Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Given the current political climate you would be hard pressed to find anyone to suggest the government is competent. At least in matters of public policy and foreign affairs few agree with public officials in the US. Boots on the ground and others who serve in the armed forces and are getting it done when allowed are the exception rather than the rule these days.

Is it possible that over the last several years a bipartisan scheme between the executive and legislative branches of the US government is coming to fruition? The political left and right had a minor media frenzy over Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s meddling in Middle East affairs in 2007 with a trip to Syria and elsewhere. Most reports then suggested President Bush opposed the trip as well those raising legal questions about official roles and capacity.

A post on this blog suggested it was political theatre of a bipartisan nature. Again, bipartisan meaning anything but its standard definition. Typically it is used for covering the political backside of both parties by mutual consent. And the Pelosi trip may have been a classic example. And you can expect both sides had hopes of a political upside for themselves and their opposition taking a hit. Here’s a link to the older post featured on this blog.

President Barack Hussein Obama’s World Apology Tour and other appeasement strategies suggest US State Dept outreach to Syria is coincidence and has no connection to the earlier Pelosi trip reported as annoying President Bush in 2007. But you have to wonder if it was one of those seeds planted with hopes of a later harvest. Pelosi’s trip may have thwarted some development that was brewing and hurtful to both parties and a scheme may have avoided that plus provided options for the future both parties wanted. Yet no public announcement of such an agreement was an acceptable political strategy for either party.

It’s still appeasement.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Here’s the brief report on the US kissin’ up to Syria.

US Official, Syrian President Meet in Bid for Improved Ties
VOA News
17 February 2010

One of the highest-ranking U.S. officials to visit Syria in years held talks with Syria’s president Wednesday, one day after Washington nominated its first ambassador to the country since 2005.

The U.S. Under Secretary of State, William Burns, said he and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad spoke candidly while meeting in Damascus. Burns said they discussed both areas of disagreement and common ground.

On Tuesday, the White House named long-time U.S. diplomat Robert Ford to serve as ambassador to Syria. Ford, who is fluent in Arabic, now serves as the U.S. deputy ambassador in Iraq.

Burns called the appointment a “clear sign” of America’s readiness to improve relations and to pursue a comprehensive peace between Arabs and Israelis.

The United States said in June that it planned to reinstate its ambassador to Syria, as part of the Obama administration’s efforts to improve relations with Syria and advance the Middle East peace process.

Ford’s nomination will have to be approved by the U.S. Senate.

The United States withdrew its last ambassador to Syria after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. Many countries have blamed Syria for the assassination, but Damascus has denied involvement.

The U.S. has long accused Syria of supporting Islamic militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which the U.S. considers terrorist organizations. Washington also has voiced concern about Syria’s human rights record and its role in neighboring Lebanon.

A billboard getting some attention was erected at the direction of some as yet unknown sponsors. There’s nothing like a little humor for this troubling political climate. And yes, this blogger laments the departure of Bush 43. Certainly not perfect but a preferred option over current conditions. And like most, the author of this brief post is anxiously awaiting November 2010. After that it will be anxiously awaiting November 2012.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Once again the economic media darlings weigh in. Paul Krugman deserves his lefty description. This is a man who would be a natural for NASCAR; circular motion always moving to the left. And like NASCAR races, each lap is a repeat.

In a column of his last week, Fiscal Scare Tactics, Krugman makes his case with something as appealing to liberals as bashing Bush. That is, bashing Bush. When they’re not bashing Bush they’re bashing Bush or something about Bush.

So why the sudden ubiquity of deficit scare stories? It isn’t being driven by any actual news. It has been obvious for at least a year that the U.S. government would face an extended period of large deficits, and projections of those deficits haven’t changed much since last summer. Yet the drumbeat of dire fiscal warnings has grown vastly louder.

To me — and I’m not alone in this — the sudden outbreak of deficit hysteria brings back memories of the groupthink that took hold during the run-up to the Iraq war. Now, as then, dubious allegations, not backed by hard evidence, are being reported as if they have been established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now, as then, much of the political and media establishments have bought into the notion that we must take drastic action quickly, even though there hasn’t been any new information to justify this sudden urgency. Now, as then, those who challenge the prevailing narrative, no matter how strong their case and no matter how solid their background, are being marginalized.

‘…even though there hasn’t been any new information to justify this sudden urgency’ is exactly the point, Mr. Krugman. For all the disdain elites and political power brokers have for ordinary citizens my fellow ‘commoners’ and I do understand clearly at least one element of this topic.

The following are some things that increase and rarely, if ever, decrease.

-The US national debt
-The US budget deficit
-Taxes
-the size of government
-the pay for those in government including elected representatives
-entitlements
-those receiving entitlements
-legislation that spends taxpayer dollars
-the amount of money borrowed by the government
And did I mention taxes?

Mr Krugman: Continuing to spend money we don’t have is a bad idea. And yes, it is an idea that is not new. That’s the problem. Not like their should be a learning curve on this issue. Spending what you don’t have is what caused much of our current problems. And the agenda(s) being pushed in DC are tantamount to the Madoff ponzi scheme.

Obama-speak, et al (translation): We are taking more of your money (tax dollars) to spend on things we want that will benefit you in the long run.

Like I said, a ponzi scheme to rival Madoff. And where is he currently residing?

And from another media darling comes the following:

This being a democracy, don’t the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don’t they understand Massachusetts?

Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking “in the plain words of plain folks,” because the people are “suspicious of complexity.” Counseled Blow: “The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, ‘Mr. President, we’re down here.’ “

A Time magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are “a nation of dodos” that is “too dumb to thrive.”

The key ‘economic’ word here being ‘agenda.’ And the attitude of those now governing toward those being governed is as much a part of an economic discussion as anything else. Since it is the dollars of those governed that those now governing plan tu use for their agenda. And the problem is, to pay for it, requires borrowing into the next millennium and continuing to pay for it long after that.

This is why liberals bashing the Tea Party citizens is an idea as bankrupt as their agenda. There is a piece at the Boston Herald from a ‘fellow’ at the Heritage Foundation that should make Mr Krugman cringe.

If spending jumps $12,000 per household, taxes must eventually rise. The president would make a large down payment on that with a $2 trillion tax hike on all Americans. Yet that would still leave the government running up $8.5 trillion in deficits over the decade, setting the stage for even larger and more damaging broad-based tax hikes later.

Ominously, economists close to the White House suggest that a value-added tax of 15 percent and 20 percent is eventually possible to finance Obama’s agenda.

By doubling the national debt over pre-recession levels, he’d push America toward a tipping point - where rising debt levels will become too large for global capital markets to absorb. This could trigger a financial crisis, an interest-rate spike and tax hikes.

And it still comes down to that nothing new concept Mr Krugman alluded to in his column. We cannot continue to spend what we don’t have. Everyone can understand that.

And to couple another item with Mr Krauthammers’ commentary comes the following brief item Charles Hurt at the NY Post. In a small amount of space Mr Hurt condenses the sanity of tea party nation those plain words for plain folks like us, down here, near the voting booth.

These people have come from all across the nation for the first National Tea Party Convention to denounce not just President Obama and the Democrats, but Republicans and all of Washington for getting infected with the same voracious and parasitic plague spawned by big-government liberalism.

Read the rest, it won’t take long and anyone can understand it. Even those lowly voters who have the audacity to raise a loud voice in opposition to leaders with a hearing problem.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Dixie Chicks drop controversial lead singer in new album

By: CAITLIN R. KING
Associated Press
01/12/10 11:45 AM EST

NASHVILLE, TENN. — Two members of the Dixie Chicks — minus lead singer Natalie Maines — are preparing to release a new album this year.

Was it political controversy that caused the Dixie Chicks to fade in the music business or simply whatever talent they may have already ran its course?

During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the Dixie Chicks performed in concert in London on March 10, 2003, at the Shepherd’s Bush Empire theatre in England. During the introduction to their song “Travelin’ Soldier”, Natalie Maines, a Texas native, said:

‘Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this iolence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.’

Celebs in the music and film industry especially seem to hold some notion that they have some special calling that requires weighing in on public affairs. Granted, music and film have been used many times to make political statements but perhaps those fortunate enough to make a living in these businesses should remember one fact about their personal views. Not everyone agrees with their opinions. Add to that actions have consequences.

Martie Maguire and Emily Robison will be releasing new music in 2010 without lead vocalist Natalie Maines. Lloyd Maines, Natalie’s father, has stated that the trio are “definitely still an entity”. On January 15, it was announced that duo will be known as Court Yard Hounds and will release an album in May with Robison on lead vocals.

After the commentary in 2003 nothing followed until 2006 and now in 2010 two of the three women are starting again without Natalie Maines. Wonder if there are any regrets?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:
Dixie Chicks or Tricks?

Dixie Chicks: A Bit Naive

The critical issue these days when discussing political parties should be national security as without effective defense every other debate is moot. The GOP fall from grace preceding two election cycles of defeat merely allowed the continuation of flawed governance. The only difference is party blue rather than party red.

Michael Leiter is a Bush appointee. Obama did not replace him. Leiter is in the news due to the Flight 253 terror plot. There are conflicting reports between at least three sources, the NY Post, the NY Daily News and US News & World Report. The conflict is whether Leiter was on vacation before the event and declined to return or that he left the day after the botched national security that allowed the botched terror plot.

from the NY Post….

The White House acknowledged Thursday that Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, had taken six days annual leave after the Dec. 25 attempted plane bombing but said he remained intimately involved in the U.S.’s response to the thwarted terror attack.

It was reported Thursday that government sources were upset that Leiter had gone on a ski trip following Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempt to destroy a Detroit-bound plane.

“People have been grumbling that he didn’t let a little terrorism interrupt his vacation,” one of the sources is reported to have told the newspaper.

from USN&WR…

Terror Chief Michael Leiter Wasn’t Vacationing Through Attack

Only later did he head out of town. “Only after explicit consultations with both the White House and the Director of National Intelligence and considering the current threat environment did Director Leiter take six days of annual leave after the event, which again did not affect in any way his ability to remain engaged with all elements of the United States Government,” he said.

The piece above critcizes the NY Daily News for reporting Leiter was on vacation and declined to return to work after the Flight 253 incident on Dec 25th. But Alex Kingbury at USN&WR misses the point.

The stumbling US national security ‘team’ seriously botched this one. Liberals in Congress criticize conservatives for holding up a critical confirmation of Obama’s nominee to head TSA. Napolitano’s no help. So having the head of another national security ‘resource’ take to the slopes AFTER a security breach is equally disturbing. Not like they fixed what’s wrong before he left.

At the very least this supports Senator Jim DeMint’s ‘holding up’ the confirmation of Erroll Southers as the head of the Transportation Security Administration. These national security vacancies require very special people to lead the effort. One could say there are vacancies in leadership roles that are filled not to mention other positions throughout government.

Nearly a decade after 9/11 everyone should be able to expect better than this from US national security. Among other things Bush bashers love to draw comparisons. Any criticism expressed toward the current administration is met with rebuttals concerning the Bush years. The point those arguments fail to recognize is 9/11 publicly exposed national security vulnerabilities and placed the topic front and center. Much was corrected by the Bush adminisstration and not without excessive opposition from the left. Now that the left is once again in the majority in Washington they are not allowed a pass to make earlier mistakes over again.

US national security failures started with Clinton and ended with Bush. Let’s not have a do over.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Another event to once again raise the discussion on national security. Not like the status of US national security is ever erased from the American consciousness but one has to wonder if that includes the Obama Administration? The President has been criticized for not being more visible on this and other issues since heading to Hawaii on vacation. His security princess, Napolitano, stated after the Flight 253 incident, the first of two, that ‘the system’ was working properly. That someone was able to board a commercial aircraft and attempt to detonate explosives on final approach contradicts Napolitano’s conclusion. Unless only doing something after the fact is her idea of national security. And even then, simply notifying other commercial aircraft of the conditions on Flight 253 is of little value.

For those who missed it a Delta or Northwest (owned by Delta) flight, number 253, had a Nigerian passenger who attempted to detonate explosives on board as summarized above. A strange coincidence, or not, involved the same flight number on a subsequent flight in which another passenger was either detained and/or arrested for causing a disturbance. One troubling set of circumstances finds reports about the first incident suggesting the description of the ‘perp’ as a terrorist was premature and early reports about the second incident being characterized as a second terrorist attack. How’s that for a spot on press response?

Here’s a more recent account of the second incident.

A U.S. law enforcement official says an unruly passenger was detained Sunday when a Northwest Airlines flight landed in Detroit, Michigan, but he was later declared as not a security threat.

The plane was on the same route and carried the same flight number as one on Friday, when a Nigerian man allegedly tried to blow up Northwest Flight 253 just before landing.

In the latest incident, security personnel arrested a passenger upon landing Sunday because he was verbally abusive to the flight crew and had locked himself in the airplane bathroom for a long time.

The pilot radioed for emergency help. Passengers were evacuated and dogs sniffed the luggage which was spread out on the tarmac.

A law enforcement official tells news agencies that the passenger turned out to be a businessman who got sick during the flight .

And another recent update provides an excerpt on the initial incident.

Passengers have told investigators the man went into the bathroom for 20 minutes before landing, and then when he went to sit down, said he had stomach problems, and pulled a blanket on himself.

Just as the plane was getting ready to land, they heard a pop, smelled smoke and then saw the man on fire.

A Dutch passenger jumped on the Nigerian to subdue him, and blankets were used to put out the fire.

Does this brief review adequately establish Napolitano’s press statements are absurd? Certainly everyone is entitle to their opinion but you can guess that most Americans expect a different outcome in order to state the ’system worked’ when discussing US national security.

On the topic of President Obama’s silence on the matter in recent reports this blog’s reaction. It is reminiscent of an old expression about incompetence that begins with ‘better to be viewed as an idiot than….’. You probably know the rest.

Some related items are provided below on the explosive (PETN) reportedly used in the first incident.

a highly explosive organic compound belonging to the same chemical family as nitroglycerin—i.e., the nitric acid esters of polyalcohols.

PETN was introduced as an explosive after World War I. It is used by itself in detonators and detonating fuses (Primacord) and in a mixture, called pentolite, with an equal amount of trinitrotoluene (TNT) in grenades and projectiles.

PETN is a colourless, crystalline material that is generally stored and shipped as a mixture with water. It is less sensitive than nitroglycerin but is easily detonated. Valued for its shattering force and efficiency, PETN is the least stable of the common military explosives but retains its properties in storage for longer periods than nitroglycerin or cellulose nitrate (nitrocellulose) does. PETN is also used in medicine as a heart stimulant.

Yup, good old-fashioned human technology about a century old.

OSHA does not have a PEL for pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN), which is used both as a drug for preventing angina pectoris and as an explosive.

If you really need to know what a PEL is the following link explains along with many other items typcially covered on a MSDS or Material Safety Data Sheet. And one last related OSHA link.

OSHA has data on PETN. Now if only DHS had detection methods for this well-known explosive and implemented them to avoid a Flight 253 problem.

As a final note for this post a political point is in order. Bush bashers frequently express 9/11 happened on the Bush 43 watch so it was his fault. This blog has stated in the past that there is plenty of blame to go around regarding US national security. A couple of things to keep in mind. 9/11 was not conceived, planned or otherwise arranged by terrorists in less than eight months which is the time George W Bush was in office prior to the attack. Before that President Clinton completed two terms in office and posts here as well as information freely available elsewhere indicate some dropping of the ball as regards terrorism and Osama bin Laden, etc.

When Bush 43 took office and after 9/11 occurred it became his war on terror and he owned the problem. An unfortunate downside to pursuing public office. Post 9/11 the Bush Administration was successful on matters of national security for two terms. The same ownership transfer now applies to President Obama. Given the Flight 253 episode(s), Napolitano’s statement, Obama’s silence, the previous and now infamous warning by VPOTUS Joe Biden the national security situation is once more front and center.

Nothing about current US national security policy inspires confidence.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It is not uncommon for President Obama to be characterized as an appeaser. From this World Apology Tour to a fruitless response on Iranian nukes to his recent Afghanistan exit strategy and everywhere in between, Obama the commuity orgranizer and campaigner appeases. Some even suggest his speech given after picking up his Nobel was lauded by libs and conservatives alike. But there’s another take on that one. And it is right.

As Bill Clinton taught the Dems, if you have to “confront” a liberal audience about some obvious truth, be sure to choose a hapless or unappealing one. Clinton bravely took on rappers; Obama took on Scandinavian pacifists.

The piece goes on to explain the real story of Obama’s Nobel speech. Which, by the way, leads nicely into a discussion of an older Obama speech.

from….

Remarks of Senator Obama: The War We Need to Win
Washington, DC | August 01, 2007

Thanks to the 9/11 Commission, we know that six years ago this week President Bush received a briefing with the headline: “Bin Ladin determined to strike in U.S.”

It came during what the Commission called the “summer of threat,” when the “system was blinking red” about an impending attack. But despite the briefing, many felt the danger was overseas, a threat to embassies and military installations. The extremism, the resentment, the terrorist training camps, and the killers were in the dark corners of the world, far away from the American homeland.

Then, one bright and beautiful Tuesday morning, they were here.

That a boy, Mr President, take another opportunity to bash President George W Bush. What was stated in the reference at the top of this post applies. ‘The speech was the usual collection of truths, half-truths, and deceptions.’ That of course referred to the Nobel speech and this one and all Obama speeches.

But then everything changed.

We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists’ base of support. We did not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland.

Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries. A rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the 21st century’s stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Barack Hussein Obama speaks of these things as if it all started with George W Bush. Well, not exactly. There is plenty of blame to go around. But what is troublesome here is President Obama cherry picks the 9/11 Commission report to bash Bush. How about the other players?

from the 9/11 Commission….

Early Efforts against Bin Ladin

Until 1996, hardly anyone in the U.S. government understood that Usama Bin Ladin was an inspirer and organizer of the new terrorism. In 1993, the CIA noted that he had paid for the training of some Egyptian terrorists in Sudan. The State Department detected his money in aid to the Yemeni terrorists who set a bomb in an attempt to kill U.S. troops in Aden in 1992. State Department sources even saw suspicious links with Omar Abdel Rahman, the “Blind Sheikh” in the New York area, commenting that Bin Ladin seemed “committed to financing ‘Jihads’ against ‘anti Islamic’ regimes worldwide.” After the department designated Sudan a state sponsor of terrorism in 1993, it put Bin Ladin on its TIPOFF watchlist, a move that might have prevented his getting a visa had he tried to enter the United States. As late as 1997, however, even the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center continued to describe him as an “extremist financier.”1

1992, 1993, 1996, 1997 are specifically mentioned above. And who was President then. Wow, bin Laden was just a financier. Excuse me, ‘extremist financier’.

In 1996, the CIA set up a special unit of a dozen officers to analyze intelligence on and plan operations against Bin Ladin. David Cohen, the head of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, wanted to test the idea of having a “virtual station”-a station based at headquarters but collecting and operating against a subject much as stations in the field focus on a country. Taking his cue from National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, who expressed special interest in terrorist finance, Cohen formed his virtual station as a terrorist financial links unit. He had trouble getting any Directorate of Operations officer to run it; he finally recruited a former analyst who was then running the Islamic Extremist Branch of the Counterterrorist Center. This officer, who was especially knowledgeable about Afghanistan, had noticed a recent stream of reports about Bin Ladin and something called al Qaeda, and suggested to Cohen that the station focus on this one individual. Cohen agreed. Thus was born the Bin Ladin unit.2

In May 1996, Bin Ladin left Sudan for Afghanistan. A few months later, as the Bin Ladin unit was gearing up, Jamal Ahmed al Fadl walked into a U.S. embassy in Africa, established his bona fides as a former senior employee of Bin Ladin, and provided a major breakthrough of intelligence on the creation, character, direction, and intentions of al Qaeda. Corroborating evidence came from another walk-in source at a different U.S. embassy. More confirmation was supplied later that year by intelligence and other sources, including material gathered by FBI agents and Kenyan police from an al Qaeda cell in Nairobi.3

The CIA during the Clinton years puts some money into studying bin Laden the ‘financier’. It seems the big breakthrough was entirely a chance event.

By 1997, officers in the Bin Ladin unit recognized that Bin Ladin was more than just a financier. They learned that al Qaeda had a military committee that was planning operations against U.S. interests worldwide and was actively trying to obtain nuclear material. Analysts assigned to the station looked at the information it had gathered and “found connections everywhere,” including links to the attacks on U.S. troops in Aden and Somalia in 1992 and 1993 and to the Manila air plot in the Philippines in 1994-1995.4

It took them years to go from bin Laden the financier to bin Laden is much more than that. Yet Obama suggests George Bush is responsible for 9/11. Obama cited this report but not this part or any other than the one that suited his agenda.

By the fall of 1997, the Bin Ladin unit had roughed out a plan for these Afghan tribals to capture Bin Ladin and hand him over for trial either in the United States or in an Arab country. In early 1998, the cabinet-level Principals Committee apparently gave the concept its blessing.9

On their own separate track, getting information but not direction from the CIA, the FBI’s New York Field Office and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York were preparing to ask a grand jury to indict Bin Ladin. The Counterterrorist Center knew that this was happening.10 The eventual charge, conspiring to attack U.S. defense installations, was finally issued from the grand jury in June 1998-as a sealed indictment. The indictment was publicly disclosed in November of that year.

Gee, then they were thinking it might be good to get this guy.

Regarding a plan to capture bin Laden…..

Director Tenet discussed the high risk of the operation with Berger and his deputies, warning that people might be killed, including Bin Ladin. Success was to be defined as the exfiltration of Bin Ladin out of Afghanistan.28 A meeting of principals was scheduled for May 29 to decide whether the operation should go ahead.

The principals did not meet. On May 29, “Jeff” informed “Mike” that he had just met with Tenet, Pavitt, and the chief of the Directorate’s Near Eastern Division. The decision was made not to go ahead with the operation.

Most of us are aware of the fumbling during the Clinton years on the topic of terrorism and bin Laden. You can go back further than that for example when the US financed bin Laden when the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan. The point here should be obvious. Pay attention to President Obama’s agenda and tactics. And stop blaming Bush for everything.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Pelosi Statement on June Job Numbers
07/02/2009

Washington, D.C. — Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement on unemployment numbers for June issued today by the Department of Labor.

“Today’s unemployment numbers are another reminder of the years of failure to invest in making Americans the most highly educated and innovative workforce in the world—and years of delay on affordable health care and the clean energy jobs and industries that will sustain our economy for years to come. In full partnership with President Obama, Congress must continue to strengthen and transform America’s economic foundation and improve our competitiveness, and we must do so in a fiscally responsible way.

“We took the first critical step by passing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act earlier this year. Economists tell us unemployment numbers would be worse without the Recovery Act, but that is no consolation for the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs. Last week, the House passed a comprehensive energy solution that will create millions of clean energy jobs, and we will reform our health care system to lower costs for America’s families and businesses.

“This is a time for bold, bipartisan action because Americans who are losing their jobs, homes and health care cannot afford to wait.”

Once again Speaker Pelosi you are wrong. Unemployment numbers are not a reminder of anything about the quality of the American workforce. There has been no failure to invest in education. The cost of education continues to rise and this nation spends more and more each year for less and less in terms of results. American students compared to their global counterparts continue to flat line or decline while the cost per student continues to rise and be financed by the American taxpayer.

Years of delay on affordable healthcare has nothing to do with unemployment either. But it does have something to do with politics and interfering with free market solutions that would make the industry competitive. Medicare, Medicaid and the countless additions beyond the initial intentions for coverage including illegal immigrants and any other mandated requirements have led to out of control spending by government on healthcare. You drive up costs by requiring insurance companies to include your mandates. The only jobs you create are cottage industries that only serve to increase adminstrative costs which account for a third of what we spend on health. And you have enough Obama audacity to demand we reform the healthcare you are desperately trying to destroy.

Clean energy jobs and industries are just a few examples of this decade’s popular political terms designed to provide an excuse for more government interference in the private sector. Industries do not become viable or remain viable by government mandate. You cannot will something to happen by government decree and expect it to be successful. If a product or service is brought to market and has a worthwhile benefit consumers will pay for it. It will succeed or fail on its own merits not because you decide it is something we should do.

Out of control spending was started during the last Bush administration and Obama is quite satisfied to continue with it. There is a rumor that the White House wants to initiate a second stimulus. The first one is not working and you want to start another. Please explain how that is intelligent?

You and President Obama continue to make statements about transparency and accountability. An example of how little there is can be found in your own press release presented here. You make claims but offer no evidence. Just like Obama keeps spawning new websites which claim to offer transparency and accountability yet no details are offered in evidence. Little charts and tables with categories and associated dollar amounts are useless. What you need to show is how much money was given to whom and what were the results specifically. In other words, show me the checks, who signed them, what they paid for and, for instance, how many jobs were created. But just telling us how many jobs were created does nothing. We need proof. Good luck with that.

As a parting note, the claim at the end of your press release that we cannot wait is political-speak for do it now, don’t think about it. Only fools accept those terms. And the evidence related to the claims made by this post’s author will be offered when Speaker Pelosi presents her evidence. Fair is fair.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Are we supposed to find some wisdom in this? Are we supposed to feel reassured that a poll suggests among us there are fellow citizens who have become optimistic about the economy? Is this a survey which was designed to entice consumer demand to rise as a snake oil liniment for what ails us? Along with mixed messages in financial reporting and misguided politics in the nation’s capital and at the state level the symptoms of economic recession may be prolonged by generating more of what put us here in the first place.

Consumers in the world’s biggest economy are feeling more confident and slowly starting to spend more money.

An index of consumer confidence in the United States - The Reuters/University of Michigan Survey of Consumers - jumped to its highest level in more than 15 months.

What a dichotomy the following is.

But the report also shows U.S. consumers are still wary and saving money at the highest rate in more than 15 years.

Officials say both spending and savings appear to have been boosted by the government’s economic stimulus package, which helped push incomes higher last month.

Historically American savings rates have lagged miserably behind other nations in the developed world. Is that because we live in a ‘driver’ economy which has experienced some of the greatest economic growth the world has ever seen? Or have we become complacent with our freedom, standard of living and list of personal options which provide not only extreme opportunity but a false sense that no matter what we can succeed? Spending levels and debt accumulation have exceeded our ability to select choices which protect us and provide ‘rainy day’ resources for the inevitable corrections that not only occur in the financial markets.

That the public can express optimism in this bleak economic period is great. Certainly pessimism or the extreme of hopelessness does not support recovery personally or within the economic sphere. But just as dangerous is unqualified expectations of happy days are here again. That only serves to exacerbate and extend the truth-be-damned recklessness at the core of the financial bitch slapping we have all experienced.

Politics and government along with a groping private sector appear aligned in an effort to simply rename the policies responsible for the current meltdown. For as much criticism that was aimed at the recent ‘tea party’ phenomena the irony is playing out to exonerate those supporting a return to the common sense of conservative principles especially reduced government spending and taxes. That would translate to less government interference and a needed boost to the economy from consumer spending that may actually support realistic consumer confidence. When has the government ever been responsible for that with more intervention and tax hikes?

Another government example of appalling stupidity…..

A separate report Thursday from the U.S. Commerce Department showed the economy is shrinking at a slower pace than first thought.

No, the economy is not shrinking at a slower pace. Your forecast numbers were simply incorrect. And some wonder how mistakes are being made.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

While former President George W Bush has withheld comment on the performance of current President Barack Obama the reverse is not true. As if liberals haven’t bashed Bush enough over the last eight or nine years the liberals’ liberal, Barack Obama has once again resorted to blaming others for how things are. In a report from The Hill below it is mentioned that Senator Obama was more supportive of President Bush when public money first flowed to the auto industry.

Administration blames Bush for GM crisis

By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 06/07/09 11:24 AM [ET]

The Obama administration has a familiar response to criticism of the General Motors bailout – they inherited this mess from George W. Bush.

In his first five months in office, Obama has often said that some of the politically difficult decisions he’s made are the fault of his predecessor, most notably the $1.3 trillion budget deficit.

But he’d previously been more supportive of Bush’s handling of the crisis in the auto industry. When Bush sent $17.4 billion of the $700 billion bailout package to GM and Chrysler in December, Obama issued a statement calling Bush’s move “a necessary step.”

In another current report former First Lady Laura Bush expresses the sentiment or rationale behind the ‘courtesy’ silence on matters Obama from her husband, former President George W Bush. A sensible approach from a man so often criticized by liberals. A reasonable position apparently lost on the current President who at times expressed it was counterproductive to engage in assessing blame for the ways things are when he took office in January of this year.

Laura explains Bush ’silence’

Former first lady Laura Bush said while her husband, George W. Bush, does not think it’s appropriate for a former president to criticize his successor, she understands why former Vice President Dick Cheney has.

“That’s his right as a citizen of the U.S., and I think he also feels obligated and so I understand why he wants to speak out,” Bush said in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “On the other hand George feels like as a former president that he owes President Obama his silence on issues and that there’s no reason to second guess any decisions he makes.”

A brief look back at how we got here may not match the current criticism emanating from the Obama Administration on the topic of a government takeover of the American auto industry. The House auto bailout bill passed and of the 237 votes in favor of it 205 were from Democrats. The bill died in the Senate and as the last line below indicates GOP members opposed it. Other reports suggest the ‘tough love’ measures were not strong enough.

Obama, who will inherit the problem next month, even if bailout billions are handed over in the meantime, said, “My hope is that the administration and the Congress will still find a way to give the industry the temporary assistance it needs while demanding the long-term restructuring that is absolutely required.”

In a letter to Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged the president to demand “the same tough accountability” and taxpayer protections from the automakers as was contained in legislation that cleared the House at midweek.

The Dems were liking an auto bailout…..

In the days between then and now, the White House and congressional Democrats agreed on a $14 billion measure that would have extended short-term financing to the industry while establishing a powerful new “car czar” to make sure the money was used to turn the Big Three into competitive companies. That bill passed the House on Wednesday but immediately ran into opposition from Senate Republicans who said it did not go far enough.

Whatever the reason, the effort stalled when Republicans voted en masse against advancing the original House bill to a final vote late Thursday night.

The point is there is always enough blame to go around when things go wrong. Obama blaming Bush will only take him so far. Every President inherits the way things are when they take office. It is time for the current President to prove he is worthy of the office and set aside meaningless political bickering.

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.

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

C’mon, “that is just Joe being Joe”. And that’s the problem.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If you recall use of the phrase ‘Manchurian candidate’ in current American politics you may be old enough to remember watching the 1962 film. But you may be a little foggy on the details after many years if you actually went to a theatre to view it in the sixties.

That was the initial reason for this post along with its current use in politics and the search began. After one pass in the Google main search engine page the phrase was entered in the news search. The first result featured an LA Times review of the movie apparently being shown at a local venue. The paper mentions Richard Condon as author of the book by of course the same name and its 1959 debut. Since the phrase is getting some attention it seems only fair to give credit to the book’s author.

It was no big surprise that the second result put the phrase into current political context. An excerpt from a HuffPo item titled ‘Irresponsible Vitriol in the Media’ from April 1, 2009 indicates Bloomberg ‘asserting’ Obama is ‘giving us a war on business’ and ‘legislat[ing] like a Manchurian Candidate.’

That led to actually clicking on a result that read like a common liberal rant expressing discontent with ‘deranged comments on their blogs’ and ‘Manchurian candidate.’

TPM
my TPM BLOG
March 25, 2009, 2:46PM
acanuck

Jokes about Obama’s “dependence” on his teleprompter have been all over the right-wing media and blogosphere for months: Fox, Politico, Townhall, Drudge and now AP … the list is shockingly long. Google “obama teleprompter” and make your own. There’s even a link to yet another bogus teleprompter story on the TPM main page today.

Two things to be said about the item above. The minor distraction of referring to someone’s actions as ’stupider’ rather than ‘more stupid’ as a superior grammatical choice albeit no improvement in style. And including Politico in a set of sources described as right wing media and blogosphere. Fox, Townhall and Drudge could be rated as probably, certainly and perhaps, respectively and respectfully. But AP and Politico being right wing?

The TPM blog item led to the following.

Teleprompter Vs. No Teleprompter: Letterman Takes On Obama Critics (VIDEO)
Huffington Post - Alex Leo
March 24, 2009 11:13 AM

Critics say Obama relies too heavily on his teleprompter. As Politico notes:

“Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter is unusual — not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small.”

They make an interesting point, why would a president want to be prepared and careful about what he says? The guy who had the job for the last eight years didn’t need no stinkin’ teleprompter!

This HuffPo piece offers a video along with their apparent agreement with the other item suggesting disdain over Politico. The video uses David Letterman and one of his comedy vids to support their argument to accept Obama’s dependence on a teleprompter as a good thing.

Nothing against Letterman but is that really the source you want to select to make a serious point? BTW, the vid is funny as it presents a ’serious’ Obama speaking in front of the camera versus a speaking gaffe by former President George W Bush. It’s also funny, but not in the humorous meaning, they don’t present a serious vid of Bush giving a prepared speech versus a speaking gaffe by Obama like dissin’ special olympics on a late night talk show when he was not likely using his favorite teleprompter. (and to liberals who will contest this, yes, Bush 43 gave plenty of serious speeches without gaffes)

Another contrast to offer is George Bush (43) even made self-deprecating remarks about his lack of public speaking prowess while the media, politicians and other observers have elevated Obama’s communication skills to the level of JFK. CBS News has a headline ‘Obama’s oratory grabbing the spotlight.’ The LA Times has ‘the power of Obama’s oratory.’ Two examples of the abundance of media love for everything Obama. So the left should understand if you are going to make a claim there will be challenges. You could equate Obama oratory by teleprompter to athletes using performance enhancing drugs to artificially improve their results.

This post was initially intended to present various arguments for the media being left wing or right wing and examples of how some draw their conclusions. While a bit of that was suggested the rest must wait for another post as the Obama yeah and Bush naw items along with silly responses to Manchurian candidates and teleprompters dominated this ’search’ journey.

But perhaps the central point to a left/right media analysis is suggested in results from a search engine inquiry using each of the following: ‘left wing politico’ and ‘right wing politico.’ On just one pass there are plenty of results to lean toward a conclusion that regardless of the political stripe of readers their reaction to whether a source is left or right is influenced by whether they agree or disagree with the source.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

From a transcript of President Obama’s Friday March 13, 2009 press event with Paul Volcker on the economy the following point was made.

But if we are — if we are keeping focused on all the fundamentally sound aspects of our economy, all the outstanding companies, workers, all the innovation and dynamism in this economy, then we’re going to get through this. And I’m very confident about that.

All right? Thank you, guys. Appreciate it. Have a good weekend.

END 1:38 P.M. EDT

In January 2009 after President George W Bush’s last State of the Union Address reports on the event included the President’s statement that economic fundamentals were strong. He was criticized for this appraisal and accused of being out of touch.

Mr Bush also sought to calm Americans’ fears about the troubled economy, while charting a course he hopes will keep him relevant in his final year in office.

He acknowledged that growth was slowing but insisted that the country’s long-term economic fundamentals were sound.

And he prodded Congress to act quickly on a $US150 billion ($169 billion) economic stimulus package laid out out last week.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign after the field was reduced to the two major party nominees Barack Obama attacked John McCain on his insistance the econommic fundamentals were strong.

McCain says economic ‘fundamentals’ strong, Obama attacks

Sep 15, 2008

ORLANDO, Florida (AFP) — John McCain Monday insisted US economic “fundamentals” were strong despite a banking crisis and Wall Street meltdown, prompting a scathing rebuke from his White House foe Barack Obama.

John McCain said the economic fundamentals of the US were strong and Barack Obama pounced. President Bush made a similar statement in his last State of the Union speech and the President’s opposition pounced. This week President Obama states the fundamentals are strong and what happens? Nothing. A scan of news sources suggests most media outlets are saying Obama calls for a return to economic fundamentals. The whole world must be drunk.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com