Blog @ MoreWhat.com

An interesting slice of this video report reveals other freedoms that are abridged in the workplace. Specifically, freedom of speech disappears at the employer’s door.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Better late than never.  At the end of the Festival of Lights I extend warm wishes to those who celebrate.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Cutting through the manufactured Obama mystique, presenting a signature historic comparison as well as a succinct review of the politics in Washington and a telling GOP victory in Kentucky state politics George F Will presents a scenario to warm the hearts of conservatives everywhere this Christmas season.

Today there are more independents than Democrats, more independents than Republicans, and according to a recent Gallup poll, independents’ approval of the Democratic-controlled Congress (14 percent) is lower than Republicans’ approval (17 percent). This is partly a function of the majority party’s health-care monomania. Consider what happened recently in Kentucky.

There a Republican candidate succeeded in nationalizing a state Senate race. Hugely outspent in a district in which Democrats have a lopsided registration advantage, the Republican, by 12 points, won a seat in Frankfort by running against Washington — against Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their health-care legislation.

Make no mistake. Independents are the fastest growing and some reports suggest the largest voter group currently in the US. Of course the public is overwhelmingly annoyed by Congress and the White House. Both major political parties have angered citizens for years. But the tide may be turning for the GOP and that opinion has been discussed widely. George Will’s column referenced above supports the notion. His current contribution on the topic and others may serve as evidence on a related topic.

An underlying debate on politics in the US includes the renewal of an old idea. We need a third party. The rebuttal to that notion in conservative circles suggests it is a mistake. Following references to Reagan it is suggested that would be folly and it is wiser to fix the current GOP. Given the rise in those identifying themselves as independent voters the third party may already be here.

Swing states and the increasing significance of independent voters in recent elections suggest neither ‘major’ political party in the US has the strength they once did. If the independent voter trends are in fact true in an age of digital everything and instant information the need for the traditional idea of a third party may be dead. For voters have new weapons and may be awakening to the idea of the power of their vote. POLS will ignore this phenomena at their own peril. Witness the tea parties many choose to dismiss. The third party is here.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Day of Infamy

The attack on Pearl Harbor was the culmination of a decade of deteriorating relations between Japan and the United States over the status of China and the security of Southeast Asia. The breakdown began in 1931 when Japanese army extremists, in defiance of government policy, invaded and overran the northern-most Chinese province of Manchuria. Japan ignored American protests, and in the summer of 1937 launched a full-scale attack on the rest of China. Although alarmed by this action, neither the United States nor any other nation with interests in the Far East was willing to use military force to halt Japanese expansion.

Over the next three years, war broke out in Europe and Japan joined Nazi Germany in the Axis Alliance. The United States applied both diplomatic and economic pressures to try to resolve the Sino-Japanese conflict. The Japanese government viewed these measures, especially an embargo on oil, as threats to their nation’s security. By the summer of 1941, both countries had taken positions from which they could not retreat without a serious loss of national prestige. Although both governments continued to negotiate their differences, Japan had already decided on war.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was part of a grand strategy of conquest in the Western Pacific. The objective was to immobilize the Pacific Fleet so that the United States could not interfere with these invasion plans. The principal architect of the attack was Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Combined Fleet. Though personally opposed to war with America, Admiral Yamamoto knew that Japan’s only hope of success in such a war was to achieve quick and decisive victory. America’s superior economic and industrial might would tip the scales in her favor during a prolonged conflict.

Pearl Harbor: 68 years (Michelle Malkin) 

GENEVA — The United Nations called Switzerland’s ban on new minarets “clearly discriminatory” and deeply divisive, and the Swiss foreign minister acknowledged Tuesday the government was very concerned about how the vote would affect the country’s image.

Maybe the United Nations or those specific members expressing displeasure over the minaret ban should review a larger list of ‘clearly discriminatory’ actions and deeply divisive agendas present in the world today.

The Swiss government opposed the initiative but has sought to defend it as an action not against Islam or Muslims, but one aimed at improving integration and fighting extremism.

For those who are content to define opposition to special interest agendas as xenophobic or some other phobia consider this. Special interests pursuing political influence in order to provide special status to their agenda is a dangerous trend. The PR camouflage of an issue of equality is a sham. It echoes a familiar reaction to similar exercises in the past. All men are created equal, some more equal than others.

In the United States, for example, one can observe a plethora of organized efforts to promote agendas based on social, cultural, ethnic, racial or other special interests. The one interest that seems grossly underserved is that of being an American. As if that was somehow an unworthy goal. Perhaps if people would spend more time understanding what it is to be a citizen of their respective country of origin there would be less trouble in the world.

The statement above regarding improving integration and fighting extremism is on point. Imagine that. The Swiss referendum is at odds with the UN.

“A blanket prohibition of minarets is not consistent with OSCE commitments on freedom of religion or belief and the principle of non-discrimination based on religion,” Lenarcic said in Athens, where he will participate in the OSCE Ministerial Council, to be held tomorrow and Wednesday.

The referendum, launched by the Swiss People’s Party and the Federal Democratic Union, was backed by 57.5 per cent of voters and a majority of cantons.

The UN OSCE claims the Swiss are ‘not consistent with OSCE commitments’. But 57.5% of the Swiss voted to ban minaret construction. When will the UN learn? Contrary to the UN, the Swiss ban is supported on this blog.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The liberals, the Democratic party POLS and others of a similar mindset would have you believe healthcare reform is a noble endeavor. President Obama has called for transparency and accountability and failed to deliver. Democratic party House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have promoted ‘a New Direction for America’ since the 2006 midterms and failed to deliver. In addition, a promise from Speaker Pelosi touted an end to the culture of corruption in Washington, DC. None of this has taken place.

As is the usual case with liberals they must find a villain to use in pursuit of their agenda. As with other items in their agenda they seek to convince you to pay for their power grab that includes diminishing your freedom, and in the case of healthcare reform, pay for their control over your health decisions and access. What was first described as healthcare reform has now been changed by the Dems to health insurance reform. As stated earlier, they must suggest a villain in an attempt to convince you they are fixing a problem. There real mission is to takeover healthcare in this country and your role in it.

This was the inspiration for this post. From the US Senate website regarding the ‘floor schedule.’

Floor Schedule

Monday, Nov 30, 2009

2:00 p.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.

Thereafter, resume consideration of H.R.3590, regarding health care reform.

Here are some simple questions to ask yourself about the Democratic majority’s pursuit of healthcare control. Read the following and ask yourself why the Dems would do this?

H.R.3590
Title: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 9/17/2009) Cosponsors (40)
Related Bills: H.R.3780, S.1728
Latest Major Action: 11/21/2009 Senate floor actions. Status: Measure laid before Senate by motion.
Note: H.R. 3590 is expected to be the vehicle for the Senate health care bill - the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. See the draft amendment from democrats.senate.gov.

If you follow the link to the liberal Senate site you may find the news items highlighted when this post was prepared. If not, they are presented here with comments.

Momentum Continues To Grow In Support Of The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act

Not true. There is growing unrest, skepticism and polls indicating most people believe this agenda will be a failure and do nothing but add more debt and raise deficits for the future.

Health Reform Process Has Been Transparent

Not true. The bills were developed in closed door sessions shutting out the minority party. The documents were withheld from the public until outrage caused their release. Many voting for the bills never read them. In the Senate, Harry Reid bought the vote of Mary Landrieu with hundreds of millions in Medicaid dollars for her state. In the House, Rep Cao of LA voted for that version of the liberal bill for a similar reason. Obama promised him funds and other help for his state if he would. And you have to ask yourself why the Dems would use an unrelated bill as ‘the vehicle for’ their healthcare takeover legislation?

Reid: Supporters Of Reform Can See The Finish Line But Much Work Lies Ahead

If they can see the finish line they are hallucinating or have more funds to buy votes for this healthcare scam. Those funds belong to the taxpayer. The work that lies ahead is finding honest support for healthcare reform which the liberals renamed health insurance reform. These bills are neither.

Reid: Moving To Debate On Senate Health Proposal Shows The American People We’re Serious About Reform

Not true. It shows that Reid is serious about a sham takeover of Americans healthcare.

Reid, Baucus, Dodd and Harkin Introduce the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Not true. While they may have had something to do with its introduction, there is nothing about the bill that protects patients or makes healthcare affordable. The CBO has shown many times that this bill and the others will raise premiums, the national debt and deficits when the real cost of the bills are included.

The Democratic party majority in Washington, DC is unleashing a disaster on our nation when it can least afford it. If you sit idly by and let it happen you share the responsibility for this mess. Continue to contact your elected reps to help stop this insanity. If you think healthcare has problems now, just wait and see what Congress does to it if you let them.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The quote below from Senator Akaka is one of the latest related to constitutional questions being raised about healthcare reform legislation.

Sen. Akaka Says ‘I’m Not Aware’ of Constitution Giving Congress Authority to Make Individuals Buy Health Insurance
Thursday, November 12, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) says he is “not aware” of the Constitution giving Congress the authority to make individuals purchase health insurance, as the health care bills in both the House and Senate require.

Another commonly quoted statement on this issue expresses the notion that state laws require one to carry auto insurance. Several other quotes feature various legislators essentially guessing about the whole matter. These quotes or sound bites may best demonstrate what is wrong with the present push for healthcare reform.

It suggests that many in Congress and the White House may have no idea what they’re doing. Such a sentiment is no stranger to observations of those in public office. The following information is also no stranger in mixing political agendas and legislation.

“We find his statements to be overly optimistic, misleading and, to some extent, contradicted by one of his own advisers,” the Annenberg FactCheck.org Web site reported at the time. “And it masks the true cost of his plan to cover millions of Americans who now have no health insurance.”

Masking the true cost of healthcare is exactly what Democrats have done, Moffit says.

“You’re going to see higher premiums, you’re going to have higher taxes, you’re going to have higher premiums for Medicare,” Moffit tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview. “And you’re not getting a bend in the spending curve, but rather a $1.3 trillion dollar explosion in additional spending over the next 10 years.

“So I don’t know what the White House thinks we’re drinking, but the truth of the matter is, none of this is believable,” he says.

Moffit says taxpayers’ first installment on healthcare’s hidden costs may come as early as next week, when the House is scheduled to take up the $210 billion “doctor’s fix” bill.

Feel free to follow the link and read the rest as it provides an example of what you see is not exactly what you get. Legislative maneuvers by unscrupulous politicians afford them political cover while stiffing the taxpayer and even those who view more government spending as a boon for their wallets. This entire exercise in healthcare reform is the dangerous ruse as it has been characterized by many since the charade began.

Obamacare Vote Chicanery Debunks Moderate Democrat Myth
Thursday, November 12, 2009 3:06 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Don’t assume that the 38 Democrats who voted against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s extremist version of healthcare reform wouldn’t have supported it if their votes had been needed.

The days before the final passage on Saturday were not filled with stirring appeals to get Democrats to back the bill so much as an auction to decide whom to let off the hook.

Knowing that the bill probably be political suicide for any red-state Democratic member of Congress, particularly the freshmen, the House leadership had to negotiate with its members to assure that the 38 defectors were the ones who needed the political cover the most.

This blog published a post on November 8th expressing a similar analysis as the one provided above. Another analysis being supported on this blog deals with the GOP and their alternative reform plan. Just as the CBO has scored liberal healthcare reform plans as too expensive and lacking in benefit to the public, their scoring of the GOP alternative suggests exactly what the GOP claimed. It is a first step for improving healthcare in the US that provides savings and more coverage for uninsured without breaking the bank. Allowing this great nation to move more slowly and carefully with respect to reform and avoid the risk of massive new debt, deficits and taxes that would cripple the economy.

The liberal power grab agenda and its centerpiece legislative coup of healthcare reform should raise red flags on anyone’s political radar. The same attempt to induce massive panic among this nation’s citizens was carried out during the Clinton administration. Healthcare did not cause the economy to collapse then and it will not now. The same cannot be said for legislation like HR 3962 or other liberal proposals currently in Congress.

Addressing healthcare reform as proposed by the GOP alternative in smaller steps is prudent, responsible and logical. Progress can be measured along the way. Problems can be avoided or corrected with much more ease. The nation will not need to accept the risk of an ‘all in’ strategy as suggested by the liberals in Congress and the White House. Their’s is a gambling strategy our nation cannot afford. But then their agenda is not about healthcare reform. It is about the expansion of government and the political power grab they seek.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Another example of how political motivation blurs the lines in the GOP on being a politician or standing for conservative values.

Republicans are unanimously opposed to the sweeping legislation.

Signaling the unease of some freshman Democrats in swing districts, Rep. John Adler of New Jersey said Friday he will vote against the bill. Mr. Adler, who won his first term in 2008 with 52% of the vote, said the House bill “does not do enough to contain costs.”

He added, “Congress should not pass a bill that costs more than $1 trillion” over 10 years.

Are Republicans unanimously opposed to HR3962 and the other healthcare reform plans proposed by the Democrats for purely political reasons or because this reform violates conservative principles? There is the distinct possibility current reforms violate sections of the US Constitution as well but that’s another story for another time. As is the question of why this unanimous GOP opposition is not demonstrated on other issues like illegal immigration?

The Democratic majority has been unable to produce party unity on healthcare reform as reports indicate the Saturday vote on HR3962 may be delayed. Vulnerable Democrats are worried about the 2010 elections. The GOP has similar concerns about their possible comeback in those same elections. And yet both parties seem unwilling to accept widespread rejection by the public and respond responsibly. The fight is purely political.

The Senate may not be able to arrange a vote until next year. That would take a toll on Obama’s first term. The liberal agenda now seems destined to ride completely on the outcome of healthcare reform legislation. If incomplete into next year their 2010 aspirations are vulnerable. But the GOP may suffer along with them as voters express their anger at the ballot box.

As this fiasco continues other issues suffer from neglect, incompetence or both. The President’s support is fading. Congressional approval ratings are still in the tank. There is no economic recovery. Unemployment has reached a new high above 10% and some say it is actually higher. And all politicians can do is play politics with an issue most regard as secondary at best.

Shelve the damn healthcare issue for now. Attend to national security, national defense, border control, immigration enforcement and domestic policy related to economic matters. In other words, limited government that reduces taxes, national debt, deficits and spending. If those items are ever effectively solved then revisit healthcare reform if anyone other than liberal politicians is interested.

Until then, get conservative or get out.

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

From the Politico on Sept 25, 2009 the Senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold (D-WI) of McCain/Feingold fame is weighing in on unelected members of the US Senate and what should be done about it. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) has also weighed in.

When Paul Kirk is sworn in Friday, he’ll become the sixth unelected member of the current Senate.

And by Russ Feingold’s math, that’s about six too many.

“People shouldn’t be voting in the United States Senate unless they’ve been elected by the people,” Feingold — a Democrat elected three times by the people of Wisconsin — said Thursday as Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick named Kirk as a temporary replacement for the late Ted Kennedy.

Feingold wants to amend the Constitution so that all Senate vacancies are filled by special elections rather than by gubernatorial appointments. But until that happens, the 17th Amendment allows states to let their governors appoint replacements — and that means that Roland Burris (D-Ill.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), George LeMieux (R-Fla.) and, soon, Paul Kirk will be representing constituents who never had a chance to vote for or against them.

Another example of the public being shut out of the process that requires a look at the 17th Amendment and beyond.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

A few more notes on the amendment…..

Amendment [XVII.] 9

There are those who favor the 17th Amendment and those who would like it to be repealed. Feel free to make your case either way.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

On the Nomination (Confirmation of Cass R. Sunstein, of MA, to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget )

The announcement above is from the US Senate and relates to, among other things, the popular discussion of President Obama and his appointment of ‘czars’ and other staff to his administration. No doubt as much dismissal of the process is uttered by liberal sources as concern about the process is voiced by the loyal opposition. So it all becomes a little silly. Or is it? Below is what appears to be an example of trying to dismiss the concern on the czar/appointee thing.

Get This Rat a Lawyer!

Glenn Beck says Cass Sunstein wants to give animals the right to sue humans. Really?
By Christopher Beam
Posted Monday, Sept. 14, 2009, at 8:49 PM ET

But, if you believe Fox News host Glenn Beck, it could happen here too.

Glenn Beck may be regarded as flamboyant by some critics or worse by left-leaning analysis. But he wasn’t wrong on the ACORN story was he? And he is correct on many things which means this blog is only leaving the door open in case he has been wrong on something. But when it comes to Cass Sunstein, the czar epidemic and the liberal response there is at least one evaluation of Mr Sunstein which is disturbing.

If Slate wants to downplay criticism of the Sunstein appointment it might be best to leave the whole thing alone. Even in their article referenced above they essentially agree that Sunstein believes animals have legal rights. And that leaves the door open for some really bizarre legal battles based on human history. Things could get out of hand considering humans EAT animals. Is there a need to say anymore on that topic?

What is of more concern regarding Cass Sunstein is the longer list of his publishing resume’. Of note is a book entitled, ‘ The Bill of Rights and the Modern State’, co-editor with Geoffey R. Stone and Richard A. Epstein, (University of Chicago Press 1992). One of Sunstein’s contributions to the book quotes Alexander Meiklejohn.

Meiklejohn is known as an advocate of first-amendment freedoms and was a member of the National Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Meiklejohn was selected by John F. Kennedy to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which was presented by Lyndon B. Johnson shortly after Kennedy’s death.

Sunstein’s quote of Meiklejohn is presented below.

The radio as it now operates among us is not free. Nor is it entitled to the protection of the First Amendment. It is not engaged in the task of enlarging and enriching human communication. It is engaged in making money. And the First Amendment does not intend to guarantee men freedom to say what some private interest pays them to say for its own advantage.

The radio, as we now have it, is not cultivating those qualities of taste, of reasoned judgment, of integrity, of loyalty, of mutual understanding upon which the enterprise of self-government depends. It corrupts both our morals and our intelligence.

Sunstein proposes ‘a New Deal with respect to speech’, freedom of speech, that is. You know, the First Amendment. For those of you concerned about the Fairness Doctrine and the liberal agenda to shutdown talk radio. You’re not crazy. Here’s what Sunstein says.

It applies much of the reasoning of the New Deal attack on the common law to current questions of First Amendment law. Such an approach would produce significant changed in existing understandings of the nature of the free speech guarantee. It would call for a large scale revision in our view of when a law ‘abridges’ the freedom of speech. At a minimum, it would insist that many imaginable democratic interferences with the autonomy of broadcasters or newspapers are not ‘abridgments’ at all.

And more of what the left may care to ignore on any discussion of Cass Sunstein is the remainder of his publishing resume’ which includes the following selections:

The Second Bill of Rights: Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever, (Basic Books 2006)

The Partial Constitution, (Harvard University Press 1993)

Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, (The Free Press 1993)

Free Markets and Social Justice, (2002)

The Cost-Benefit State, (American Bar Association 2002)

Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America (Basic Books 2005)

After the Rights Revolution: Preconceiving the Regulatory State, (Harvard University Press 1990)

(end of list)

And the left would also like to dismiss that vast right wing conspiracy focused on the free speech threat of the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives are more than a little concerned the current liberal majority has some sinister plans in mind that include destroying free speech and the remainder of the founding documents. Maybe all that talk of socialism is not so far fetched after all. Of course this blog never thought it was in the first place. The information above certainly supports that notion. But those of us who do not support the liberal agenda are labeled racists or Nazis or some other pejorative. Thanks libs.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Reconciliation is the political tactic that has been in the news often since the beginning of the healthcare reform debate this year. The Democratic party currently has possession of the White House and a majority in both houses of Congress. There is a concern that the majority party can pass any legislation it wants and the minority party is powerless to stop them.

Reconciliation is an option that was created in the 1974 Congressional Budget Act to allow Congress a way out of intractable budget battles.

Wesleyan University government professor Elvin Lim said it was invented as a way to achieve a balanced budget–not to force through highly controversial legislation.

“It wasn’t passed to allow Congress to go ahead and do anything it wants, but as it turns out, that’s the way it’s been used, quite frankly, by both sides of the aisle,” Lim told CNSNews.com.

In fact, he said, President George W. Bush was the last to utilize the tactic–getting Congress to pass tax cuts three times in ‘01, ‘03 and ’05–because he wanted to bypass a Senate filibuster by Democrats.

Gary Bauer, a former politician, Presidential candidate and founder of a political group called American Values is another voice warning that liberals in Congress will employ reconciliation to force their healthcare agenda through Congress.

If liberal Democrats do force through the legislation over the significant objections of conservatives, the former Republican presidential candidate says the minority party should be prepared to shut down the Senate.

While Bauer suggests using parliamentary procedures to achieve a Senate shutdown no specifics were given. If the minority party can effectively shutdown the Senate in the event that the majority party invokes reconciliation on the healthcare issue it may be the only method to stop a government takeover of the way we manage our health decisions.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A common situation has occurred at numerous town hall meetings this summer as politicians face their constituents on the topic of healthcare reform. Voters are mad and most object to more government control or a takeover of their healthcare choices.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley, a key Republican negotiator in the quest for bipartisan health-care reform, said Wednesday that the outpouring of anger at town hall meetings this month has fundamentally altered the nature of the debate and convinced him that lawmakers should consider drastically scaling back the scope of the effort.

After being besieged by protesters at meetings across his home state of Iowa, Grassley said he has concluded that the public has rejected the far-reaching proposals Democrats have put on the table, viewing them as overly expensive precursors to “a government takeover of health care.”

It is refreshing that the public has finally engaged their political representatives on not only a government takeover of healthcare but the fact that spending is out of control, debt is crushing the economy and destroying the future for generations of Americans.

What is not refreshing is that Senator Grassley and others still don’t get it, exactly. No scale back, no little healthcare takeover, no little spending programs, we do not need any of it. Drop the idea. Continue the discussion on solving issues but drop the ‘reform’ idea as it stands now. Government needs to be scaled back and not increased by any legislative measure now before Congress. Government is out of control and spends too much. Not every problem can or should be solved with more government. The solution is less government. We cannot afford more of it.

PIEDMONT, S.C. — U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis is a Republican who says he doesn’t support the president’s approach to health care. But Mr. Inglis’s efforts to suggest other ways the government could change the system have stirred up his upstate South Carolina district.

Congressman Inglis could have stopped with opposing Obamacare. Instead, like Grassley, he somehow feels compelled to distance himself from the liberal complaint that the GOP is the party of ‘no’. He could have simply explained dropping the healthcare reform idea would satisfy most of his constituents. But instead, he suggests other ideas.

Mr. Inglis favors requiring everyone to carry health insurance, which he said the government “is uniquely suited” to enforce. He also supports making insurers guarantee coverage to anyone willing to pay for it, subsidizing premiums for people on low incomes and a series of policy changes intended to reduce premiums for everyone.

He is finding it risky as he searches for a middle ground acceptable to those who support providing more people with coverage, and those who don’t want any expansion of the government’s role.

There is little public support for healthcare reform and even most POLS are not happy with it. Yet some POLS keep trying to find reform rather than drop the idea. And there are other healthcare ideas that should not see the light of day.

Vice President Joe Biden plans to announce Thursday nearly $1.2 billion in grants to help hospitals transition to electronic medical records.

Biden and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius were set to detail in Chicago how that piece of the $787 billion economic stimulus plan would help Americans when they go to the hospital or their doctors. It also is a what’s-in-it-for-me way for the White House to illustrate how it is spending parts of the massive amount of taxpayer dollars.

There’s another government idea ripe with problems. Like most government ideas they make it sound like a good thing. But the problem is in the details. With your medical records available to anyone who can gain access to the ‘electronic’ system the chance for abusing the system and exposing your personal data increases.

Those who support the liberal agenda will continue to push it. And those POLS opposed to it will continue to find an alternative even if no one wants it. The White House and Congress would find life much simpler as well as getting things done that people favor if they would just stop spending and increasing the size of government. Correcting the problems they have already caused would be a good place to start.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Plan for Guard Troops on Border Stalls Over Money
Wednesday, August 12, 2009 10:40 PM

WASHINGTON — A government plan to use National Guard troops to help stem Mexican drug violence along the southern border is stymied by disagreements over who will pay for the soldiers and how they would be used.

Ordered by President Barack Obama in June to help secure the border with Mexico, the Pentagon and the Homeland Security Department drafted a $225 million plan to deploy temporarily 1,500 Guard troops to supplement Border Patrol agents.

The two agencies are wrangling over how to structure the deployment, but the primary sticking point is the money, according to senior administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

In days where economics and government spending feature the term ‘trillions’ to quantify dollars in the equation the Obamanation has the audacity to propose immigration reform as a major agenda item. If $225 million is a sticking point for a National Guard presence on the southern US border to protect against a criminal element in the drug trade how can one believe the liberal agenda on national defense and border security is anything more than a call for OPEN BORDERS on a permanent basis. Or at least until our nation collapses under the pressure of providing economic support for foreign nationals that their home country refuses to address?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(President Barack Obama meets with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during their bilateral meeting at Winfield House in London, Wednesday, April 1, 2009. White House Photo/Pete Souza)

At two recent congressional hearings, U.S. diplomats, defense and military officials outlined how the Obama administration intends to go about “resetting” the U.S. relationship with Russia. Lawmakers on the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs, and Armed Services committees asked some tough questions about key aspects of the U.S-Russian relationship.

If you are not concerned about President Obama and discussions with President Medvedev of Russia you should be. White the ‘beer summit’ of Obama and Biden is surely not the ‘test’ VPOTUS forecasted in months past, negotiations between the Eagle and the Bear may be.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com