Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Seems like good timing for a basic blog rant. It’s been a tough couple of weeks and I’m cranky. Keeping the discussion on matters of politics a little review of the current situation seems in order.

Obamanation remains fixated on their, ‘let’s take over everything’ agenda. The central flaw in their quest beyond public disapproval and even outrage is similar to that of a typical spendthrift. They believe there is still money in the bank if they still have checks.

It’s amazing really. Politicians in both parties have frequently if not continuously committed the same financial sins for which they accuse others. Yet they have no shame for their own misguided actions or for political rhetoric employed as unemployment engulfs our nation.

By our votes we bestow upon them a public trust complete with perks for royalty yet we shed that anchor over two hundred years ago. And with the possible exception of the founding fathers those in public office have a two century record of malfeasance in office. If they were not directly involved with corrupt government they were willing participants by the fact of their incompetent objection.

As noted here elsewhere, notable Republicans like Palin, Romney and Scott Brown support McCain for re-election. Yet it is clear McCain is not a conservative. Which casts doubt on the credentials of the aforementioned.

Mr. Romney, who was supported on this blog since 2008, provided a less than convincing excuse for his endorsement. If McCain’s years of service and experience qualify him as the best choice for American leadership what does that say about his support of shamnesty during the second Bush 43 term? And then there’s Lindsey Graham with similar problems. The GOP has not turned the page toward conservative principles. How will they do that with barely half a year to go before the 2010 elections?

Yes, they are fiercely opposing the current liberal push for a totally out of touch agenda. But what else are they going to do? They believe this strategy against the Obamanation will translate to victory in November. What’s new about that? Sound like politics as usual just as much as the Dems failure on every level since the 2006 midterms.

The GOP fell from grace and have not returned in any meaningful way. The libs are apparently willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Worst of all, they have not drained the swamp. The culture of corruption is alive and well in Washington, DC and around the country in all levels of government.

The voters must drain the swamp in November 2010.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

editor’s note: The quality of this post has suffered as it is Friday and this month’s budget only allows for beer rather than top shelf single malt Scotch. Po’ Stanford. And no images were chosen for this post as none were available at the time of publication to fit the mood.

Crushing debt and mounting deficits in the face of a fragile recovery, if in fact there is one, adds to concern about the liberal agenda and out of touch POLS in Washington as well as at the state and local level. Tea parties and other outspoken critics have raised the ante for November 2010 midterm elections while being attacked by entrenched power brokers in the culture of corruption.

President Obama’s frequent reminder that we must pass ‘health insurance reform’ and other agenda items of the Democratic party are at odds with the report presented here expressing his belief that ‘deficit spending is unsustainable.’

One consistent feature of The One’s rhetoric blames the whole mess on problems that he ‘inherited.’ It has been stated on this site before that candidate Obama knew exactly what lay before him in his pursuit of the highest office in the land. At some point Mr President you must accept responsibility for the leadership role you now have. Do not pre-empt your agenda’s likely failure by putting the weight on someone else. Your agenda succeeds or fails on its own merits or lack of same.

One can almost hear his 2012 concession speech. I had a dream. To change the foundation of this nation into my own image and likeness but Bush sabotaged my plan.

Some have said authorizing a government ‘commission’ to oversee debt and deficit reduction attempts is simply a way to remove political risk from elected officials and place it on a group of bureaucrats. Whatever the strategy we don’t need another government commission for anything. Simply have the stones to reduce spending, taxes and the growth of government. But then that notion runs counter to any liberal agenda. That supports the opinion on why this commission was born.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama Confronts US Debt as More Americans File for Jobess Benefits
18 February 2010
Michael Bowman | Washington

President Barack Obama announced a bipartisan commission on Thursday to tackle mounting U.S. federal budget deficits that economists say imperil the nation’s economic future. The president acted to correct America’s long term fiscal imbalances while short term economic signals point to a bumpy recovery after a deep recession.

President Obama says he inherited massive budget deficits and a staggering national debt when he entered office, and that he has had to incur even more debt to combat a financial crisis and prevent a prolonged economic recession from becoming a depression.

But he is quick to add that deficit spending is unsustainable.

“Without action, the accumulated weight of that structural deficit, of ever increasing debt, will hobble our economy,” Mr. Obama said. “It will cloud our future and it will saddle every child in America with an intolerable burden.”

Mr. Obama spoke at the White House, where he signed an executive order creating a bipartisan commission that will craft solutions to bring federal spending in line with tax receipts.

Standing behind the president were the two men who will lead the panel - Democrat Erskine Bowles, who served as White House chief of staff during the Clinton administration, and former Republican Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming.

“I am asking them [Erskine and Simpson] to produce clear recommendations on how to cover the costs of all federal programs by 2015 and to meaningfully improve our long term fiscal picture,” Mr. Obama said.

More than half of federal spending goes to so-called entitlement programs such as Social Security for retirees, and medical subsidies for the poor and the elderly. Cutting such programs is politically unpopular.

National defense consumes another large portion of the budget, and is difficult to rein in during a time of war.

President Obama has proposed a freeze on the remainder the federal budget, beginning next year. But a limited freeze along will not eliminate a deficit that exceeded $1 trillion last year and is projected to do so again this year.

Congress rejected creating a budget commission of its own that would have been empowered to draft fiscal solutions and to compel the legislature to consider its recommendations.

Meanwhile, fresh signs of weakness emerged in the U.S. labor market that analysts say point to a slow economic recovery. The number of newly-laid off workers filing for unemployment benefits stood at 473,000 last week - 31,000 more than the previous week.

Global Insight chief economist, Nariman Behravesh:

“After substantial progress in fixing or at least improving the jobs situation, we seem to have backtracked a little bit,” Behravesh said. “This is not so unusual. When you reach a turning point [in the economy after a recession], the progress is not uniform - two steps forward, one step back. And I think that is what we are seeing - the one step back.”

At the same time, a broad measure of future economic vitality, the Conference Board’s Index of Leading Economic Indicators, rose for the 10th consecutive month, but at a slower pace than in previous months. And spiking energy costs caused U.S. wholesale prices to rise 1.4 percent in January - double what many economists had anticipated.

This is not political rhetoric or some lobbyist’s scheme to support a strategy not in the public interest. It is what this country has been missing lately. Plain, everyday, good old-fashioned American common sense.

An excerpt from a WaPo report on health reform provides a reasonable introduction to what’s wrong and why a step by step approach to reform the wise choice.

Their efforts suggest a return to the frenzied pace of last year’s health-care debate, which prompted more than $200 million in advocacy ads and broke records for lobbying. Companies and trade groups last year hired more than 4,500 lobbyists to influence health reform — amounting to about eight lobbyists for each member of Congress, according to an analysis released last week by the Center for Public Integrity.

Reacting to President Obama’s recent statements that he will move ahead with legislation, health insurance companies have enlisted hundreds of lobbyists in a full-court press against the proposed overhaul, which would force dramatic cuts and increased regulation on the industry. At the same time, insurers are pushing back against a separate bill approved by the House last week that would remove the industry’s antitrust exemption.

Assuming the article’s facts are straight, ‘eight lobbyists for each member of Congress’ should tell you all you need to know. But add to that all the talk of ‘agendas’ and what some POLS are obviously trying to do and it becomes clear there is little in the way of public interest included in this legislative nightmare.

For instance, by itself in the spirit of ’step by step’ do you suppose anyone would object to a ban on deals between drug manufacturers to keep generics off the market? That’s right. The only ones who would object are the drug manufacturers and their lobbyists.

Would anyone object to allowing insurance companies to compete across statelines? Sure, state and local POLS who claim their legislation protects the public by allowing only approved players to participate. Do you suppose any of the same political shenanigans are involved at the state level?

These are some of the cost-cutting ideas that may come from either side of the aisle and appear to have merit without benefit of reading specific legislative language that may render them less than ideal. But the point is without taking unthinkable risk with national debt and deficits in addition to what already exists, doing things step by step would remove the all or nothing pitfalls from what is otherwise just more politcal theatre.

Our nation needs to address health issues. But the manner in which it is being done currently does not resemble anything close to the word reform. You might want to tell your elected representative we should take a break, eliminate the insanity and take a common sense step by step approach to solving health issues.

Sure, the step by step idea has been a GOP mantra for some time now. So if you are a liberal you naturally oppose it. But this post does not suggest all the GOP talk is correct. But there is no benefit to dismissing all the GOP or the Democrats say just to present an argument. The generic deals ban mentioned above may quite possibly be a Democrat’s idea. It seems reasonable. Step by step was proposed by the GOP. Another reasonable idea.

So let’s scrap these reform bills that are nothing more than political agendas. And do it right one piece at a time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

One of the best reads I absorbed lately. I have read this author before and have yet to be disappointed. The values we hold. Similarities and differences between generations. And what influences our perceptions and how that changes over time. Plus a generous description of the role technology has played shaping the youngest among us.

Opinions of millennials with regard to values and older generations may be the clue that wisdom will prevail and America will endure and become better for the effort. This could be further proof that the founders knew what they were doing. Like most of us didn’t know that already.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Not the One They Were Hoping For
Bliss it wasn’t in that dawn to be alive.
BY Matthew Continetti
March 8, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 24

Millennials are frustrated, too, by the slow pace with which Obama has enacted his agenda. They are an On Demand generation. They are used to getting what they want instantly or close to it, from iTunes and FedEx packages to fast-food meals and Starbucks. They communicate effortlessly through texts, instant messaging, Skype, Twitter, and Facebook. But the government does not work this way. Our system is filled with checks and balances and minority protections to ensure the maximum possible deliberation and compromise—and to frustrate temporary and passionate majorities from enacting massive overhauls with uncertain consequences.

Just a brief post on the summit to this point. (1PM EST).

Just when Eric Cantor and others were getting to the meat of the issue President Obama said rather than go on with a ‘back and forth’ others should be allowed to speak.

Interpretation: When about to lose ground on reform the President side-stepped the very debate he said he wanted to have.

The Dems have cited anecdotes for an emotional appeal while members of the GOP have tried to move the discussion to the real debate of why we cannot afford the legislation as it will only make healthcare more expensive through taxes and other excessive regulatory restrictions.

Now they broke for ‘a House vote that has to be taken now’. They knew this summit was on for today. With all the days Congress takes off, why did they have to have a vote now. Sounds like step two in the dodge and weave to regroup as the GOP had the stronger arguments.

And if you listened to Washington Journal this a.m. prior to the summit you could have listened to Congressman Clyburn express the Dems goal is to provide unlimited coverage to Medicare as well as private insurance.

Then how do they expect anyone to believe we can afford healthcare reform? The answer is they don’t. They expect as most believed to takeover healthcare as a major step in bringing European socialism to the United States.

That is not a wild accusation. The evidence for the argument is all around you. All you have to do is open your eyes and observe. It is not that difficult.

Stay tuned to Cspan to ‘observe’ the liberal conspiracy first hand during this so-called healthcare summit. How many more times will Obama side-step the real debate when confronted by the GOP on the flaws of the Democratic majority’s healthcare component of their liberal agenda?

Currently we have witnessed side-step one and two (see above).

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:

“A Reading Guide to the Senate Bill’s Backroom Deals” (Michelle Malkin) 

Reid Appoints Durbin, Baucus, Conrad To Presidential Commission That Will Help Rein In Spending And Reduce The Deficit

Washington, DC— Nevada Senator Harry Reid released the following statement to announce Senate appointees to the deficit commission President Obama established last week: “One of the top issues for many of the Nevadans I met with last week was the need to get federal spending under control. That is why Senate Democrats supported establishment of a deficit reduction commission by statute earlier this year. Unfortunately, strong Republican opposition - including by several Republicans who co-sponsored a statutory commission - prevented this important legislation from passing. “I am pleased that President has decided to take bold action to move forward and create a commission by executive order. The establishment of this commission is an important signal that we understand the need to address our fiscal challenges and are committed to finding bipartisan solutions. Senators Durbin, Baucus and Conrad all have vast experience in dealing with the federal budget and have a proven record of looking out for working families like those in Nevada. “I have committed to President Obama that I will work to ensure that the commission’s recommendations receive a vote in the Senate. Senate Democrats understand that we have to be responsible stewards of the federal budget.”

Nothin’ like having the usual suspects who have accelerated the mess we’re in beyond the GOP fall from grace being given more access to YOUR wallet.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Here’s a suggestion for evaluating the soon to be televised (on Cspan) health summit hosted by the White House. You may recall President Barack ‘Mr Transparency during the 2008 campaign’ Obama was complicit in efforts by the Democratic party to exclude the Republican party from the business of crafting so-called healthcare reform legislation. Correction, that is now ‘health insurance reform.’

Just in case you forgot the following excerpt is provided as a reminder that much of the latest push in Congress and the White House for ‘reform’ has been behind opaque rather than transparent doors.

C-SPAN questions follow Obama

President Barack Obama might just wish he had opened even one health care meeting to the C-SPAN cameras.

The issue is starting to follow him around.

Once again Tuesday, he faced a question about it, from a high school student in Nashua, N.H., who asked him to grade the White House’s transparency efforts, given the fact that all the health care discussions have been behind closed doors.

Now that Obama has realized the mistake in hiding negotiations he expresses a ‘warning.’

President Obama warned lawmakers on both sides of the aisle Saturday not to turn the upcoming White House health-care summit into “political theater,” but rather “to seek common ground in an effort to solve a problem that’s been with us for generations.”

The ‘problem’ for the Dems is they have been trying to takeover healthcare for ‘generations.’

The standard rhetoric from the left now that they have initiated damage control for their lack of transparency is that the GOP is the party of ‘no’ and has no plans. The GOP counters with examples of their plans and a website to publish them. The right fears a setup or ambush by the left in this overdue suggestion of transparency. The left has the majority in DC as well as most of the cards yet have been unable to move their liberal agenda forward. It is reasonable to suspect all of this from both sides is politics as usual.

Everyone has an agenda including you and I. An agenda can be a good thing. But finding one in Washington DC that is good is next to impossible. Can politicians escape politics in this upcoming ’summit.’? Not likely.

The public is not happy with the Obama agenda or Congress. It is quite possible the GOP prefers the Dems own this one, meaning Obamacare. If health related legislation is passed in Congress without GOP support and turns out to be the disaster expected they can say we told you so. The Dems want the GOP to have ’skin in the game’ by signing on to this legislation without benefit of participation in its crafting. Obama’s health summit is likely a maneuver with that in mind.

Once again you are on your own to evaluate what is really going on. The upside is November 2010 holds the key. Tell the White House and Congress what you think with your vote.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related: Reconciliation, the public option, and Demcare revival (Michelle Malkin)

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.

Without presenting some of the information provided in an article from The Economist, to avoid having your eyes glaze over, the following excerpt may some it up.

Most troubling of all is the continued failure of economic growth to benefit the labour market. Employment fell by over 300,000 jobs during the last three months of 2009, despite strong expansion in GDP. The first quarter of 2010 is unlikely to show as big an output gain, suggesting that the pace of improvement in employment may be slowing, even as regular job growth has yet to return. And the situation may be more dire still; initial jobless claims have grown in recent weeks, indicating that what momentum there was in labour markets has been lost.

And leave it to one of Obama’s economic gurus, Larry Summers, to spin the situation in a liberal form. He says the American economy is experiencing “a statistical recovery and a human recession”.

That’s liberal-speak for we present numbers that minimize the problem and portray continued losses in employment as a ‘human recession.’ How comforting. The report indicates 41% of the unemployed have been so for 27 weeks. How does that translate into it ’s all Bush’s fault? Those losses came within Obama’s first year in office.

I can hear the liberal response already. However, libs should understand that regardless of the degree to which the previous administration or anyone else contributed to an economic downturn, then candidate Obama campaigned that his hope and change would fix what’s wrong. He knew then what he would face if elected. It is folly to now say that the failure of his agenda is someone else’s fault.

That is why the overwhelming demand from the public, aka voters, is to return to the basics. Stop spending. Stop borrowing. Live within our means and take common sense steps toward recovery. Enough with the political agenda that only serves the ambition of politicians.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If you are a fan of either the New Orleans Saints or the Indianapolis Colts Sunday’s forty-fourth Superbowl undoubtedly had special meaning for you. Likewise if you are simply a big fan of professional sports the annual premiere pigskin competition gets your undivided attention. But as the case goes for most activities these days there are many ways to analyze this year’s football finale.

Certain aspects of the event receive the lion’s share of attention each year. From the half time entertainment to the big bucks offerings from commercials during the broadcast to commentary on the ‘elites’ on the field or those occupying spectator seating at the venue. But this year presented the almost obligatory injection of politics into the fray.

Move over Janet Jackson your wardrobe malfunction may no longer occupy first place for the absurd at a Superbowl. Fortunately there was no such problem with delivering the National Anthem. And Carrie Underwood’s performance of the Star-Spangled Banner eclipsed The Who’s halftime performance as well as finding the singer’s wardrobe choice a refreshing change of pace. But that’s not the politics. It is part of the usual appraisal.

In the run up to the event news reports or op-eds and other commentary raised an issue for some liberals about the planned advertising spot from Tim Tebow and his mother. Libs of course suggested there should be no political advertising during a sporting event. Their concern was the growing public sentiment against abortion. The ad was described as the Tebow pair presenting the fact that a difficult pregnancy was not aborted and the child born grew up to be a very successful quarterback.

If you saw the ad on Sunday you may be surprised at the uproar from the libs. It was well done and the libs probably raised more attention to it than if they had just let it be. But then liberals are nothing if not neurotic.

So if you want to raise a political issue with the Superbowl how about this? Courtesy of VOA News an opening paragraph from one article on Superbowl 44.

Just four years after Hurricane Katrina decimated the city of New Orleans, the Saints are the champions of the National Football League. The New Orleans Saints defeated the Indianapolis Colts, 31-17, Sunday night in Super Bowl XLIV.

And in the same article this statement:

Saints quarterback Drew Brees, who has dedicated himself to helping both the Saints and city of New Orleans recover from 2005’s Hurricane Katrina, was named the game’s most valuable player.

An otherwise interesting additional article from VOA News examining the possibility of this Superbowl being a ‘classic’ also included something of a political reference.

A victory for the Saints would complete the resurrection of the franchise, which finished 3-13 the season before Drew Brees came to New Orleans. It would also go a long way toward instilling pride in a city still working toward recovering from the horror and devastation of 2005’s Hurricane Katrina. Saints head coach Sean Payton says the team has a special relationship with the people of New Orleans.

“This is a city that really has been very close to this team through a lot of hard times. And after Katrina, when the Saints were able to get back and play in the Superdome there was certainly some symbolism that evening. I think playing good football and giving them something to be proud of is important,” he said.

The game has special meaning for Peyton Manning as well. He grew up in New Orleans, where his father Archie quarterbacked the Saints during 10 losing seasons.

There were more relevant references to NOLA that could have been made but the point is they were unnecessary. Anyone with a brain can make the connections without urging from the media. And if you are going to make an emotional case for a sad situation at least have the common courtesy to present a balanced appraisal. Like most of NOLA’s troubles are of their own making or neglect.

One title in news reports suggested someone might be making the case for balance.

Not everyone is happy for the Saints

It was really no shocker to find a sports report suggesting others in the sporting world may be unhappy with Sunday’s outcome. And in the opening the author wondered upon arriving in NOLA if he would observe a population hung over the Superbowl XLIV or ‘revving up’ for Mardi Gras then expecting both.

And President Obama hosted a Superbowl party in a week when he has renewed talk about bipartisanship in the wake of the failure of his flagship agenda item, ‘health’ reform. The lone member of the GOP invited was Joseph Cao of the LA-2 which includes most of NOLA.

It had nothing to do with the game or NOLA but a down payment on the purchase of Cao’s vote for the Demcare. Cao was the only Republican in the House to vote for it based on promises of help for NOLA from President Obama.

The point here is enough already with the wailing and gnashing of teeth about NOLA or Katrina. For about three hundred years the city has been below sea level. There is an abundance of reference material available to demonstrate the repeated failures of public officials and private interests to adequately deal with Katrina-like vulnerabilities for years. Some of that information is on this site and at this blog.

The final word on New Orleans and Katrina is get over it. Stop blaming others for problems of your own doing.

According to the report below President Obama is conceding the point that his agenda is a failure. The man who selected Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff now calls for civility in politics. This would not have happened with a successful first term behind him. It is as if he is pleading for others to throw him a bone.

Where was the civility this liberal President asks for now when MoveOn dot org disrespected General Petraeus? Where was the civility from liberals when Bush 43 was in office? Where IS the civility from liberals regarding opposition to their agenda? Why did liberal civility not include the family of Sarah Palin?

And Mr President, what about your comment, ‘And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion…’ when speaking of small towns in America? Like anyone you may be entitled to your opinion. While serving as POTUS you might consider keeping some of your comments to yourself. But it seems when you were being adored by the mainstream media your need for civility was absent. Funny how things change.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

President Obama Calls for Civility at National Prayer Breakfast
VOA News

U.S. President Barack Obama has called for a return to civility in American politics, as he spoke at a prayer breakfast in Washington.

In remarks Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast, Mr. Obama stressed the importance of being open to compromise and differing perspectives. He said it is time to learn how to “disagree without being disagreeable.” The annual event brings together leading political, religious and business leaders along with diplomats and even some foreign leaders.

Mr. Obama said faith and prayer can play an important role in bridging divisions that have caused Republicans and Democrats to stop listening to one another.

Earlier, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke of the role faith has played helping Haitians suffering from the effects of a devastating earthquake. She said people of all religious denominations have answered the call to help Haitians in need.

First lady Michelle Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and the Prime Minister of Spain, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, also attended.

This year the breakfast drew protests from gay rights activists and government watchdog groups concerned about the sponsors of the meeting. For five decades, the breakfast has been hosted by a secretive evangelical organization known as “The Family,” which activists accuse of having ties to anti-gay legislation in Uganda.

Mr. Obama spoke about the controversy Thursday, calling the legislation in Uganda “odious.” He said even for those who do not agree with homosexuality, it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians in a way that dehumanizes them.

Ugandan politician David Bahati, who activists say is a member of “The Family,” recently proposed legislation that would make homosexual acts punishable by imprisonment or even death in Uganda.

related:

MLK, Black History Month, and Cuisine Correctness (Michelle Malkin) 

The Obamanation has once again enlisted the help of yet another person who worked on the 2008 presidential campaign of President Barack Obama. David Plouffe is viewed by the left as some sort of hero based on the props they give him. So what’s his story?

Based on his track record in campaigns found at Wiki, he’s basically battin’ 500. In the list below he’s three out of six without the last three wins. Who can tell if his work was really the prime mover in those contests. C’mon, if it were otherwise you might expect Plouffe to be Obama’s mega adviser not Axelrod. And the MSM being what it is the Messiah could do no wrong since his speech at a convention as a virtual unknown and his run in 2008.

(Last three wins working with or for Axelrod)

How tough would it be to get a Democrat elected in Massachusetts in 2006? How tough to get Harkin re-elected in 1990? Harkin in 1992 or Gephardt in 2000 would have been an impressive accomplishment. And how about the following item?

Plouffe offered a video challenge for the left to buy his book in order to beat one day sales of Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue. While the outcome may be unknown this much is certain as of this writing. At Amazon dot com Going Rogue has a sales rank of #59 while Plouffe’s book is at #646.

Apparently his challenge didn’t set the world on fire nor his book sales.

Plouffe’s wife is a principal at Dewey Square Group. In other words, she’s a lobbyist. And as for David Plouffe and David Axelrod they are thick as thieves. For more on them see this piece by Michelle Malkin…

Axelrod’s profits: Uh, who’s on the take from the drug lobby again?!?!

What did candidate Obama say about lobbyists in the 2008 US Presidential campaign? Ya, right. What now President Obama meant by ‘hope and change’ was that the change would be all the broken campaign promises and he hoped you wouldn’t notice.

So if they are enlisting the help of David Plouffe based on the DNC’s dismal prospects for the 2010 midterm elections and beyond (hint, hint, 2012) you should know what that means. Absolutely no hope and change but much, much more of the same.

For liberals and RINOs in 2010 it should be exit stage left.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

note: Much of the information provided here followed a path layed out by the fine folks at Wikipedia. Some info came from your basic internet search.

Transparency and accountability have been a focus in the long battle to defeat liberal control of healthcare in the United States. While the antiseptic qualities apply, described in the phrase, sunshine is the best disinfectant, public demand to review healthcare reform legislation and have input is key. President Obama’s release of his budget proposal for 2011 which begins in October requires the same scrutiny and public focus.

Are you kidding me? A three point eight trillion dollar budget ($3.8 trillion) is not what the doctor ordered. Just as the Democratic party and their agenda is on life support so is the US economy. Given that the vast majority of federal budgets are entitlements and discretionary spending this budget number is preposterous. Like the stark reality being experienced by the unemployed and under-employed the White House and Congress need a wake up call.

The plan includes big increases in personal and business taxes, modest spending cuts and increased outlays for education, defense and jobs initiatives.

First of all, tax increases are nonsense in this economy. Second, modest spending cuts are equally ignorant. As for education, sure, it is important. But the simple fact that everyone will have to suffer includes education. So your college plans are postponed for a year or two. Join the Peace Corps or something. And why do we think education can only be improved by spending money. That hasn’t improved student or teacher performance yet.

Cutting more entitlements would certainly help paying for any defense needs. And who the hell needs a jobs bill now that needs to be paid for over ten years? $80 to $100 billion over ten years for government make work jobs? That’s ridiculous.

And enough with the future timelines for reducing spending, deficits and the national debt. Do it now. Right now, in this budget in this year turn the corner and halt the damage being done by government malfeasance. As an ending note to this post Lamar Alexander put it best in describing current politics in Washington.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), appearing on the same program, praised Mr. Obama for talking about spending and tax cuts, but said his ideas were flawed. “I’ll give the president some credit,” he said. “He’s in the right church but the wrong pew.”

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

BTW, following links to the WSJ articles is worth the trip.  And so is the following link.

Debt deluge: Here comes the $1.6 trillion flood of red ink (Michelle Malkin) 

The president will try to add clarity in his speech, White House aides said. He will call for a freeze on federal discretionary spending, tax relief targeting middle-income Americans, regulating the financial-services industry and remaking the nation’s immigration laws.

He may also help provide a way to move forward with the signature issue of his first year, an overhaul of the health- care system, which represents about 17 percent of the economy.

The Presidents’ ‘freeze’ proposal is a mere $250 billion over ten years. Over that much time there is little chance POLS won’t find a way to end it and continue to borrow, increase deficits and national debt.

If the President succeeds in providing a middle-class tax cut and passing health related legislation the two will cancel each other out at best. And at worst the tax cut will be outpaced by increased health care taxes and costs that it won’t matter.

With other financial matters as well as immigration it is clear the Obamanation agenda will not change. In keeping with his campaign mode style and community organizing tactics this state of the union message will be more of the same. Proving once again there is no hope and there will be no change from the White House with the current US President.

President Barack Obama will propose extending through 2010 a temporary tax incentive that encourages businesses to accelerate purchases of equipment, an administration official said.

Certainly lowering taxes is a good thing. But tax incentives can be as problematic as any other tax situation. Dangle a carrot that rewards participants with tax breaks to do the government’s bidding. That’s not a good idea. Just reduce taxes for everyone. That’s a job creator and boost for the economy.

President Barack Obama will give $8 billion in economic stimulus money to 13 U.S. rail corridors tomorrow, mostly for high-speed passenger service, an administration official said.

Yup, don’t forget to put pork in your state of the union speech Mr President. High speed rail is nothing more than another earmark and pork barrel spending and a misuse of taxpayer funds. If high speed rail is such a good idea, how come it hasn’t happened yet in the private sector and won’t happen without misusing taxpayer money?

No hope, no change, nothing new, just more campaigning from a President whose failed agenda has been seen for what it is even by those who voted for him. And he has had plenty of help advancing his failed agenda from liberal POLS and RINOs in Congress.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Every politician invokes the use of ’spin’ to some degree and with some frequency during their their term or terms in office. That is the essence of politics. And that is the dominant feature which cripples effective governance. Political games are often defended as a ncessary evil in government and public affairs. Of couse, politicians and those who craft strategy are the only ones who subscribe to that philosphy. And it is responsible for Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts special election held last week.

But politicians and community organizers are addicted to that unfortunate part of the process. Enter President Barack Obama. Defined by supporters, of which there are less these days, as the consummate campaigner President Obama is once again embracing that which had served him well in getting elected. Even though it is largely responsible for his falling approval rating, failing agenda, dismal first year in office and party prospects in 2010.

White House officials say they understand why emotions are running high. The president’s top political aide says President Obama has had to take unpopular action to deal with an economic crisis far worse than anyone expected when he took office.

David Axelrod says he warned the president early on that his public approval ratings were likely to drop. “I said to him a year ago, Mr. President your numbers are going to be considerably worse a year from now than they are today because you can not govern in an economy like this without great disaffection,” he said.

Axelrod told the ABC television program This Week that he believes the president did the right thing. “I have no regrets about that. I think history will look back and say the President of the United States met his responsibilities,” he said.

Someone is smoking crack if they think reaction to Obama’s agenda is due to ‘an economic crisis far worse than anyone expected when he took office.’ Or have they forgotten all the Bush bashing in his last year of office over the ‘worst financial crisis since the Great Depression’?

Of course Axlerod suggests what history will say about Obama. There is nothing he can point to currently putting the President in a favorable light. The same goes for the President and the Democratic party’s agenda. Nothing positive is promised until years in the future with the expectation it can be passed and the sham will not be noticed for years.

With all this President Obama continues the spin strategy of politics.

Going into year two, political strategists expect the president to re-center himself Wednesday as a hard-fighting, bank-busting, Obama-on-your-side jobs president, while acknowledging the hiccups in getting to this point.

At the State of the Union, the state of the presidency may be the question that most needs answering.

“It’s going to be jobs, jobs, jobs. Economy, economy, economy,” said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi. “Year two’s gonna be this guy.”

And when that doesn’t work it will be some other guy. The never ending campaign continues.

Now, he is taking a more populist approach - focusing on the day-to-day issues that create money woes for many families.

He says it is part of an effort to show the administration cares about workers who are struggling to pay their bills or have anxieties about losing their jobs.

An entire year goes by before the tranformational President of hope and change recognizes the economy and jobs are the largest concern for voters. How reassuring.

Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama will propose a three-year freeze on federal spending outside of national security to save an estimated $250 billion over a decade as part of an effort to rein in record deficits, administration officials said.

Let’s see. Push a New Deal, eighty year liberal pursuit of the nanny state holy grail of government-run healthcare at 2 1/2 trillion dollars and then suggest a pultry $250 billion savings over the same time period as a new agenda strategy. It is remarkable his ratings are quoted at only down to about 50%. There must be a considerable number of people in favor of more job killing entitlements.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com