Unto Us A Child Is Born

If you think the criticism of Obamamania stretches the limits of credulity by characterizing him as "The Messiah," please watch this creepy, creepy, creepy video of children singing hosannas to their lord and saviour. Oh, and remember that Obama isn't the Second Coming. Jesus was just the first coming of Barack Obama.

Congress needs to sober up and get off the train.

"Riding that train - high on cocaine. Casey Jones you better watch your speed."

These words by Robert Hunter, made famous by [the] Grateful Dead have been ringing in my head for weeks as I struggle to understand how Congress lost it's way. Rather than eying the tracks for trouble, they've jumped on board and driven it right down our throats.

There was a time in our nation's history when duties of the US Congress were clearly defined and limited. Ditto for the executive branch. But decades of action - completely unimagined by the framers of the constitution - have built on the precedence of previous and ill-gotten entitlements to power.

It seems that every time the idea pops up that "Somebody ought to ..." the US Congress or President steps in and assumes control - whether it's appropriate or not. Now it seems every action they take is geared to "save" us from their snowballing failures.

So what is Congress supposed to do? Protect us. Not "save" us, but protect us.

Protect us from countries who want to destroy us. Protect us from hurting each other by defining boundaries of acceptable behavior. Protect us by providing oversight and wisdom in complex situations that trickle down to the general population.

Instead, Congress has been indulging us like the parent of a teenager with a princess complex. Anything you want, honey. Crash your car? We'll get you a new one. Credit cards maxed? We'll pay your balance. Just love us in return.

The princess gets what she wants without sacrifice or consequence. Sound planning and lessons in sustainability are replaced with easy outs and instant gratification. When she gets into trouble, she bats her eyelashes and someone comes to her rescue.

The story ends with the princess divorced and over-forty, decorated in worn-out Jimmy Chu pumps and a blanket of debt. No inheritance will bail her out - the money was spent it in her teenage years.

Congress needs to stop indulging the princess. Teach her the hard, uncomfortable lessons that prepare her to interact with the world. Cut up her credit cards. Stop saving her from the consequences she's earned.

Congress has been drunk on the affections gained by enabling the princess - which naturally will erode from gratitude into a sense of entitlement. Now that those affections are gone (a 10% approval rating for Congress should be suitable proof) Congress needs to deliver some tough love.

The bottom line: Congress has no right or duty to buy up private paper. The market will adjust dramatically, but we will recover. And just like a grumbling teenager who just heard "no" from her parents for the first time - we'll get dramatic and freak out. But that's what needs to happen if we're going to be allowed to grow up.

Bernie Ebbers, you were CEO of the wrong company.

To state that we are in a financial crisis is to put it mildly. Every day we hear $700 billion. Today we saw the market plunge 777 points. Is there something with 7's? Obviously, it's not a lucky number after all. I keep thinking...how do they, the government "they," arrive at $700 billion dollars? Where did this number come from? I have the answer, but you have to keep reading....

I don't even want to look at my 401k statement. Ignorance is bliss. But, you know, this crisis reminds me of a couple of guys who cooked their books and and rode regulation and deregulation like a cowboy on a mechanical bull. Well, they did ride, until the Wall Street Music stopped and those things called numbers....those good, old, truthful numbers, once again proved to never, ever lie.

Remember Enron and WorldCom? After a couple of whistle blowers were heard, there was a stampede of lawyers, forensic accountants, auditors and politicians breathing down these companies books/backs. These two companies were the impetus for Sarbanes-Oxley. Many consumers, employees and investors lost their pensions, retirement savings, investments and jobs because of Bernie's and Ken's oversight, or lack thereof, of the financial reporting and profits that were practiced by a couple of their renegade CFO's...or so we are to believe. Bernard Ebbers, I hear, is in some comfy, white collar prison in the South. And, Ken Lay? Well, the stress got to him and he passed away of a heart attack before he was sentenced.

Does this financial story sound familiar? I don't think I am painting with a broad brush, so, let me just cut to the chase. I am surprised that there hasn't been an investigation into the obvious fraud and corruption that had taken place in Fannie and Freddie. More surprisingly, Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie, was fired by "regulators" over "accounting problems" and walked away with a severance package from Fannie of $19 million dollars. Now, that is $19 million more than the $90 million he collected between 1998 and 2003.

If I do my forensic math correctly, Franklin Raines, in 5 years at Fannie Mae, earned, $109 million. Fannie Mae's accounting "practices" between 2001-2004 forced them to restate over $6.3 billion dollars in accounting errors. Yes, you heard me $6.3 Billion clams. Now, I know, I know, Worldcom was $11 billion clams. But, I have to stop and ask myself, would Bernie rather be in a "comfy" white collar prison, or would he rather be Senator Obama's economic advisor.



I am Miss Tory, and I approve of this message.

Okay, here is the answer if you are just reading this to get to this:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE6D9103EF930A15756C0A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=

Heil Nancy, and other Dem-fascist-Nazi-isms

And thus we commence with the royal screw-ups by none other than our beloved Leader (Heil!) of the House, Nancy Pelousy. Disregarding all the flak the Republican side of Congress had already been receiving about blocking the passage of the economic bailout plan, or EESA, one would be led to believe that the speech immediately prior to the vote would have been filled with fanciful notions of bipartisan cooperation and Kumbaya while merrily handing the bill off to the Oval Office. No, instead, it appears ol' Nan had a horrendous hair day and someone tripped her on the way to the podium and she launched some nasty, thoughtless tirade against President Bush and any citizen with two brain cells to rub together. That gave Democrats more ammunition to blame the Republicans for the bill's failure, claiming that they should have not allowed their negative emotions to dissuade them from voting for it.

However, the Dems should look a little more closely at the vote tally. 133 Republicans voted no... but 95 Democrats did as well. And Barney Franks is railing on us for causing the bill to fail? I beg to differ.

Maybe Senator Obama should have called these 95 dissenters and used his Obamessiah mind-changing powers on them. He is the One who came up with this bill and inserted it into the minds of his congressional minions, after all.

(Insert Howard Dean YEARRRGH! here)

Thursday Night's Debate

I have obtained an exclusive copy of a transcript from Thursday night's debate. Don't ask how. I've posted it here.

Credit where it's due

And Obama laughed his lofty, condescending guffaw during his interview on Face the Nation (CBS, video) when confronted with the question if John McCain had any input in the bailout, officially the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of '08. Of course, Obama is claiming that HE came up with the language in the bill and that HE will be evaluating and approving the bill personally. He keeps putting himself in a position where he wants to look like he is already President--sometimes deity--but he ends up looking aristocratic, snobbish, and vainglorious, a ready target for anyone to knock him off his high, high blue horse. McCain, you still have good aim? I'm betting Nov. 4th you do.

Media... it bites

Hopefully some of what we'll hear of the aftermath of this debate will be comprised of Senator Obama's phrase repeated several times to his unwitting detriment, "I agree with you, Senator..." That would make him a more fitting running mate than his own Biden. He looked and sounded like a student trying to debate with his professor, which is exactly the situation when little inconsequential factors like political experience, military service, tenure and life experience are considered.

Let's see a new commercial that looks something like this:
OBAMA: "I agree with you, Senator."
MCCAIN: "I'm John McCain and I approve this message."
THE END

That's a positive message, right?

Strong Finish

for McCain. A reminder of his war experiences and just experience period.

Speaking of bailouts

That is twice Obama has sought to be bailed out by Jim Lehrer.

Ten minutes Left

McCain is winning this one. Let's see how it ends.

Uh . . .

We have tried talking with North Korea, Sen. Obama. That's your policy and it didn't work.

McCain

is serious, presidential, "postpartisan." Obama is one third keeping up, one third defensive, one third a little kid saying, "No, you are!"

Obama & 9-11

He says we failed because they are still sending out videotapes. Videotapes or flying planes into a building, Sen. Obama? There's a difference, Sen. Uh.

Obama

For having a campaign accusing McCain of "lying," he is sure doing a lot of himself tonight. Will post a link to a collection after the debate.

Obama

Starting to look ridiculous by interrupting McCain several times. McCain hasn't not been as rude.

LOL!

Go McCain! Take on Obama's lack of foreign policy experience. Haha! Obama has to point to his VP choice for foreign policy experience! LMAO! He's running for president!

Yes, Sen. Obama

There is a fundamental difference between you and Sen. McCain on Iraq: you want to lose.

Finally

On to foreign policy.

Energy

Go, McCain. Keep on this. Very important: nuclear power, offshore drilling. Very popular and D's weakness.

Earmarks & Economy

Wasn't this supposed to be a debate on national security, not the economy? I get the earmarks beef, Sen. McCain, and I agree, but time to move on.

Uh, Obama, Uh

We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, Sen. Obama. Uh, look it up. Uh.

Taxes

How do people who don't pay taxes, get tax cuts?

McCain

He is looking strong, calm, not too partisan, hitting a few important topics, ie improving economy, earmarks, hard.

Um . . .

95% of working families don't pay taxes, Sen. Obama. So how is that a tax cut?

Drinking Games

Ideas so far:

Main Street
Greed
Or when Obama says "uh." Not sure I have enough vino on hand for that one.

Obama

Looks like he is looking for his teleprompter. I would love to see that letter he says he wrote to the Secretary of the Treasury.

What Caused The Economic Crisis?

Via Sen. Jim DeMint:

What Caused The Economic Crisis? Watch This!

Posted using ShareThis

O'Really?

On his radio show yesterday, Bill O'Reilly called Rush Limbaugh a "liar," threatened two Democrat congresspersons with violence, and displayed a staggering ignorance of basic economics. Mark Levin, aka The Great One, calls him out, correctly, on Rush and the bailout. This Youtube clip includes Levin and the offending O'Reilly comments.

Gored

Al Gore recently advocated "civil disobedience" to stop any new coal plants from being built.  Makes you wonder what the Left will be advocating if McCain wins.

ACORN Bailout

Michelle Malkin has a post up reporting that Sen. Lindsay Graham is claiming the bailout includes $100 million for the leftist radicals in ACORN.  Thank God for the House Republicans.

Nancy Pelosi--Wine, Woman and that same old liberal song

Is anyone alarmed that Nancy is third in line to the president? Can I see a show of hands please?  Anyone?  I'm sorry, are you still getting over the shock of that question?  It's okay.  It took me awhile to wrap my head around that one too.  

 What surprises me most about this presidential election is not the Jeremiah Wright Sermons, or the fact that someone wants to change my country, or a woman 2nd in line to the presidency.  What surprises me most is that this election, according to the bloated news coverage and the screams from the left, is really not about the presidency after all. Nope. This election in November is about the Vice Presidency.  We should rename it, the "Vice Presidential Election."  Has a ring to it.  I like it.  Even sounds, well, presidential.

 I have been voting for nearly 20 years and I cannot remember a time when I was so strongly encouraged and warned to carefully consider my vote for the Vice Presidential nominee. Dan Quayle was laughed off the podium for talking about that inane and ridiculous thing called "family values." Oh yes, and let us not forget the first woman VP nominee, Geraldine Ferraro............   So, hey, while we are at it, let's talk about the great Napa Valley Wine Star, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Because if we are talking about 2nd place, we should talk about 3rd place.  Potatoes, potahtoes.

9/23/08:  Nancy Pelousy, in her regally coifed manner, essentially stated,  "our current economy is the prime example of why free markets do not work."  She then chastises the Bush administration's lack of regulation and blank check policies, blah blah blah.  Nancy, Nancy, Nancy.  

 That statement  would make sense and would be true if we, the educated public, were never taught in elementary/middle school about how our government works.  GOVERNMENT 101: Congress has the authority and is responsible for the general welfare and financial and budgetary matters of the United States.   I clearly remember referring to Congress as providing checks and balances over the Executive Branch.  Furthermore, Congress has what is called "Congressional Oversight."  This oversight is usually delegated to Committees.  Allow me to list the Chairs of Certain Committees:  Chris Dodd (D), Chairman of Housing, Banking and Urban Affairs. Barney Frank (D), Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and who, along with his Democratic colleagues in 2005, opposed a Republican bill that would have created an agency within the Treasury Department to provide oversight of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  The fear of the Democrats, as explained to us by Barney, was that the bill would be taking away affordable housing from the lower and middle class, AND, as he further stated, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are fine."   Now,  Ms. Speaker, free markets, as you loosely stated, lacked oversight,  so just where was the Congressional Oversight?  If free markets do not work, what markets do you believe, do work?

Nancy, we hear your whine; we know you know about wine.  But please, do us middle class Americans a favor and sing another song...maybe something along the lines of UB 40's Red Red Wine.  That song is old, but I can dance to it.

I am Miss Tory, and I approve of this message.  

  

Let's Do It by the Numbers

It seems so much is about simple numbers lately. The price of gas, the amount of the next federal bailout handout, John McCain's age (Whoa! Nellie!). So it's time we look at a few numbers that matter.

Speaking of the economy, it seems our "friends" (I do type that with a sniveling sneer) on the left wing of this free bird we call America seem to be following Senator Obama's lead and are reading a lot of Leninist literature lately. In typical mob-mentality fashion they are bloodthirstily screaming for the rape of the rich who are unfairly hoarding the fruits of their years of gainful, diligent employment and ingenuity (um, I tried to write that with a straight face. Let's just assume that statement is true. Come on, pretty please? With a cherry of credibility on top?) And so they demand the taxation of the rich. That is, the increased taxation of the top earners in this great nation. They claim the rich are not taxed enough.

Shall we take a peek into the Swirling Kaleidoscope of Truth? a.k.a. the .jpg image? The evil rich are not paying enough taxes when they are paying nearly 90% of the nation's taxes. The truth is, in fact, that the top 1% of income earners in the U.S. pay the same amount in federal taxes as the bottom 95% (source). Leave the tax issue alone. We pay enough taxes--and if you want more tax income for government programs, that income is going to come from the lower tax bracket folks. Just look at the data again. So let that old dog just die. And quick kicking him.

And how about the recent report that came out about our well-to-do friends in Congress? I'm wondering how Mr. Kennedy ended up in the #9 slot. John Kerry was #1. Take a look at the roster of our lawmakers and wonder at how they can sympathize with the common folk. Tax holidays? Who needs 'em? In fact, those sorry civilians surely can cough up an extra $700 billion to give to our friends--er, irresponsible big banks and lenders--you know, to save our country and whatnot. God Bless America and whatever.

And that's our first session of By the Numbers. Thanks for counting with me.

Brooks & Progressive Corporatism

NYT columnist David Brooks is a conservative like Al Franken is a comedian.  At some point, long ago, the description was attached for one or two actions but despite a long record belying that title it has stuck.  That isn't to say Brooks isn't an occassionally insightful writer, especially when describing trends in politics and culture.  His column today is an interesting analysis of the reaction to the financial crisis and the remergence of the Establishment, both of the left and right.  It is well worth a read.  One comment toward the end caught my attention:

The government will be much more active in economic management (pleasing a certain sort of establishment Democrat). Government activism will provide support to corporations, banks and business and will be used to shore up the stable conditions they need to thrive (pleasing a certain sort of establishment Republican). Tax revenues from business activities will pay for progressive but business-friendly causes — investments in green technology, health care reform, infrastructure spending, education reform and scientific research. If you wanted to devise a name for this approach, you might pick the phrase economist Arnold Kling has used: Progressive Corporatism.

Progressive Corporatism?  Sure.  But wouldn't it be easier just to call it fascism?

Up Chuck

During the Paulson/Bernanke hearings today, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) made the following comment during his opening statement: "...who would have thought the lowly mortgage… could bring our financial system to its knees.”  Yes, and who would have thought a lowly senator could have brought an entire bank to its knees?

Joe Blow

Joe Klein's column in the latest Time magazine contains another example of the lack of self awareness among the media.  Klein's thesis is that the McCain campaign is so dishonest even the media are beginning to acknowledge that McCain isn't just disingenuous, but is a LIAR.  He writes: "... increasing numbers of otherwise sober observers, even such august institutions as the New York Times editorial board, are calling John McCain a liar."  Even the NYT editorial board is repeating DNC talking points?  Wow, that is something, Joe.