Blog @ MoreWhat.com

One report attributed to Reuters at the NYT fish wrap and a similar one at Reuters report the IPCC will be investigated by an independent board of review. Each report is slightly different yet share some text and the titles are not the same. Given the scam proportions of AGW and the IPCC this raises suspicion this blog will deal with right now as no time is available for further investigation. But it can make you wonder. Was the NYT taking a little creative license with the report?

Moving to the real problem, how do you convince the public everything is above board when you make a claim that irregularities related to scientists will be investigated by other scientists? Who cares if you claim they are independent? The ones under investigation were described that way too!

This blogger, for one, would like to report on at least one example where confidence is high that so-called scientific evidence on AGW is correct. As much as this issue smells of scam any skeptic worth their criticism would expect at least one example of scientific truth regarding global warming. Everything being false or fabricated is no more believable than everything being correct.

Okay, let’s go back to the report…..

“It will be [made up of] senior scientific figures. I can’t name who they are right now. It should do a review of the IPCC, produce a report by, say, August and there is a plenary of the IPCC in South Korea in October.

“The report will go there for adoption,” he told reporters on the sidelines of a UNEP conference in Nusa Dua, on the Indonesian island of Bali, where environment ministers have been meeting this week.

It would appear that the powers-that-be within the United Nations are simply seeking vindication by any means in advance of the next scam meeting. It is not difficult to believe those in lesser industrialized nations and the third world view the AGW issue as a great strategy for sabotaging their more successful counterparts. Launch initiatives like those suggested by Al Gore and his crew to destroy the economies of ‘rich’ nations to even the playing field.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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.

The following images are from Congressman Eric Massa’s House website. Can we ‘ask Eric anything?

Yup, another day, another scandal in the nation’s capitol. Some reports suggest the right is downright giddy about this one. And reports from left-leaning sources are quick to suggest the differences between this and other similar scandals. But the most telling is from the the blog at TIME named ’swampland.’

The fifth of five reasons given for why Massa’s potential scandal is different from Mark Foley’s in 2006 is provided here.

Massa’s a Democrat and not held up to the same “family values” standards that Republicans hold themselves up to. Those standards make even the rumors of homosexual affairs deadly (Larry Craig, Mark Foley), whereas Barney Frank survived his scandal.

The question for Eric Massa:

Are the allegations true?

The question for Democrats in general:

Is it true that Democrats do not hold themselves to standards described in the swampland reference provided here?

Even though components of the Democrats’ agenda suggest the answer it would be interesting to hear or read a response from the Dems.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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

When the words war and crimes are used together it speaks to an underlying problem. As a species we have failed to render armed conflict obselete. And given that two or more sides of an issue engage in the practice from time to time additional problems arise in the aftermath. Someone always wants to justify war by finding someone to accuse of war crimes. As if having rules for war somehow makes it more palletable or civilized.

It is no surprise that the United Nations is central to this story. Neither is it a surprise that it surrounds the Israeli/Palestinian problem or that others can cloak their real intentions as participants in the international organization. So after more than a year since the conflict in question took place there’s a new wrinkle in the situation.

The U.N. General Assembly has adopted a resolution renewing pressure on the Israelis and Palestinians to conduct independent and credible investigations into crimes committed by both sides during the 22-day Gaza conflict that erupted in December 2008.

The General Assembly voted to give Israel and the Palestinians five more months in which to conduct investigations of alleged war crimes that are “independent, credible and in conformity with international standards.”

The US continues to support Israel and says the Goldstone report is flawed. Other countries line up on familiar sides of the issue as with any other item involving Israel. It’s a logjam that demonstrates absolutely no probability for resolution. Not just about the 22-day conflict in 2008 but everything else involving the Middle East.

There is nothing ‘united’ about these nations. It should be possible for a large group of nations to impose their will on the occasional problem areas from time to time. But not when the large group supports their own interest rather than the world at large and politics trumps all else.

Just another example that the United Nations is one useless organization.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For more information on the topic click here

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.

Nothing like singleness of purpose to inspire others by demonstrating that hard work and determination lay the foundation for success. Who better to display those attributes than the King of Altruism, the man who invented the internet and is deeply devoted currently to saving our planet, Al Gore.

Last weekend with continued support from the NYT fish wrap former US Vice-President Al Gore presented an op-ed once again extolling the virtues of his own personal crusade. To express his concern for those who reject his money making venture this political doormat and newly minted snake oil salesman offered the following sentiment:

I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion.

But just as Mr Gore’s incompetence derailed his bid for President of the United States in 2000 it once again exposes his worldwide scam to profit from a crisis of his own making. Not an unusual strategy for a liberal. Attempt to create panic, fool the willing and laugh all the way to the bank in your corporate jet while criticizing others for destroying the planet.

Some more of Mr Gore’s ‘phrases’ will be supplied here demonstrating his folly. Of course libs will object to out of context use but then they are free to follow the link, search for the phrase and read the whole laughable thing for themselves. Why make everyone else suffer through Gore’s feeble pitch for his own wealth building scheme.

From Mr Gore:

-It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate… (read the rest for yourself)

-But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes.

-Because these and other effects of global warming are distributed globally, they are difficult to identify and interpret in any particular location.

In each of the examples above Mr Gore admits his case for AGW is flawed. He has drawn an absolute conclusion from vague, ambiguous or simply flawed data. And on that thin or non-existent evidence he expects the world to act on his recommendations. His position for personal gain from investments and partnerships points to the hypocrisy of his quest.

Hey Al, if you want to make a boatload of money on eco=business knock yourself out. But don’t expect the rest of us to buy what you’re selling, literally. The financial turmoil of the last few years and what may last for some time is nothing compared to the economic destruction your holy war would cause if we let it. Your money connection to your environmental crusade betrays your claim of genuine concern. As does your personal choices for producing the carbon mess you describe. You’re simply not believable. Nor are your cronies in the pseudo-science game. They’re in it for the money too.

Are there problems to solve with regard to ecology and the environment? Certainly there are. And good folks have been quietly working on them for a long time without the help from Al Gore’s personal search for the Holy Grail. Gore’s personal agenda will do more to harm those efforts than any other source. When you lose the public trust through selfish motivation support for otherwise noble endeavors declines.

Thanks for nothing, Al Gore.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

BTW, it is interesting that Gore chose the word ‘enterprise’ to describe science.

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

News reports out today regarding the Dems jobs bill and the vote of newly minted Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) raise questions. Brown is being described by some as a sellout. Others suggest he had no choice given circumstances in the state he represents.

You can view the roll call vote by clicking here. The questions about this vote should ask more than why did Senator Scott Brown vote for it. Why did seven other GOP members not vote?

Among those not voting was Senator Jeff Sessions. To this point Senator Sessions has been viewed as a positive force in the US Senate and that will probably continue. But the question remains. Why did he and six others not vote on this bill?

Voinovich and Bond voted ‘yes’ and are retiring. Collins and Snowe voted ‘yes’ and that is no surprise given they are RINOs. That suggests Scott Brown does not plan on being in the Senate long or is a RINO or both. If nothing else the last three statements are humorous. But only because the vote’s outcome is so pathetic.

The previous post on Romney, McCain and Palin is troubling. This post adds to that concern. Again, what the hell are Republicans thinking (or are they)?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

With some troubling news coming out of CPAC 2010 along with similar revelations about various ‘conservative’ philosophies and their proponents more reports suggest 2010 is still wide open.

The recent endorsement of John McCain by former running mate Sarah Palin was analyzed by some as the former Alaska governor being polite. But that argument fails given her unnecessary decision to ’stump’ and raise money for the veteran Senator from Arizona whose conservative values have always been in question. His maverick status being built more by a departure from conservative values than adherence to it.

Now this:

Romney backs McCain in Arizona Senate primary race

It’s like 2008 all over again: Mitt Romney is endorsing John McCain. This time, though, it’s not after a bitter presidential primary between the two GOP rivals.

With too many Republicans appearing more like their liberal counterparts in the Democratic party the wonder is how anyone can suggest a GOP majority after the 2010 elections. This blog features sidebar links for Palin and Romney. And past posts have called for support of both in past elections. For now those links and the supportive posts will remain. But the troubling trends being reported render all that subject to change.

What the hell are these people thinking? Enough noise was made by the public this year that even POLS with hearing impairments should have received the message. A return to basic common sense American values is long overdue and more necessary for survival than previously thought. If those connected to the GOP are as unresponsive as their political opposition from the other major party then one thing remains clear.

They are no better than those they criticize and have apparently improved upon the liberal trend of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:
CBO: The Obama Administration’s Health Care Proposal

Pence Calls President’s New Health Care Bill ‘More of the Same’

Obama vs. Obama: Cost of President’s Health Care Plan Goes Up as Taxpayer Savings Go Down

CBO to White House: We can’t score your health care crap sandwich

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)

If a tax is involved you can rest assured the entire strategy is flawed. The most altruistic intention is betrayed when the word ‘tax’ is included. Taxes are a curse on citizens and job one of corrupt political agendas.

In the United States, for all practical purposes as well as political folly, taxes are collected to pay for the expenses of running a government. When the taxes are collected for the purpose of funding the government’s ‘limited’ role as defined by the founding documents there is little objection. It is political agenda using these funds for their own purposes that inflames public outrage. The report featured here is a classic example of what ‘tax’ should not support. The agenda is not part of government’s role.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

From the report the following excerpt exposes two flaws.

Grover Norquist of anti-tax advocacy group Americans for Tax Reform shares that sentiment, calling the bag fee just another tax on consumers.

“The politicians want to have a tax on bags. The fact that they want to try to call it a fee tells you they’re liars as well as tax increasers.”

The Anacostia Watershed Society says the goal is not to raise money, but to change behavior. Washington city officials expect to raise three or four million dollars this year to help clean up the Anacostia River, and they predict that eventually there will be fewer bags and less trash in the waterways of the U.S. capital.

Changing behavior is not governments’ role. And Norquist is exposed again in the following report from Michelle Malkin.

An inconvenient question about the Mount Vernon Statement (Michelle Malkin)