Members of Congress each will receive a $4,700 pay raise this month, which will give them a salary of $174,000 per year. Do you think they are worth it?

Most of us would like to be in the position of voting for our own pay raises from an employer who has almost unlimited access to money, so when many others are taking pay cuts or losing jobs we would not have to worry.

Given that members of Congress were in a large part responsible for the current economic mess, it is hard to see how they can justify a raise, which they claim is merely a cost-of-living increase.

Part of the problem is that they give themselves pay raises based on the rate of inflation. If these increases depended on the rate of change (increase or decrease) in real per capita disposable income (i.e., after taxes) of the average citizen, Members of Congress would have an incentive to maximize economic growth rather than encourage inflation.

In the next few weeks, members of Congress will have an opportunity to pass a "stimulus package" that enhances economic growth or one that makes things worse.  Which do you think they will choose?

Last weekend, the Feds popped two more US citizens who yearned to kill their fellow Americans for Allah. 

Add them to the would-be Times Square car bomber, the guess-what's-in-my-knickers Christmas Day airline bomber, no end of got-‘em-in-time apprehensions, plus the Ft. Hood butcher, Major Nidal Hasan... both the Feds and the media barely hint at what all these fanatics have in common.

Dare to suggest that radical Islam might be to blame, and you're a bigot.  Just as pointing out that Palestinian terrorism led to Israel's hard line stand makes you a fascist.  But those who reject radical Islam's role as the driving force behind today's terrorism must answer one obvious question:

Where are the Christian terrorists?

The ignored persecution, deprivation and massacres aren't in Gaza, the global left's favorite petting zoo.  The cover-up victims are the Middle East's Christians.

Here's a shocker.  The HFR, after checking to make sure its glass is really just half-full, raises it this week to... this is not easy, how did this glass get so heavy?... to... take a deep breath... to Hillary Clinton.

How is that possible?  Two words:  Eritrea and Honduras.

***
Oh, what about that other Clinton?  The one hogging the headlines in Norkland?  Was there some sinister sellout, some secret deal Slick made with the Norks to the grave detriment of his country?  The answer is no.

***
The more the HFR sees these town hall protests escalate, the more it thinks that concern over ZeroCare is just the proximate cause.  The real underlying cause is anger over how their country (and in many cases themselves personally as voters) was suckered into electing Zero in the first place.

And the more the HFR sees how this anger is escalating, the more it looks at Zero as LBJ redux, only faster.  For the anger is not going away until Zero does.  It took 3 years to get rid of Lyndon Johnson (1/65 to 3/68 when he announced he wouldn't run again, and he coasted from then on).  The anger today, however, will not wait that long, not even close.

Many had warned, but few who were in a position to act even tried to avoid the very predictable economic calamities of 2008. This was the year that proved Ronald Reagan's old adage, "The government is not the solution; it is the problem."

As we enter the New Year, the question is again, "Will those in charge do what is necessary to avoid the very obvious new economic wrecks coming?"

The U.S. government has now explicitly said there are financial institutions (and other companies - autos, etc.) that are "too big to fail." If that is (arguably) true, then they must be more highly regulated than the smaller institutions, particularly in terms of capital adequacy.

The reason is quite simple. If the government guarantees the debt of big companies, those institutions will have a much lower cost of capital than their smaller competitors, which is not only unfair but will destroy new and smaller companies, thus killing much of the job and productivity creating innovation in the U.S. economy.

So far, the Washington governing class has failed to even discuss this disastrous consequence of the bailouts, let alone figure out a solution.

In other times, Hearst Newspapers White House Correspondent Helen Thomas's demand that the Jews "get the hell out of Palestine," and go back to Poland, Germany and America would have been front page news in every newspaper in the US the day after the story broke.

In other times, had the dean of the White House Correspondents Association expressed such hatred for the Jews, the White House would have immediately removed her accreditation rather than wait three days to criticize her.

In other times, the White House Correspondents Association would have expelled her.  In other times, her employer - Hearst Newspapers - would have fired her.

Our times, instead, are times of Jew hatred. Our times are times when hatred breeds strategic madness -- especially among those on the Left.

There's such a cornucopia of delectable items to choose from this week, so where does the HFR begin?

How about with the increasing awareness that the corruption within the Democrat Party is so pervasive that the entire party should be RICO'ed? 

What more perfect case for prosecution under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act could one ask for?  The Democrat Party is no longer a political organization - it is a criminal conspiracy...

...Yet the HFR also has a confession this week - it's developing a strange sort of fondness for Joe Biden, like folks have for their crazy uncle in the attic...

...It may go down in history as one of the classic put-downs of Zero.  When asked what the president's contribution was to the "beer summit" yesterday (7/30) between police officer James Crowley and Harvard professor Henry Gates at the White House, Crowley said:

"He provided the beer."

Which prompts me to extend the length of this HFR beyond normal and tell a story.

Baghdad, Iraq.  Would you invest in Iraq? Many people think it is crazy to even ask the question.

But strange as it may seem, there may already be some good investment opportunities in Iraq, and chances are there will be many high-yielding investments in the country in the next few years.

When you arrive at the international airport in Baghdad and are greeted by a security company that puts an armored vest on you, and then loads you into a highly armored vehicle manned by tough guys with automatic weapons, just to get you to a hotel, you are thinking, "This is the last place where I would ever invest."

The good news is that much of Iraq, other than Baghdad (outside the Green Zone and other high-security compounds) and a few other places, is returning to normal and is safe, and parts of it, such as the Kurdish region, are actually booming. This means there are increasing potentially profitable private investment opportunities, on a risk-adjusted rate of return basis.

This past week, the Washington-based Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) hosted a conference in Baghdad where about 100 representatives of 15 of the 18 Provincial Investment Commissions (PICs) came to discuss how they more effectively attract foreign investment.

If the Iraqis didn't think things were getting more peaceful and normal, it is unlikely they would waste time traveling some distance to Baghdad by automobile to learn how they might obtain more private foreign investment in their provinces. 

In hindsight, it probably will be obvious that the missteps of the Obama administration vis-a-vis Israel were critical catalysts to a war that today seems ever more likely to engulf the Middle East, and perhaps the world more generally.

Assuming - assuming - such an outcome is neither the intention of the president and his team nor is desired by them, American course corrections must be taken urgently.

Throughout their 17 months in office, the president and his senior subordinates have been at pains to demonstrate a more "evenhanded" approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to "engage" the Moslem "world."

The practical effect, however, has been to excuse, empower and embolden those hostile not just to Israel, but to the United States as well. Consider just a few ominous examples:

As the HFR goes to press this Friday morning, a Kabuki drama is unfolding on the Honduran-Nicaraguan border.  Exiled former president Zelaya is reported by the Miami Herald to be in Esteli, Nicaragua trying to cross into Honduras.  Soldiers and opponents of Zelaya have gathered at the Las Manos Honduran border crossing, as well as a few Zelaya supporters.

It so happens that I am familiar with the Honduran-Nicaraguan border, having crossed it several times surreptitiously with the Contras in the 80s.  This is rough country, and I can assure you Zelaya will not try this as I did, on foot through mountainous jungle.  He's not in shape and he's too big and fat for his people to carry.

Thus his options are very limited and easy to stymie.  He is engaged in nothing more than a media stunt.  Zelaya is sinking fast -- even the left-wing Miami Herald admits it.  One person we have to thank for this is Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC).

Yet who knew Senator Jim DeMint's real name is Arthur Wellesley? 

How much should the U.S. government spend on an economic stimulus program? If you have trouble answering the question, it is because it is the wrong question.

The United States (and the world) economy is (or at least has been for the last few months) in decline with rising unemployment rates. It is widely believed the government must "do something." The political and media classes, and even many economists, call for an "economic stimulus program." But what do they mean by "stimulus," and will it do any good?

The argument is made that many Americans are suffering from a decline in income, and thus the government should give them money so they can buy more and put others back to work.

Sounds good - but where does the government get the money? It must either tax someone else now or borrow more money, which diverts productive saving to current consumption. Either way, it is less than a zero-sum game.

The "aid convoy" incident off the coast of Gaza on May 30 wasn't about bringing humanitarian supplies to the terrorist-ruled territory. It wasn't even about Israel.

It was about Turkey's determination to position itself as the leading Moslem state in the Middle East.

Three ships of that six-ship pro-terror convoy flew Turkish flags and were crowded with Turkish citizens. The Ankara government -- led by Islamists these days -- sponsored the "aid" operation in a move to position itself as the new champion of the Palestinians.

And Turkish decision-makers knew Israel would have to react -- and were waiting to exploit the inevitable clash. The provocation was as cynical as it was carefully orchestrated.