No, thanks:

Check the link above to support this blog’s position that Newt Gingrich has left the conservative reservation on this and possibly other issues.

Support and advance conservative principles or withdraw from the GOP. That is this blog’s recommendation for politicians who are registered Republicans.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Republican Nationl Committee vs. Conservatives

Doug Hoffman Sarah Palin: Palins Hoffman Endorsement: (video)

While being wealthy may not be commonplace, marriages among the rich and famous sometimes are. At least the perceived motives for rich nuptials may suggest alliances among the wealthy more than the storybook theme of love. This post will offer a rare and reluctant topic on this blog. Celebrity stories typically feature content of little value beyond raising revenue for some tabloids due to the insatiable appetite of some for gossip. Starting with a little humor may make it easier to digest.

Ivanka Trump is getting married to Jared Kushner soon, and the happy pair still hasn’t picked out a wedding song. Last night, she announced on Twitter that she was crowdsourcing suggestions for her song.

The excerpt above appears to be from October 18th and based on other reports the wedding is now complete. The only reason the story appeared on this blog’s radar was a scan of Google News and Ivanka Trump listed under ‘in the news.’ If the timing had worked out the obvious choice for a wedding song is offered below courtesy of YouTube.

It is quite possible many people have arrived at the same choice for Ivanka and Jared’s wedding song.

Ivanka and Jared were born in the same year. They are both beneficiaries of their families’ wealth. Both families are involved in real estate. According to Wikipedia Jared graduated from Harvard College in 2003 and prior to admission his father had contributed $2.5 million to the university. For Ivanka it was Georgetown and Wharton with some modeling and much involvement in the family business. Jared’s acquisition of the New York Observer with family funds suggests an interest in appealing to ‘the educated elite’ in New York as this is how the readership is described.

So the suggestion of the commonplace alliance of wealthy families rather than a marriage is supported to some degree with the information above. And Ivanka’s new book does not weaken the argument. ‘The Trump Card: Playing to Win in Work and Life,’ is a title that by itself demonstrates a set of priorities.

Another book related to this post’s topic comes from Carrie Prejean. It is featured elsewhere on this blog. ‘Still Standing’ is soon to be published and comes after the author’s experience of being thrown under the bus by the Trump family and their pageants in favor of those who attacked her for her response to a question she was asked.

It’s not personal. (money, money, money…….MONEY)

All that is supported by the founding of this great nation allowing citizens to reach their full potential is a wonderful thing. Maintaining a principled approach to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness remains a challenge for some. If one adheres to conservative principles and tradtional American values the risk of making less than honorable choices is greatly diminished if not eliminated. We are after all human and not flawless. Keeping that constantly in mind will improve our chances for doing the right thing.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If you are content with the Obama Administration’s handling of matters regarding nuclear weapons and Iran the following information should cause you to reconsider that position.

[But] the more telling detail, as a recent White House “guidance paper” acknowledges, is that the U.S. has been “carefully observing and analyzing this facility for several years.” That timeline is significant, because it was less than two years ago, in December 2007, that a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear programs asserted with “high confidence” that Tehran had “halted its nuclear weapons program” in the fall of 2003.

That NIE gave liberals and Iran a reason to cheer. Some internal critics in the Bush Administration may have sabotaged national security for political gain.

Fast forward to the present, and it turns out the NIE was misleading even on its own terms: Iran did have a covert facility, perhaps for enrichment, and the intelligence community knew or at least strongly suspected it. We are also learning that the NIE’s judgment puts the U.S. intelligence community at odds with its counterparts in Britain, Germany and Israel, which have evidence to show that Iran resumed its weaponization work after 2003.

Three US allies indicate Iran resumed the pursuit of nuclear weapons after 2003 yet the US report cited above held the opposite view. Red flags abound in this story if for no other reason then both positions cannot be correct. If the ‘allies’ assertion is correct then once again US intel is suspect. And if the Obama Administration is acting like the Qom facility is news to them more red flags are raised. Including support for the criticism that current US foreign policy is a strategy of appeasement. In which history and Neville Chamberlain serve as guidance in avoiding a 21st century failure.

Here are some recent reports demonstrating the complacency on the topic of Iranian nuclear weapons.

UN Nuclear Inspectors to Tour Iran’s Second Enrichment Plant Near Qom
Iran’s English-language Press TV reports that International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors are beginning a three-day visit to Iran, Saturday, to examine the country’s Fordoo nuclear enrichment facility.

The timeline suggests a month long delay between Iran’s preemptive disclosure about the facility in Qom and an impotent UN inspection.

Iran to Respond to UN Uranium Proposal Next Week
Iran has delayed its response to a United Nations-backed uranium enrichment plan aimed at easing international concerns that Iran’s nuclear program is being used to develop weapons.

Above is one more example in an extremely long list of delaying tactics the rest of the world allows Iran to use.

US Says Patience With Iran on Nuclear Issue Not Unlimited
At a news briefing, State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly said the United States would obviously have liked to see an Iranian reply but is willing to give Tehran a few more days. “We’re looking for concrete steps. And we take it as a positive sign that they’ve agreed in principle to take a couple of significant steps - the opening of the Qom facility, and then working out a procedure for having their low-enriched uranium re-processed in another country. At the same time, our patience is not limitless. I think we can stretch things out a few days, and that’s really what we’re talking about. But we’re not going to wait forever,” he said.

Equalling the extremely long list of Iranian delay tactics are statements from the US suggesting ‘we are really serious this time’. There is an uncanny similarity between US rhetoric on Iranian nukes and the useless parental response to a child allowed to dictate the rules.

The US, UN, IAEA and the remainder of the ‘international community’ have not just recently adopted an Iranian appeasement strategy like the parent who spoiled the child with lack of discipline. A list of resources below aid in demonstrating this point.

IAEA, Multilateral Talks, Iran Nukes, What’s Changed?

IAEA, International Community Complicit in Iran’s Nuke Strategy

Iran, the UN, IAEA, Elbaradei and Do-Nothings

IAEA Paper Tiger vs Iranian Nukes

Democrats Raise White Flag in Advance on Iran Nukes

Bush Warns Iran If Controversial Nuclear Work Continues…

US Criticizes Iran’s ‘Partial Answers’ on Nuclear Program

UN: Iran Still Defying Demands to Stop Enriching Uranium

US Spars With IAEA Chief ElBaradei Over Iran

Iran Says 3,000 Centrifuges Are Operational

US Official Criticizes Iran, IAEA Deal on Nuclear Program

IRAN, IAEA Make Progress in Nuclear Talks

IAEA Says Iran to Allow Inspections of Heavy Water Reactor

The bulk of the items above are from 2007 with some from 2009. The titles alone suggest the recurring theme of Iran’s delays and the wait and see appeasement of everyone else. If there’s a betting line in Vegas on this story one would have to guess the odds on favorite is Iran. With time being about the only thing the Iranians need to complete their pursuit of nuclear weapons they have one each round of this game.

One way or another this game will end sometime. An appeasement strategy ushered in WWII. Can we afford to make the same mistake on the possibility of WWIII?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Upbeat Conservative News, Cheney Spanks Obama

Upbeat Conservative News, Will Congress Take Swine Flu Shot?

Upbeat Conservative News, Liberals Can’t Limit Obamacare $$

Upbeat Conservative News, Patrick Kennedy notices church

Upbeat Conservative News, Dems flummoxed on abortion

Upbeat Conservative News, Dems PR on WH Enemies’ List

Upbeat Conservative News, Dems stumped by Constitution

Upbeat Conservative News, Obama’s Enemies’ List

Upbeat Conservative News, Stand with Sheriff Joe

Upbeat Conservative News, Now Oprah Needs Palin

Upbeat Conservative News, Pelosi’s Approval Rating Tanks

Upbeat Conservative News, Pelosi, Dems Hide Obamacare Bills

Upbeat Conservative News, Reid to buy Obamacare support

Upbeat Conservative News, How stupid is the United Nations?

Upbeat Conservative News, Poll: Who’s Watching Fox News

Upbeat Conservative News, Sheriff Joe Launches Another Sweep

Upbeat Conservative News, Obama Secretly Writes Health Bill

Upbeat Conservative News, Obamacare Unconstitutional ??

Upbeat Conservative News, It’s Sunday…. take a break

Upbeat Conservative News, Palin Plans New Political Group

Where’s the leadership? Just glancing at a few current news reports demonstrates the world is sorely lacking a coherent strategy for anything, even if it is wrong. One Middle East saga almost as impotent as claiming to want peace in the region is the mass lethargy on Iranian nukes. Case in point provided by the following report.

Iran’s government said tonight that it saw a UN-brokered deal to export much of its enriched uranium “in a favourable light”, but asked for a few days’ extension of a UN deadline to make up its mind.

Enough already with the delaying tactics. Spare us the excuse that this is how diplomacy works. The perp in this story is the only player gaining an advantage. Whether it is a bunker buster bomb from the US or a surgical strike from Israel someone must confront Iran over nukes.

From a source with a leaning so far to the left it nearly falls off its flat earth mentality comes a post titled ‘Why Journalists Shouldn’t Be Defending Fox News.’ By virtue of the sentiment displayed by the title it is obvious HuffPo continues to express a selective view of the First Amendment. It only applies to liberals. That other MSM sources have opposed the White House exclusion of Fox News from planned interviews suggests HuffPo is clueless again or thinks you are.

What does that story have to do with leadership? The White House wastes time feuding with Fox News that would be better spent governing or at least trying to learn how. Taken a step further the left has an obsession with freedom of speech. The Fairness Doctrine, Net neutrality, FCC czars and other agenda items more suited to a Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro style of government have no place in the United States.

There is certainly no shortage of examples demonstrating the lack of leadership related to the Democratic agenda to force healthcare reform on the American public.

Dems scrambling for support for public health plan

WASHINGTON — Democratic leaders in Congress scrambled Friday to round up votes for allowing the government to sell health insurance in competition with private industry as they struggled to finalize a health care bill that meets President Barack Obama’s goals.

In a change in the Senate, long seen as hostile to the so-called public option, senior Democrats were considering including such a measure, officials said. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., spent Friday calling and talking with wavering Democrats to test support for different versions of the plan.

Based on polling over time and accepting the fact data could be flawed assume a fifty-fifty split on the issue. Any legislative proposal facing that much disagreement has a high probability of being bad public policy regardless of which side of the issue you favor. Rather than trying to force a mistake on the citizens of this country effective leadership would take a step back, table the debate and restart the process when reasonable solutions are presented.

The problem is widespread and nearly every critical issue today is plagued with special interest agendas. The political process, now more than anytime in the past, only serves to advance the self-serving pursuits of those who can manipulate the players. Real leadership would end this charade.

Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have done nothing to produce hope and change, a new direction for America or an end to the culture of corruption. The opposition party who lost the majority from similar failures has no current standing either. Whoever develops real leadership as described earlier in this post will be the beneficiaries in the election cycles of 2010 and 2012. Can we survive long enough to witness the result of that prediction?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Let’s assume the WaPo/ABC poll referenced below is correct. If that is true most Americans are not thinking this one through. What’s the problem?

New federal rules on compensation at companies that accepted bailout money are likely to get a warm public reception: in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, more than seven in 10 Americans say they support such limits, most of them “strongly” so.

Okay, you agree to participate in a poll and you answer the questions you’re asked. How different would the results have been if the ‘pollsters’ asked the participants if they were in favor of government takeovers, bailouts, increased national debt, economy killing deficits, minimum wage increases and executive compensation limits?

Maybe not all at once but if the items mentioned above were included it may have altered the results. If Americans consider the liberal agenda in terms of wage and compensation controls they may not favor what was asked in the poll featured in this post. Liberals have no problem raising minimum wage, increasing the wages of workers in general and decreasing compensation for those who own or manage companies. Allowing the government to limit executive compensation may be one of those slippery slope issues. Careful what you ask for, you might get it. If POLS are allowed to control executive pay how long will it be until they control your’s? (Not that they don’t already to some degree.)

But the point is the more government controls the more freedom and liberty are threatened.

When the public is exposed to all the available information and given adequate time to digest it poll numbers have a way of changing.

Poll finds nearly 2 in 3 Americans are Manmade Global Warming ‘Deniers’
Marc Sheppard

According to a Pew Research Poll released today, the number of Americans believing there to be “solid evidence that the earth is warming” has dropped 14% since last year. And the biggest drop – 22% — was among those identifying themselves as independents.

And while 57% are still buying into the continuing warming hype, the number attributing the warming to human activity has dropped from 47% to 36%. What’s more, the number seeing global warming as a “very serious” problem is down 9 points to 35%.

Here’s the Pew Research excerpt and link…..

Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming
Modest Support for “Cap and Trade” Policy

October 22, 2009

There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem — 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008.

On the issue of healthcare reform….

Six in 10 say Obama’s proposal, if enacted, would not achieve his goals of expanding coverage to nearly all Americans without raising taxes on the middle class or lowering the quality of health care. For the first time, a majority disapprove of the way he’s handling health care policy.

Given sufficient time, there appears to be a better than even chance most Americans will draw the correct conclusion on the issues. Gee, could it be that is why the liberal majority in Washington is so eager to ram their agenda though Congress?

Of course there’s the other side of the liberal agenda. The side where they do little or nothing. Like Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and all the other foreign affairs policy areas that feature their appeasement strategy. VPOTUS Joe Biden was touted in the 2008 campaign as Barack Obama’s answer to those criticizing his lack of foreign policy experience. Since the election the Obama World Apology Tour remains the only noticeable event on the international stage. Biden and Clinton have been MIA as is any meaningful US foreign policy.

Some other polls have suggested Americans are losing interest in US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps that is because President Obama has failed to provide leadership on these issues and appears to be clueless on the next step or fearful there is no political upside for the community organizer-in-chief. About all that has happened lately is Mr Obama has again assured all that the US will be out of Iraq by next August. One can only suspect terrorists or insurgents are gearing up for the conveniently provided timeline.

Problems, politicians and polls dominating public debate on criticial issues. We may be waiting a long time for real American leadership. Will it begin in 2010 and end in 2012?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Freedom of speech comes at a price. Often there are unpleasant consequences that accompany the exercise of this basic American option. Even if a person’s reputation and character are unassailable there is no immunity from attacks by those who may disagree with what you have to say.

If one pursues a career in modeling or a similar occupation the choices made in an effort to achieve success are subject to extraordinary scrutiny. It is not uncommon for those involved in such pursuits to be criticized unmercifully regardless of the degree of success they encounter. It may be correct to say the scrutiny imposed on celebrity comes with the territory.

But when the scrutiny, criticism and disdain directed toward someone who was asked to express their opinion is converted into a campaign of retribution it is incumbent upon a responsible public to resolve the inequity.

Such is the case with Carrie Prejean. You should all be familiar with this story. The short version is the former Miss California expressed her support for traditional marriage during an interview in the Miss America pageant and has been the target of near continuous attack ever since.

She has expanded her support of traditional conservative values since that incident as well as being the author of a book entitled, ‘Still Standing‘ that will be released soon. A recent report indicates she will be included in 2010 Great American Conservative Women Calendar. Buying both would be a good way to support this beauty queen with brains and good old-fashioned American values.

The courage to stand on principle and defend your support for traditional American values is an exercise that should be encouraged and rewarded. Carrie Prejean is one young American who deserves both.

As for those like Mario Armando Lavandeira, aka, Perez Hilton and the so-called LGBT community who are part and parcel to attacks on Carrie Prejean, you know what you can do with your same sex marriage and political agenda. But then you’d probably like that. To have unconventional sexual preferences is one thing. To misuse it as a political agenda and pursue perks that are not in the public or national interest is an entirely different matter.

If you are tempted to describe this blogger as homophobic, knock yourself out. As a rebuttal to that distinct possibility you may consider the following. My sexual preference is heterosexual. I have no problem referring to myself as heterosexual. Unlike homosexuals who feel the need to refer to themselves as ‘gay’. Who’s phobic?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Could someone explain how this solves anything?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:
Pressure Mounts on Iran Uranium Enrichment Program (Right Truth) 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has drafted an agreement to supply enriched uranium to Iran following three days of negotiations at its headquarters in Vienna. If all parties agree to it, the deal could mark a breakthrough after a years-long international standoff over Iran’s nuclear program.

The draft agreement was announced to reporters by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who has given all parties involved until Friday to approve it.

“I have circulated a draft agreement that reflects, in my judgment, a balanced approach on how to move forward,” he said. “The deadline for the parties to give, I hope, affirmative action is Friday, two days from now. And if we do get affirmative action, then I hope that we will have an agreement that we can send to the (IAEA) board of governors.”

ElBaradei said France was included in the draft agreement. Talks this week gathering Russia, the United States, France, Iran and the IAEA, stalled on Tuesday over Iran’s reluctance to have France participate in any deal on enriching its uranium. ElBaradei however described the discussions as constructive and forward-looking.

The IAEA chief did not elaborate on the draft deal, but news agencies report that it is essentially similar to an agreement reached in Geneva earlier this month. That deal would commit Iran to shipping about 75 percent of its lightly enriched stockpile of uranium to Russia for further enrichment.

The material would then be shipped to France to be converted into metal rods before being delivered back to Tehran. The rods would be used to power a research reactor in the Iranian capital making medical isotopes.

More broadly, if all parties agree to the deal, it would defuse international concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. Iran says the program is for peaceful purposes , but western nations fear Tehran is trying to build a nuclear bomb.

The climate change and global warming debate may be continuing in the real world but those employed by your tax dollars have jumped ahead to spending more of your money courtesy of Steven Chu.

Nothing like a good stimulus program to find more ways to spend tax dollars. God knows paying down the national debt or reducing trillion dollar plus deficits is a waste of money, right?

Here’s what one of Steven Chu’s bright ideas has paid for with your money.

New program will certify professionals in carbon capture and storage

RICHLAND, Wash. – Scientists and engineers will soon be able to receive advanced training and certification in burying and permanently storing underground the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide as part of a recent stimulus award from the Department of Energy. The DOE awarded nearly $1 million to the Seattle-based Environmental Outreach and Stewardship Alliance (EOS) to develop a carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) curriculum that will be used to build a skilled workforce through regional training.

Imagine that! $1 million to develop climate change curriculum. And there’s at least $7 million more of your money to spend after that. That’ll recover America and create more jobs, right?

Funding for the EOS training project is part of more than $8.4 million recently awarded by DOE Secretary Steven Chu for regional sequestration technology training programs.

And we wouldn’t want to unnecessarily increase our carbon footprint with this project, right?

The project organizers also plan to make lectures and other relevant course material available on the Web for students who cannot attend in person, which will reduce the program’s overall carbon footprint.

Gee, do you suppose this planet-saving method is a proven winner? You know, is it a good idea and will it be effective, reasonable, beneficial and not break the bank?

PNNL is conducting laboratory and field research in the Pacific Northwest to assess the feasibility of permanently storing carbon dioxide in basalt, a type of igneous rock common in eastern Washington, Oregon and parts of Idaho.

Hmmm, seems as though someone is putting the horse before the cart…… again. There’s a pejorative remark about educators that states those who can, do, and those who can’t, teach. Have you ever wondered about public sector science? It may have been considered a noble endeavor for the public to fund scientific research. But these days one has to wonder if geeks and techies who work for the government were unable to get a job in the real world. Add to that the notion they may spend much of their time seeking funding to provide themselves with an income. Not much incentive to be good at science.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Obama White House continues to blame the Bush Administration for the economic woes in the United State. The most recent villains targeted by Barack Obama are from the insurance industry. But Wall Street has been another favorite target for liberals seeking villains to prop up their agenda. Not the least of which is so-called healthcare reform. And that is surrounded by record deficits, increases to the national debt, continued job losses and disdain for the private sector, free markets and capitalism in general.

Much of the economic downturn is characterized by the Obama Administration as greed in the private sector and specific criticism for those who engaged in transactions based on derivative investments like collateralized debt obligations or credit default swaps.

The President’s brain trust is in no small way represented by graduates and others from Harvard University. A search engine query featuring ‘obama taps harvard’ as search terms provides plenty of examples.

So what about the esteemed Harvard institution as it relates to the current administration and their take on things economic? A story about the school’s investment decisions, at least one current Obama advisor and the connection between those Obama blames for economic problems and those on his team is enlightening.

Oct. 17 (Bloomberg) — Harvard University’s failed bet that interest rates would rise cost the world’s richest school at least $500 million in payments to escape derivatives that backfired.

Imagine that! The same source for much of President Obama’s brain trust was just as guilty of greed and poor investment decisions as those they choose to blame for an economic crisis.

The annual report provides new details on Harvard’s derivative-related losses. Many were entered into in 2004, said Harvard spokeswoman Christine Heenan. Lawrence Summers, director of President Barack Obama’s National Economic Council, was the university’s president at the time. White House spokesman Matthew Vogel declined to comment.

Say it ain’t so. Larry Summers was running Harvard when the bad investments were transacted?

Harvard has frozen employee salaries, slowed hiring, cut staff and offered other workers early retirement as part of a cost-cutting program to compensate for losses in its endowment. The fund, which dropped to $26 billion in value over the fiscal year from $36.9 billion, paid 38 percent of the school’s bills during that time, the report said.

Does the response to a bad investment decision at Harvard sound anything like what is happening around the country right now? Are we supposed to trust the advice and decisions of the new President if these are the people he has chosen as advisors?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com