Archive for the ‘U.S. Political Issues’ Category
Well, hallelujah, after FIVE turncoat Senate Republican RINOs voted to approve the inexperienced, highly un-American ethics liberal Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, they also approved $600 million for Border Security.
We have been advocating for years that if the American people would just focus on ONE ISSUE that is representative of the destruction of America by this Administration and Congress, and they did so by the millions, that issue would be resolved in days.
Glen was one of the first commentator to support Shirley Sherrod who outed from her job at USDA without justification for a speech she gave last spring to the NAACP referring to a white farmer looking for help. Her speech was taken out of context and no one from the government or NAACP investigated the release video before coming to conclusions.
By Thomas E. Brewton
Corruption can be reduced only by reducing the size of the Federal government.
Much is being written about unsavory political influence exercised by the army of Washington lobbyists, who act as conduits for large amounts of influence money from special interest groups. Those special interest groups range from business and environmental groups, to abortion advocates, and labor unions.
Tom Daschle's exit from nomination as the commissar of a national socialized healthcare system is among the headliners. Another is Leon Panetta, bound for the CIA, coming off large lecture earnings from groups doing millions of dollars worth of business with the CIA. Already fading into the background is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's husband's big-bucks connections with some of the less reputable characters on the international scene, people against whom Secretary Clinton must represent the interests of the United States.
On the other hand, limiting people's opportunity to contribute money to help elect and influence representatives friendly to their interests is, apparently to most everyone outside Congress and the Supreme Court, an unconstitutional infringement of First Amendment rights.
If we are not to invade First Amendment rights, what then are we to do?
At the most fundamental level, the problem is what lawyers call an attractive nuisance. If you build a swimming pool it is likely to attract small children, with potentially dire consequences.
If we continually enlarge the size and scope of the Federal government, already the largest dispenser of money in the world, it is not rocket science to forecast that every scoundrel in the world will be looking for ways to game the system or to steal money outright. Notorious bank robber Willie Sutton, when asked why he robbed banks, is supposed to have answered, "Because that's where the money is."
From 1789 to 1815 Congressmen received $6.00 daily, but only on the days they showed up. From 1815 to 1855 Congressmen received a modest salary, compared to the massive salaries of the Congressmen today. In 1855 their salaries increased to $3,000 annually. Then in 1865 they gave themselves a 66% increase to $5,000 annually. 6 years later they boosted their salaries another 50% to $7,500 per year. The American People became so outraged by the greed that congressmen were showing, that congress was forced to take a 33% paycut, which lasted 34 years until 1907, at which time they gave themselves another 50% increase back to $7,500 annually. They took two other paycuts, both of which were during the Great Depression, for a total of 15%. These are the only 3 times in American History that any Congressmen have ever taken salary cuts.
In 1935, Congress voted themselves a 19% increase, then they didn't receive another pay raise until 12 years later, when they gave themselves a 25% increase in 1947. In 1955 Congress gave themselves a whopping 80% increase. In the years 1987, and 1991 Congress received 2 raises per year. 3% + 20% in 1987, and 4% and 25% in 1991. Within the last 10 years Congress has raised their salaries 8 times for a total of 26%. While the lowest paid American Workers have only received 1 raise within the last 10 years.
In the last 25 years Congress has seen 18 salary increases totaling 277%. While the lowest paid American Workers have only seen 5 wage increases in 25 years totaling a mere 166%. In the last 25 years the cost of living has increased 251%. The Minimum Wage has not been increased since 1997. While Congressmen's pay has increased 8 out of the last 10 years. To see what Minimum Wage would be, if Congress had given American Workers the same amount of increases they took, click here.
By Christopher Adamo
The American public, and Christians in particular, are being deluged once again with talk of the thoroughly ambiguous concept of “social justice.” It is, after all, election time. Thus the pseudo religious among us must make their pitch for the Christian vote, on whatever spurious terms they can concoct.
In its raw form, “social justice” merely references the prevailing societal attitudes of the day, relegating any defining standards of right or wrong, good or evil, and moral or immoral to a snapshot of the existing consensus. Biblical principles notwithstanding, “social justice” has throughout time been equally applicable to those crowds shouting “crucify him,” the burning of “heretics” at the stake during the inquisition, and even the holocaust.
It is therefore no great wonder that the “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright, in his venomous and racist rantings against America, would seek refuge under the umbrella of “social justice” when attempting to defend his positions.
In its modern form, it represents a conglomeration of environmental extremism, coupled with the Marxist concept of a government empowered to confiscate the property of one citizen for the purpose of purchasing the loyalty of another. But since the ultimate reality of such false generosity and sanctimony conflicts with foundational Biblical truth, substitute “truths” must be cited in their stead. No less a mutation of reality is sufficient to legitimize socialism or environmental extremism under the guise of “spirituality.”
Possibly the most notable and outlandish example in recent memory is Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s fabricated “scripture” asserting that one must worship the environment in order to worship God. Those who are truly familiar with Scripture know that the first chapter of Romans contains a stern admonition against that very notion. But while few among Pelosi’s ranks have ever had any interest in fact as derived from such dry and rigid source material, their current transparent attempts to redefine Christian citizenship merely represent a continuation of similar sordid efforts over the years.
The stunning collapse of Democrat fortunes in the 1994 elections caused party operatives to realize that they had suffered from an enormous disconnect from mainstream America and its traditional values. But, being thoroughly unwilling to actually embrace or even comprehend those values, liberal Democrats concluded that the only alternative, if they were ever to regain that portion of the electorate, was to offer an alternative set of “values” that might resonate with the American heartland while not conflicting with the liberal socialist agenda.
By Frank Hyland
Every generation firmly believes that, because they’ve got all the answers, it’s time for their predecessors, their elders to step aside and out of the way to make way for them. All the calls for "Change" tell us that once again those in their 20s, 30s and 40s are panting to take over the lead from the "old codgers" who are making all the mistakes. Many of the youngsters, though, display a words-deeds dichotomy that speaks loudly that they can use a bit more "seasoning" before they take the reins.
Added to the daily barrage of calls for "Change," we’re now told that it is once again time for a new generation to assume the leadership of the United States. We are told this by no less an authority on young people than Senator Edward Kennedy, age 76. Senator Kennedy, for those not intimately familiar with him, is also a paramount example of truthfulness, marital fidelity, and non-partisan politics. Nevertheless, it is always helpful to look at the day-to-day behaviors of the younger generation to see if there are clues there, clues to how they would act in the Oval Office. The younger generation clamoring for change and to take the reins of power, like all other generations before it, needs to be willing to look in the mirror and to be honest with itself as to the image it sees there.
There is a way to at least get an indication of how Young Folks would act in the Oval Office, The US Senate, or the House of Representatives: Their predecessors’ behavior in office has been very similar, identical actually, to the way they acted before being elected. In most cases, to be fair, the behavior in office has been honorable (or at least the Mainstream Media hasn’t yet uncovered the truth). It’s the behavior of Young Folks in society at large that can be alarming.
Essentially, we must be able to trust the word of our public officials. Well, what we used to call wedding "vows" seems to have taken on a new meaning, as divorce rates soar. Promissory notes for bank loans take a back seat more and more as bankruptcy rates soar. Realtors must wonder at night how many of the "15-year" mortgages these days will be honored longer than 15 weeks; moving out in the middle of the night and bringing in hogs to take your place, because you’re upset at being foreclosed, may become even more of a trend. The horror stories about abuse of others, children and adults, are made more horrible by the growing number of police officers, priests and ministers, counselors, health professionals and teachers who are convicted of perpetrating the crimes.
By Thomas E. Brewton
The current Republican and Democratic economic stimulus plan is the latest version of a much tried and repeatedly untrue liberal-progressive panacea.
Stimulus packages first surfaced in this country, under President Herbert Hoover, as a product of the liberal-progressive-socialist doctrine of the early 20th century. They failed miserably throughout the Depression and haven’t worked anytime since then.
The bottom line is that stimulus packages don’t do the intended job of jump-starting the economy. (See Why Tax Rebates Are Delusional ). Instead they work against righting misallocation of economic resources and add to inflationary pressures that rob people of the value of their savings.
Tax cuts, coupled with reduced government spending, are the only effective and non-inflationary economic stimulants.
Why then have one-shot stimulus packages?
Socialist theory since its inception in the first decades of the 19th century had always preached that industry could best be managed by intellectuals, working through industry councils and bureaucratic managers. Imposing public regulatory control (what was called socialization) on business was presumed to make it more efficient and thereby to raise wages and employment.
20th century American business itself ironically was partly responsible for the popularity of the idea of scientific management in government and its manifestation in stimulus packages.
As corporations grew to hitherto unimaginable size around the time of World War I, management became more structured. The professional manager came into being, and scientific management techniques came into vogue. To that end, the Harvard Business School was founded in 1908. Business leaders and the general public alike believed that the same highly successful business management approach should be applied to local, state, and national government.
By Alan Caruba
Historians and others love to make lists of the best and the worst of personalities and events, so permit me to offer a candidate as the Worst Ex-President Ever. I give you Jimmy Carter, anti-Semite, intellectual and moral weakling, and all-around bad person.
I think Jimmy will edge out Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s successor who made a botch of the Reconstruction after the Civil War and cannot even begin to compare with the largely unknown Harry Truman who succeeded Franklin Delano Roosevelt to see through to a successful conclusion of World War II, the implementation of the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, and after other wise decisions, retired to his home in Independence, Missouri. Neither Truman, nor other former Presidents, constantly sought the public spotlight to voice criticism of those who followed him into the Oval Office.
Jimmy Carter, who gained the highest office largely because of the voter’s revulsion against the Watergate scandals and the resignation of Richard M. Nixon, cannot shut up. During his time in office he blamed the American people for a “malaise” that affected the economy that was largely in the dumps. It never occurred to him that cutting taxes and taking other measures might have helped stabilize or jump-start the economy.
He was in office in 1979 when the Iranian revolutionaries stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took our diplomats hostage. Other than a poorly planned, failed military mission to extricate them, the voters would have to wait 444 days for Ronald Reagan to take office before their release.
By Thomas Lindaman
In an already absurd political season, hearing the flap about Hillary Clinton’s campaign planting questions in the audience of a campaign stop made me look for a clown car and a three-ring circus. Then, I remembered she wasn’t in the well of the Senate at the time and I got my bearings.
Seriously, who gives a flying handshake about Hillary planting questions in the audience? At the risk of sounding like a teenager getting caught doing something I shouldn’t be, everybody or just about everybody does it. George W. Bush has done it. FEMA did it not too long ago. And Hillary’s done it since she announced she was running for Senate in 2000. It’s no big deal. And for the record, no, I wouldn’t jump off the side of a cliff just because everybody was doing it.
There are three reasons politicians are planting people and questions at campaign stops. One, it makes them look far more intelligent on issues. Two, it helps them craft an overall message for each stop and make it look like it just happened to be that way. And three, it cuts down on the likelihood that they’ll be surprised by…an honest question! Ultimately, each reason revolves around the politicians’ ego, which they prize more heavily than Gollum treasured Frodo’s ring from "The Lord of the Rings." And while we’re on the subject, doesn’t Dennis Kucinich kinda look like Gollum? I’m just sayin’…