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.
< Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Economics, U.S. Political Issues at 7:42 AM EDT
No Comments »
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.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Christianity, U.S. Political Issues at 7:42 AM EDT
2 Comments »
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.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Presidential Race, U.S. Political Issues at 11:23 PM EST
No Comments »
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.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Economics, U.S. Political Issues at 11:52 PM EST
No Comments »
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.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as U.S Foreign Policy, U.S. Political Issues at 2:13 AM EST
No Comments »
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’…
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Presidential Race, U.S. Political Issues at 7:36 AM EST
No Comments »
by Sher Zieve
Just when we thought Congress could not become more demented—it has. As the Democrat-run Senate and House of Representatives are experiencing their lowest approval rating in recent recorded history (Zogby polling ranks said approval at only 14%), with the stroke of 2 pens Democrat leaders have removed provisions from legislation that would have protected US citizens from being sued for reporting potential terrorist activities. This is the latest addition to the ever growing Democrat Death Wish List that its leaders have been preparing since taking Congressional leadership in 2006. In this latest fiasco, leader of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) stripped out the provision that would have allowed limited immunity for reports of witnessed suspicious behavior. Reps. Peter King’s (R-NY) and Steve Pearce (R-NM) had drafted the ‘John Doe Protection Amendment’ after the infamous Flying Imams simulated airline hijacking behaviors.
Now that the Democrats have deleted and destroyed any protections for US citizens who would report potential terrorist activities, the terrorists are free to pursue their evil intent and mission with full support from the Democrat Congress. Suffice it to say, we-the-people had no participation in this suicide pact decision. Congressman Steve Pearce commented that the Democrats had to make a choice as to "whether they are going to side with the American people or with the terrorists" and Rep.
King noted: "This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward!–more–>, and it caves in to radical Islamists." And, in true Democrat anti-American/anti-we-the-people fashion Congressional Democrats chose the terrorists’ side. As was to be expected, both the ACLU and CAIR (the pro-Hamas Council on American-Islamic Relations) are thrilled by this patently insane decision.
Note: This is what the 2006 Congressional elections have wrought. Instead of only appeasing our enemies, the MoveOn.org Democrat leaders are now actively working for the Islamist terrorist enemies. House and Senate Democrats have now overtly—and with no apologies to the American people—taken another huge step toward effectively handing the United States of America over to the terrorists. Their suicide treaty is almost complete. Is there anyone out there who still remembers when these sorts of behaviors were considered treason?
With the Democrats’ new absence of fear of anyone stopping their treachery, they have now been unleashed to do whatever it takes to end this country. This is not an exaggeration. In fact, considering the dire consequences of the Democrats’ pro-terrorist vote, it is an understatement. Much the same as our US Border Patrol Agents now fear reprisal for doing their jobs—Agents Ramos and Compean are bearing the brunt of pro-illegals obsessive US Attorney prosecutions—the American people must now face lawsuits or even jail if they report suspicious potential terrorist activity! What in the name of any common sense—at all—is going on with our ostensible ‘leaders’? Have they finally, completely and irrevocably lost their minds? Do they believe they have a God-given right to support the enemies of humanity—whoever and whatever they are? Note: I do not believe God condones anti-human behavior. Or is it that our leaders have sunk into some dark abyss and are forcing the American people to join them and participate in their own self-destruction?
As was the Illegal Immigrant Amnesty bill, the John Doe Protection Amendment is a non-partisan issue. All of us—Republican, Democrat and Independent—are impacted by not being allowed to report probable terrorist activities. If we don’t, we and our loved ones could very likely die. If we do, we are now being told by Congressional leaders that if we do so we could face financial ruin, jail time or both. If this doesn’t make sense to you, contact your Senators and House Representatives and advise them that your life is worth at least as much as are theirs. You might also tell them that if they do not resuscitate the John Doe Amendment and continue to vote against your right to self-protection, they will be voted out of office. By the way, has anyone out there considered using the public’s right to recall rogue elected officials?
This latest insane anti-US citizen protection decision badly and possibly irreversibly impacts the American people—directly. Is this any way to run a county? No. But, it is the most flagrant and definitive pronouncement, yet, to end it.
References:
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/index.php?id=942668
http://www.jihadwatch.org/
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason
http://www.freeborderagents.com/
Sher Zieve is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. (www.thenma.org). The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
Posted by Walt as Government Corruption, Terrorism, U.S. Borders Issues, U.S. Political Issues at 10:48 PM EDT
No Comments »
By Alan Caruba
Here’s one of those statistics that sums up everything you need to know about America’s immigration crisis. The May 14 edition of US News & World Report had a small item noting that, “Mexico has lost more people to migration to the United States than to death since 2000.”
“An average of 577,000 people moved to the United States annually during the 2000-2005 period, while 495,000 people died in Mexico.” The U.S. agency providing this data estimates that about 11 million Mexicans are living, legally or not, in the United States.
This is not about disliking Mexicans. Many have come here legally, become citizens, and have risen in our society to contribute in business, academics, and government. This is about saving America from a wholesale and entirely illegal invasion, and its consequences.
Mexico has an entirely different view of people who would move there. The Center for Security Policy points out that Mexico prohibits foreigners from owning land within 100 kilometers of the Mexico border and within 50 kilometers of the Mexican coastland, prime real estate. Mexican law permits the government to revoke the naturalized citizenship of anyone who chooses to live in his country of origin more than five years.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Immigration, U.S. Borders Issues, U.S. Political Issues at 7:48 PM EDT
No Comments »
by Sher Zieve
On Monday, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told reporters that he and other Democrats were not willing to wait for evaluated reports on the troop surge in Iraq. Reid advised that he and his colleagues are moving at virtual breakneck speed to formulate and pass an anti-war bill. While al-Qaeda continues to practice all manner of depravities and perversions—the latest reported corruption being the terrorist organization’s penchant for the profane via literally (not figuratively) baking the children of those it wishes to intimidate and then "serving" said cooked progeny to their parents—most of their debaucheries still go unreported by the terrorist-enabling leftist worldwide press. Most certainly Harry Reid and other Democrat and RINO leaders committed to surrender won’t mention the actual performance and true scope of the Islamists’ goals. Instead, Reid and other appeasers are unwilling to wait for any and all reports from those actually functioning in the Iraq battle theatre. As reports from the front suggest the surge (AKA Operation Arrowhead Ripper) actually is working, the leftist and overwhelmingly Democrat US mainstream media continues their attempts to bury the story.
Note: This same battle surge, being waged by our extraordinary and inordinately courageous US soldiers, must be spun and manipulated by the mainstream media and their Democrat leaders in order for them to achieve their objective of reseizing and then retaining (forever we assume) power. The illusion of power has long been their god.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Middle East Conflicts, U.S Foreign Policy, U.S. Political Issues, US Military at 9:52 PM EDT
No Comments »
WASHINGTON, May 2, 2007 - Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid said today that the proposed federal media shield law, the so-called Free Flow of Information Act, is a Pandora's Box that would backfire on the media because of the inability to adequately define basic terms such as "journalist."
"The term is so loosely defined that an al Qaeda propaganda front could qualify as a legitimate news organization," the AIM editor said.
"The legislation is not in the interests of the media or the public," he said, adding that AIM would seek an opportunity to testify against the bill and would recommend a presidential veto if Congress passes it.
The bill, reintroduced in the House and Senate, purports to protect the media's use of confidential sources, Kincaid said, but would actually enable federal authorities, including members of Congress and judges, to decide who or what qualifies for special federal protection. As such, it amounts to a federal press licensing scheme, designating who should enjoy special rights from law enforcement authorities and who should not, Kincaid charged.
The AIM editor said that journalists should give up their attempts to protect questionable sources in extraordinary and rare national security cases and start acting like ordinary citizens with a duty and obligation to report evidence of criminal activity. "The media are not above the law that applies to the rest of us," the AIM editor declared.
Alluding to the involvement of some 40 media companies and other journalistic organizations at a Capitol Hill news conference to re-introduce the bill, Kincaid warned the public of a propaganda blitz designed to get the legislation through both Houses of Congress without serious scrutiny. When an issue like this is before Congress, involving the perceived self-interest of the media elite, Kincaid said the public can count on one-sided "news" coverage.
Accuracy in Media (AIM), founded by Reed Irvine in 1969, is America's original media watchdog organization. For more information, please visit www.aim.org.
Posted by Walt as U.S. Legal Issues, U.S. Constitutional Issues, U.S. Political Issues at 5:40 PM EDT
No Comments »
