Congress Wants a Pay Raise
Jun 28, 2007 Uncategorized
It should come as no surprise that members of Congress want a pay raise. After all, that is how Congress rewards itself for having a 14% approval rating and for forcing things on America that she clearly does not want. Members of Congress are seeking a 4% increase (just slightly lower than their approval) which will amount to a little over $4000. The Democrats stopped the pay raise last year by indicating that they would not accept one until the minimum wage was increased which explains why that was one of the first things on their agenda and why they attached it to a war funding bill. They are all greedy.
Members of Congress do not have to vote for pay raises because they are automatic unless they vote against them. This makes them automatic and keeps them out of the public’s eye. It also allows them to say that they did not vote for a Congressional pay raise. Since most people do not know how this whole thing works, they miss the deception of their elected leaders.
The folks in Congress give many reasons for needing a pay raise. First of all they gave up being paid for speeches so they need that annual increase. Most of them have to maintain two houses and that costs money. They also claim that paying them more money prevents rich people from running for and getting into office.
First of all, we are paying them to govern so they should not be running around making speeches for money. If that is what they want to do then they should leave office and do it, Bill Clinton seems to make an adequate living at it. Secondly, if they are having problems because they have two houses then they should leave office and go back home. There are many people in this country who do not have the luxury of one home much less two. But I am willing to have dormitory style barracks built for them. They can all live in the dorms at taxpayer expense or they can rent (or buy) outside at their own expense. In any event, taxpayers should not be buying them houses or paying their rent. Consider it a job expense for all the other perks.
As for the rich people in government argument, that is the most ridiculous. A great number of the members of Congress are rich. They pay more in taxes on their wealth than they earn in Congress so this argument does not wash. In 2005 (the latest list I could find and I am sure there is a newer list) there were at least 25 members of the House and 25 in the Senate that had anywhere from 9 to 284 million dollars. The idea that their pay keeps rich people from running the country is stupid at best.
That is not to say there are not poorer members. Russ Feingold has a small net worth and some members whose net worth is negative (which should not be surprising if they spend their money like they spend ours). However, that does not negate the idea that the statement was patently stupid.
Congress needs to earn its pay. If they want a pay raise then they should do something to earn it. They can secure the border, put a moratorium on immigration, prosecute employers who break the law, balance the budget, and put country before politics. Then, we might just agree that they need a raise.
Tags: Commentary
Who Struck John? Don’t Ask the Media
Jun 28, 2007 Uncategorized
Many people are now aware that Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Breck girl John Edwards, called into Good Morning America to confront Ann Coulter who had been invited on the show to discuss her book. At least, discussing the book was the offer made by ABC to get her there but before she was to go on she was told that Mrs. Edwards might call in. What resulted was a tirade by Edwards over some of the things Ann Coulter has said about her husband. I have to believe that this was a set up by the show in order to catch Coulter by surprise and to air a confrontation. I could be wrong but if they invite you to discuss a book then maybe, just maybe, they should discuss the book.
I am not writing to defend Ann Coulter’s honor or take up for her. Not because I think she was wrong but because Ann id a tough enough woman to take care of herself and she is a much more gifted writer than I am and has a way of throwing a smack down by using just the right words. If I were in her shoes I probably would have gone to Edwards’ house and thrown a real smack down on him. That is the difference between a person who has a successful career making good money and a guy who gets a federal inmate number for the rest of his existence.
The purpose of this post is to address the way the media handled this whole incident. In my opinion this whole issue was a calculated effort by Edwards to raise more money for an anemic campaign that has less than a snowball’s chance in a very warm place. No one in the media however, brought that up. Instead they concentrated on the quotes that Coutler made but were truncated so as to alter the true meaning and intent of the exchange. If one outlet did this or all the boneheads on the left wing blogs did this one could understand but when all the major media outlets print or air the same distortion then there is something amiss. Here is the original quote with the part the media used in bold (Coulter was addressing an earlier event where she used the word faggot and Edwards’ name in the same sentence and the subsequent backlash by the twisted panties brigade):
“But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack — so I’ve learned my lesson: If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.” Ann Coulter
Stevie Wonder can see that there is a big difference in what she said and what was portrayed. Coulter did not indicate that she wished Johnny Hair had been killed by terrorists only that this was an acceptable thing to wish as opposed to referring to him in non masculine terms as demonstrated by the reaction to both types of statements. I have discussed media bias and there are those who still swear that the major outlets are all right leaning and that there is no Liberal media bias. Despite the fact that 90% of the media’s political donations go to Democrats and despite the fact that 77% of them reported being Liberal or following the left’s agenda, people still think there is no bias or that the right gets favorably treated. The way Coulter was raped by the media in this instance should leave no doubt as to their slant. Let’s face it, she was taken advantage of twice. Once by the morons at ABC who set her up (and if they did not set her up then for allowing this to continue past Edwards’ expressing displeasure) and she then got screwed by the people who failed to report the actual facts in the case.
The unfair treatment of Coulter by the media is the whole issue behind this one. Everyone knows that Ann Coulter is controversial and sometimes says things that some might not think are socially acceptable but she has the right to say them and more often than not she is exactly right in what she says. We all know that John Edwards is an ambulance chasing sheister who made millions of dollars by ripping off doctors over unproven medical claims and by invoking the spirits of dead children (it’s all about the children) in the court room. Edwards is a pathological liar who probably orchestrated this to use Coulter to raise more campaign money. He is a sissy man who has his wife fight his battles and one thing society does not need more of are men who need women to fight their battles. We have enough of those kind of men already. We call them the French.
Coulter and Edwards can fight all they want and they are free to say what they want. It would appear though, that when it comes to reporting the MSM is derelict in its duties.
And people have the nerve to say Fox is not fair and balanced.
Tags: Commentary
This Comes With the Chicago Corruption
Jun 26, 2007 Uncategorized
Chicago is the king when it comes to corruption and shady methods of doing things so this should surprise absolutely no one. Pray a lot if you have to fly through here.
Tags: Commentary
Feinstein Believes Only Liberals Provide Correct Reporting
Jun 25, 2007 Uncategorized
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), war profiteer, was on Fox News Sunday discussing the fairness doctrine. In case you are unfamiliar, the Fairness Doctrine is a bit of legislation that required equal points of view in broadcast. So for every hour Rush Limbaugh discusses Conservative ideas the Liberals get time to present opposing views. Basically, this is legislation that forces Liberal views on people who do not want to hear them. It is only logical to conclude that if people who listened to talk radio wanted to listen to Liberal points of view, the market for Liberal talk radio would be big. Instead, Liberal talk radio performs miserably in nearly every market ala Err Amerika.
Feinstein said she was looking into reviving the Fairness Doctrine (which is really an unfair doctrine when you think about it) to provide balance. She said she believes in fairness (especially when she is doling out defense contracts to her husband) and that people should be allowed to hear varied points of view. I will agree that is the case but I think it is up to the people, not the government, to decide what they want to listen to. If they want equal time from Liberals then Liberals can start radio programs that give those points of view. The reality is, no one wants to listen to that stuff. It is also interesting to note that when Liberals are getting the advantage, Feinstein does not ask for fairness. Witness the major television news outlets who are overwhelmingly Liberal friendly. There has been no call for them to be “fair” and Conservatives started Fox News to counter the other networks which is how a market is supposed to work.
Anyway, Feinstein does not really believe in fairness as much as she believes that only liberals can report accurately. In the Interview she said; “I remember when there was a Fairness Doctrine. I think there was much more serious, correct reporting to people.” What she is saying is that the way it is now is not as serious and not correct, compared to what happened when Liberals were given equal time under the fairness Doctrine. In other words, only Liberals can report things to us seriously and correctly.
If that is the case, why is there not a market for Liberal talk? Perhaps is is because most of America, all through the Heartland, is not thrilled with Liberalism and people do not believe Liberals. One only needs to look at the Electoral map to see that the Northeast and the Left Coast are Liberal enclaves while the rest of America is Conservative.
Perhaps Dianne is just unhappy that talk radio discussed her war profiteering and there were no outlets for her to rationalize her illegal behavior. She just wants a Fairness Doctrine so she has a fair shot at lying about gaining millions of dollars in wealth because of her position and off the hard work of our military.
I have my own version of the Fairness Doctrine and it goes like this. For every Republican that goes to jail for corruption a corrupt Democrat has to go to jail as well. We can start by putting Feinstein in a cell next to Randy Cunningham.
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway ♦ Perri Nelson’s Website ♦ Right Truth ♦ DragonLady’s World ♦ Stuck On Stupid ♦ The Amboy Times ♦ Leaning Straight Up ♦ Pursuing Holiness ♦ third world county ♦ Stageleft ♦ The Uncooperative Blogger ♦ 4 Time Father? ♦ The Right Nation ♦ Pirate’s Cove ♦ The Pink Flamingo ♦ Right Voices ♦ CatSynth.com ♦ Right Pundits, Blog @ MoreWhat.com ♦ No Apology ♦ The Random Yak ♦ 123beta ♦ Jeanette’s Celebrity Corner ♦ Maggie’s Notebook ♦ Webloggin, Cao’s Blog ♦ Phastidio.net ♦ , Conservative Cat ♦ Diary of the Mad Pigeon ♦ Walls of the City ♦ The World According to Carl ♦ Blue Star Chronicles ♦ Azamatteroprinciple – A new blog dedicated to fighting pork barrel spending ♦ CORSARI D’ITALIA and High Desert Wanderer
Thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Commentary, Link Fest
Obama and Hijacked Christianity
Jun 24, 2007 Political
B. Hussein Obama was at a church convention where he said that the Christian right was responsible for hijacking religion and causing a divide among people.
“Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in remarks prepared for delivery before the national meeting of the United Church of Christ.
“Part of it’s because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us,” the Illinois senator said.
“At every opportunity, they’ve told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design,” according to an advance copy of his speech. Breitbart
It should be noted that Obama belongs to a very liberal branch of the Protestant Church that allows gay clergy and supports same sex marriage. It is his right to belong to that Church and I am not surprised that a liberal would belong to a church that made it easy to worship according to his liberal values. What I want to know is how the Christian Right has hijacked anything. The liberal churches like Obama’s are straying from beliefs and teachings that have been around for thousands of years and yet, those who are teaching the same values year after year are the hijackers.
I see this as a method to divide the electorate and to insult traditional Christian values in hopes of making people feel guilty for their beliefs. It is similar to the race card. Vote for Obama because he is black and you are guilty of slavery and racism. A vote for him will cleanse your sins and relieve you of the guilt of racism. Vote against him and you are the racist we know you to be. In religion he is saying that if you espouse traditional values and not the more liberal ones his church believes in then you are a bigot and dividing the country. Vote for Obama and show that you are not some radical right wing Christian.
Could someone explain to me how it is that the Conservative Christian base is the bad guy? We believe in the sanctity of life and that abortion is murder. We believe that homosexuality is a sin (hate the sin, not the sinner) and we believe in living by a set of rules called the Ten Commandments that have been the law of God since Moses brought them down from the mountain. Following the traditional (or Christian Right as liberals call it) values of Christianity allows people to live in peace and live generally good lives.
Sure, there are Christians who sin and don’t always follow the rules but when they repent those sins are forgiven. Obama and people like him want you to believe that the Christian Right is what is wrong with America when in fact it is adherence to liberal positions and “values” that has divided this country and caused strife. If the liberal values of Christianity that Obama lives by are the way to go why do most churches shun those beliefs and stick to traditional values?
By attacking the Christian Right and those who hold traditional Christian values, Obama is the one who is dividing people along religious lines. The shame of it is that he is attacking certain Christians for political expediency and for no other reason. I wonder if he will stick to this belief should he win the primary? Attacking the Christian Right in the general election race might be a recipe for disaster.
I wonder why Obama felt it was necessary to attack a segment of the Christian religion? Perhaps it was the Muslim blood running through his veins that made him do it. That might explain why he did not indicate that the beliefs of Muslims and their desire to take over the world are much more damaging then the beliefs of people who follow traditional teachings. Muslims hijacked more than religion when they killed 3000 of our citizens in the name of their faith.
I guess when a politician is 12 points behind an opponent who is Godless, he feels the need to inject religion into the debate.
When members of the Christian Right strap on bomb vests and blow up innocent people or fly planes into buildings, Obama can have his say. Until then he should stick to politics and leave religion to religious leaders.
Tags: Commentary, Political