It's a big sh#! sandwich...

...and we've all got to take a bite. Then we have to swallow. And finally, rinse thoroughly. The do-nothings in DC are deciding how deep to dig into somebody else's (mine and yours) pocket to bail out the ass-hats of Wall Street. The most expensive socialist mandate in recorded history is about to descend upon the masses.

When all is said and done and all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed I want to see some blood shed. Maybe not literally, but figuratively. I want names named. I want responsible parties publicly shamed. I want reputations ruined and careers destroyed. The DC pigs and their Wall Street benefactors should be forced to run the gauntlet of humiliation.

Let's not stop there. The institutes of higher learning that granted degrees to any and all at the apex of this disaster should be toppled to the ground. Those MBA's are worth as much as the meaningless paper sitting on the books of all those insolvent banks.

I've got the pitch forks. Somebody grab the torches. We've got work to do.

The Blame Game

So, who's to blame for the current financial crisis? The popular sentiment throught the years is to blame the party in power for economic downtimes. That would lay the blame at the feet of the Republicans. But is it really fair to make this assessment?

I came across an article published in the New York Times on September 11, 2003. It outlined a Bush administration proposal to overhaul the regulation and oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after an independent investigation earlier that year showed manipulation in accounting to mislead investors.

The proposal was well received by both Fannie and Freddie, as well as their competitors. But not everyone was in favor. Barney, who was the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee at the time of the proposal and is now the chairman, had the following to say of the proposal:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Feel free to make your own assumptions regarding who is to blame. Read the full NYT article here. Also check out an excellent article by John Lott that delves deeper into the credit mess here.

A Man Ahead of His Time

This is getting entertaining. I would love to see the looks on the faces of Barry's campaign staffers each time someone sticks a microphone in front of Joe Biden. It has to be just utter pain and anguish. Lunch Bucket Joe offered the following bit of historical perspective while discussing the current financial crisis with Katie Couric:

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed,” Biden told Couric. “He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’”

OK. Let us disect:

1. When the stock market crashed - October 29, 1929. "Black Tuesday" as it was known. The President of the United States? Herbert Hoover, not FDR. FDR was not elected until 1932.

2. Franklin Roosevelt got on the television - Well, we've already established FDR was not president at the time. Now, the television was still in development in 1929. The first household TV sets weren't introduced for another ten years. If you happened to have a TV at the time, you wouldn't have seen FDR or Hoover anyway since there were no broadcast networks in existence.

I gotta tell you, this Biden is a godsend! And it's only September. Bravo, Joe! Bravo! Let's keep the good times rolling! I'll bet the Obama camp wishes they could sequester him and send out a body double for the debate.

Bill Hearts Sarah

The boy president's got a crush! Sarah makes Willy's toes curl. But, alas, the Dope from Hope isn't in the same league as this classy lady. Moose-hunting hockey mom and a juvenile sex addict? Please, Sarah wouldn't give someone the likes of Mr. Depravity a second thought. But I'm sure he's had some sleepless, sweaty nights since the Thrilla from Wasilla burst onto the scene. Better not let Hill catch you swooning!

The Patriot

Continuing on this theme of taxation and income redistribution, I want to focus on a statement that was made by Barry's VP pick, Joe Biden. First of all, Biden likes to refer to his working class roots and he considers himself a "lunch bucket Democrat". This couldn't be farther from the truth. His father was a car salesman and later a mid-level exec. His grandfather was a state senator in Pennsylvania. He graduated from the prestigious Archmere Academy in Delaware and then from the University of Delaware and Syracuse University law School. So spare me the cliched pulled myself up by the bootstraps storyline.

Back to my point. This morning on Good Morning America, Lunch Bucket Joe said that paying more taxes was the patriotic thing for wealthy Americans to do. He also said specifically, "We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people".

There you have it. It doesn't get much more succinct than that. They are going to take money. In other words, it is un-patriotic to keep that money you worked hard to earn and do with it as you please. We, meaning Barry and Joe, will decide what to do with that money.

Now, Joe has been known to stick his foot in his mouth from time to time, so there will be some serious spinning on this statement to deny that it represents a redistribution of income. Don't buy it. They mean what they say and say what they mean.

Neighborly Economics

In the continuation of Barry's much ballyhooed interview with Bill O'Reilly last night, the focus was on economics and taxation. Bill was framing Barry's tax plan as a socialist program of redistributing income from the haves to the have nots. Barry had a differing view. He describes it as follows:

"The problem is, if I am sitting pretty and you’ve got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t, what’s the big deal for me to say, I’m gonna pay a little bit more? That’s neighborliness."

Translation - If you work hard and make a lot of money you should feel guilty and you must give some of it to someone who doesn't deserve it. The One has spoken!

Obama Family Values

Brother, can you spare a dime?

Interesting. Check out the story.

The Ceiling of Excellence

Last Friday evening I watched an interview with musician Ted Nugent on The Glenn Beck Show. Among the topics that The Nuge waxed philosophical about was something he called the "ceiling of excellence". This is akin to the mercy rule whereby someone is penalized for performing well.

The Motor City Madman provided examples, both actual and theoretical, to make his point. An actual example is the recent case of a 9 year old boy in Connecticut who was told by officials of the local little league that he couldn't pitch any longer because they said he was too good and he would frighten the other players that he played against.

I was witness to the ceiling of excellence this past Saturday. My son played his first soccer game of the season. His team got off to a fast start and scored a few quick goals. There is one boy on the team that is especially good. When he scored his 3rd goal of the game he had to come out of the game for a time because of a league rule. Also, the team had to be short a player because they were winning by several goals. Well, they continued to score even though they were shorthanded. After each successive goal they had to be short one more player until it was 6 players for the other team against 3 players for my son's team. This caused some consternation because the players on my son's team had to wait longer to get back in the game while the other team's players got much more playing time.

What is gained by this? Who benefits? What example is being set? In my opinion, much more is lost than gained and no one wins. Someone is penalized for doing well. They are basically being told that there is a limit to what you are allowed to achieve.

Artificially leveling the playing field because you believe it is helping a child's psyche can actually do the reverse. You give those that are underachieving a false sense of achievement. They won't set realistic goals and when they encounter a situation where the playing field has not been adjusted to accommodate them, they will surely fail. As for those that overachieve, they are discouraged from progressing and doing even better.

This is classic socialist ideology. This fallacy that we are all the same. This lie is perpetuated by left-leaning ideologues. We see it every day in racial and gender quotas at colleges and universities and through affirmative action. It is the very definition of a nanny state.

What if these same standards were applied to someone like Thomas Edison? Or how about the Wright brothers? Or Jonas Salk? Where would this country be?

Parents, teacher, coaches - they all have the sacred responsibility to nurture and encourage achievement. But no one, not even the state, can guarantee it.

Community Organizing 101

Seems like The New Yorker wasn't too far off the mark. Check out this little tidbit from Investor's Business Daily.

Fear & Loathing

It has become as obvious as Joe Biden's hair plugs that the attacks on Sarah Palin's character are because of the left's unmitigated disdain for her. Why such animosity? First, she's not the prissy, submissive, seen-but-not-heard female that they had hoped. And second, she doesn't subscribe to the woe is me, womanhood is a burden, feminists unite crap typical of the loony left.

She is a traditionalist and, boy does that grind the femi-nazi's gears. She juggles her duties as a governor with a complicated home life and does it with a glint in her eye. She has accomplished more at the age of 44 than your run-of-the-mill feminist kook could accomplish in 2 lifetimes.

MIA

Where are they? Where are all those dyed-in-the-wool feminists who screamed bloody murder when the press raked Old Pantsuits over the coals during the Dimocratic primaries? They are silent while the MSM attempts to paint Sarah Palin as an unfit mother.

The press questions her ability to govern while faced with various family issues. Do they ask the same questions of male candidates? Barry is the father of two young children. Has anyone posed the question of whether being a father will have an impact on his ability to govern?

Blatant sexism. And this is from a male perspective. Nothing from NOW or their minions. The silence is deafening.