Category Archives: National News

Things National


Facebook asks, “What’s on your mind?” #MSMFAIL is what is on my mind. This morning I turn on Fake News, aka any channel on TV with a “news” show. They are talking about the Russian Hacking. Apparently the Russians had a sinister plan. The “journalist” looks into the camera and says, earnestly, “It seems they may even have been trying to cause (pause for effect – and then very soberly) regime change.”

O My God.

The MSM cannot stop themselves –

From wikipedia (hey journalists, there is this thing called the internet):

In formal usage, a régime is the form of government or the set of rules, cultural or social norms, etc. that regulate the operation of a government or institution and its interactions with society.

Wikipedia goes on to say:

Modern usage

While the word régime originates as a synonym for any form of government, modern usage often gives the term a negative connotation, implying an authoritarian government or dictatorship. Webster’s definition states that the word régime refers simply to a form of government,[1] while Oxford English Dictionary defines regime as “a government, especially an authoritarian one”.[2]

Contemporary academic usage of the term “regime” is broader than popular and journalistic usage, meaning “an intermediate stratum between the government (which makes day-to-day decisions and is easy to alter) and the state (which is a complex bureaucracy tasked with a range of coercive functions).”

So what, you may ask. Well, depending on how you look at the word, you could interpret our earnest journalist as telling us that Russia was trying to save us from the dictatorship that exists here in the United States. Or you could say Russia was trying to change our system of government.

My Point: Regularly scheduled elections are not “regime change.”

Hey earnest journalist, this is what regime change looks like:


And this:


And this:


Regime change most certainly does not look like this:


I am tired of the idiotic product put out by the networks.


Post Election Ruminations

Scribbled on Facebook the morning after – preserved for posterity in this noble newspaper

Some observations this morning:
1. #msmfail – I have been grimly amused by the freaking out of the main stream media – anyone who thinks they were unbiased in their coverage of this election is in denial.

As to their plaintive cry of “how did we miss this?” I urge them to look up and understand the idea of confirmation bias.

2. Is there anything uglier and nastier and haughtier than a bigoted liberal?

3. Non-degreed white males are people too. The obsession with the coverage last night on the percent of non-degreed white males that voted for Trump was fascinating. It was like the media just discovered a new species. And the implication – only ignorant white people would vote for Trump, is elitist and dismissive.

4. In adventures in reaching for straws: several talking heads floated the idea that Hillary lost because ignorant white males were prejudiced against a woman president. Again I say: #msmfail and confirmation bias.

5. Lastly, both parties, wake up. The circumstances that resulted in this election result are the same circumstances responsible for the Tea Party movement.

Neither Republican nor Democrat understood the sensibilities that created the Tea Party movement, so they simply created a straw man and called it the Tea Party so that they could attack and destroy it. But, the simple reality is, there is no Tea Party, never was.

So what was this thing? The simple sense that “I don’t care what party you say you are affiliated with, your candidate doesn’t represent me, so I’m not voting for him or her.” Note – the Republican political machine did not select Donald Trump. To their befuddlement, their unruly populace selected Trump to run as a Republican. I am certain the predominant emotion from the political elite was, “The peasants are revolting.” And they meant that in every sense of the word.


Albemarle Road church fined $100 per branch for excessive tree pruning | & The Charlotte Observer Newspaper

Albemarle Road church fined $100 per branch for excessive tree pruning | & The Charlotte Observer Newspaper.

(NORTH CAROLINA) – This is what happens when you don’t think it matters whether or not you vote or are politically active.

Since our system of government is designed as “by the people” it really is the government “by the people who seek power”. The balance to that lust for power is the voter that does not want to govern, but has chosen to be governed. We put these people in power – as public servants. As a motivated voter, you can fire your public servant if they forget whom they serve. But, you have to actually be politically active and actually vote.

If you don’t bother, this kind of nonsense happens. (tip of the hat to Frater Cowculus for alerting The Glob to this atrocity) Ψ

It’s Funny Because it’s True

OK, it’s not true, but I made you look!!

Obama Orders Guantánamo Prisoners Transferred To Next President
April 13, 2011 | ISSUE 47•15

You have to admit, my administration has been entertaining in that sad-scary-clown kind of way.

President Obozo has a problem. He has to run on his record. He’s never held a position long enough for there to be a record to review – and when he sort of has had a record to run on (as a Senator that did not finish his term), he’s simply moved on. His record on Gitmo speaks for itself – and encapsulates his foray into Supreme Executive-ship.

He has repeatedly made dogmatic and unequivocal policy statements based on no knowledge of the realities involved. His arrogance is shocking – it is as if he skimmed a report, determined he had all the necessary facts, makes policy, then someone points out “well, in paragraph two here, it clearly notes that…” and he has to recant, ignore, distract or obfuscate.

If he could officially transfer Gitmo’s prisoners to the next president, he would.


via Obama Orders Guantánamo Prisoners Transferred To Next President | The Onion – America’s Finest News Source.

President Barry – “Oh, The Humanity!”

Addressing The Things That Really Matter
(WASHINGTON DC) – Threats of a government shutdown elicit “sky is falling” reaction from POTUSA, yawns and not a few chuckles from citizenry.

It’s getting hard to not laugh every time Mr. Soetaro opens his mouth. Here is a fascinating insight into what he seems to think matters to US Citizens today:
“Folks who were planning a vacation to Yellowstone — well, it turns out national parks, suddenly you’re closed, you’re out of luck.”
Hmmm. Let’s examine this tragedy for a moment, shall we? Number of visitors to Yellowstone during all of 2010? 3,640,904 Number of people currently unemployed TODAY in the USA? As of March of this year, 13,500,000 people were “officially” unemployed, 8.4 million are under-employed, that is, working part-time because they cannot find full-time, and 6.5 million not working, and not looking (so not counted as unemployed.) Total? 28.4 million. (Source)

Interesting question – How many people in the next 10 days (just picking a number out of the air) will be unable to go to Yellowstone for vacation due to the shutdown? Well, being very optimistic, this being early in the year and not quite vacation time, maybe 140 thousand. (I divided visitors last year by 52 weeks, and multiplied by two for a two-week vacation.)

"It's the first thing I think about when I get up in the morning, and it's the last thing I think about when I go to bed at night. I just don't think about it during the day."

Number of people not going on vacation to Yellowstone in the next 10 days because they are unemployed? 28 million. Way to prioritize President Obonehead. Here’s a hint: It’s the economy stupid. And part of the systemic problem with our economy is the amount of money the Government wastes. Here’s another clue – your job is not the budget or the economy. That is the job of Congress. Let the people WE elected do their jobs, and stay out-of-the-way. Go golfing. Move to Brazil. Whatever floats your boat. Just stop interfering with people trying to correct your freaking mess.



It’s All So Different Now

(BOSTON GLOBE  – 2008) –

Globe:  In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?

Obama: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

"Barry, Barry, Barry, your little fantasy world is about to founder on the shoals of reality. And, kiss your full head of black hair goodbye."


Glob:  In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Libya without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?

Obama: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation, UNLESS I am the President. Bomb Libya? Yes We Can!

What color is the sky on President Obama’s planet?


You may find S.J. Res. 23 interesting. Read it, it’s not long. Senator Obama introduced this bill, without co-sponsors, in 2007. Without co-sponsors, mind you, meaning, this was his baby. Something he believed in. Sort of.

Reality Intrudes into Barry’s Idealism

Aerial view of Guantanamo Bay, collected from ...

Aerial view of Guantanamo Bay, Image via Wikipedia

Obama’s Pledge to close Guantanamo Bay within a year suffers from collision with reality. This past Monday the Obama administration announced resumption of military tribunals.

It was the latest acknowledgement that the detention facility Obama had vowed to shut down within a year of taking office will remain open for some time to come. – Lolita Baldor, AP, March 7th 2011

For more insight into the continuing intrusion of reality into Barry’s world view, see

Dana Milbank.

Tea Party Shoots Self in Tea Bag?

The Mona Lisa (or La Joconde, La Gioconda).

Image via Wikipedia

Bill Buckley, asked in 1968 who he would vote for, replied “The wisest choice would be the one who would win. No sense running Mona Lisa in a beauty contest. I’d be for the most right, viable candidate who could win. If you could convince me that Barry Goldwater could win, I’d vote for him.”

Typical for our world today, this has been sound-bited into the “Buckley Rule”, most recently stated by Charles Krauthammer, writing in Jewish World Review, as “Support the most conservative candidate who is electable.” Mr. Krauthammer then dissects the primary win of  O’Donnell in his article, The Buckley Rule. It’s worth reading (Krauthammer is eminently readable, go ahead) and as is his wont, he makes his case methodically and logically.

But, what is electable is not always known. Why? Because the American Voter is fickle and given to flights of fancy. Is there a more easily led group of people on the planet today? Do you own a pair of $100 + tennis shoes? Yeah.

However, the Buckley Rule, as originally stated above, is somewhat meaningless without context. One assumes the context is conservative candidates in opposition to a liberal or progressive candidate. But, is voting for the obvious winner really the right thing to do? Krauthammer argues that the O’Donnell win is a Pyrrhic victory; a win that is a loss in effect. If voters behaved other than herd animals, I would agree without hesitation. But a herd vote is hardly indicative of the actual mindset of the people. When disturbed from our troughs of Jersey Shore and Dancing With the Stars, we can remember we are people and not sheeple. The Tea Party is an example of people saying, effectively mind you, “You don’t represent me.” The Republican Party has misread the Tea Party and assumed automatic support, a la the Democratic Party and the Black Voter. Those in power in the Democratic Party have effectively told the Black Voter for years “We will pay attention to you during the weeks leading up to election.” And, that’s all they’ve said. The Democrats over the past 40 years have been the party of the disenfranchised, knowing as they do that the disenfranchised in this country, today, are self-disenfranchised. Which means, in practice, that they don’t know and don’t care that they are being used.

The Tea Party movement is made of people who know they are not disenfranchised, which is why they started these non-partisan movements. Beware labels. These people are mostly conservative in politics, not necessarily Republican. What they want neither party really wants. What they want is strict Constitutionalism. Which means people in power have less of what they hold most dear: power. The O’Donnell primary win is not a Pyrrhic victory. It is, rather, a simple statement to both parties: “You are not representing us!”; the corollary of which is: “So, I’m not voting for you, even if you can win.” It is the beginning of the end of herd voting.

NATIONAL NEWS – Freakonomics

Obama Picks a Winner (not)

WASHINGTON DC – This was apparently an April Fool’s announcement. But I loved this quote:

When we finally reached Levitt, he was at McDonalds headquarters at Oak Brook, IL. Some of their franchises have been cheating by hiding Big Mac revenues that they have to share with McDonalds. Levitt has found a way to benchmark performance that can reveal suspiciously underperforming locations. “This is what economists call ‘moral hazard,’ ” Levitt said over a carton of Chicken McNuggets. “Look, economics is not rocket science. Think of the US Government as like McDonalds, a bank and a toxic asset are just like a franchisee and a Big Mac. Once you see it that way, its simple.”

There were some pretty freaked out people commenting on this story. Hahaha.

NATIONAL NEWS – Securitized

Securitize Me

WASHINGTON DC – In Obama’s press conference of March 25th, he used the term “securitized” when describing efforts to restart the flow of credit –

The third part of our strategy is to restart the flow of credit to families and businesses. To that end, we’ve launched a program designed to support the markets for more affordable auto loans, student loans and small-business loans, a program that’s already securitized more of this lending in the last week than in the last four months combined.

Financial heads know what this means. I’m thinking a lot of people think this is a cool way of saying “made secure.” Well, that’s not what it means.

I refer you to Cornell University for a lucid discussion of securities and security law. (Source) Some key points –

  • Securities in and of themselves have no inherent value
  • They provide information about debt a company has
  • They entitle their owner to make claims on the assets of the issuer
  • They give the owner voting rights based on these claims

Companies issue securities to raise capital and to “restructure debt.” Which is a fancy way of saying acquiring additional debt to permit operation in the hopes things will get all better and we will be able to actually at least pay the interest on this debt until my bonus comes in and I can leave all this turmoil behind me.

It DOES NOT mean the debt is secure. It DOES NOT mean everything is OK now thanks to Obama. It DOES mean someone else owns the debt. Who is that someone? Per Obama’s statement, a “program” owns this debt now. Which I assume is a Government program, which should mean that you and I own the debt. So, we have taken the debt from the financial markets and given it to us taxpayers. Oh, and the trend in securities is toward fungibility. Meaning, it can be exchanged ONLY for another unit of the same commodity. Like one unit of orange juice for another. You can’t exchange one unit of OJ for one unit of pork bellies. Which means a securitized debt can only be exchanged with – debt.

To help clear all this up for you, here is the definition of securities from the 1934 act governing same:

“any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, bond, debenture, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement or in any oil, gas, or other mineral royalty or lease, any collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or in general, any instrument commonly known as a ‘security’; or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing; but shall not include currency or any note, draft, bill of exchange, or bankers’ acceptance which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace, or any renewal thereof the maturity of which is likewise limited.” – Section 3a item 10 of the 1934 Act.

Did that just say a security is “any instrument commonly known as a ‘security'”? Why yes it did. Now that we have cleared that up, what does it all mean?

We have restructured more debt “in the last week than in the last four months combined.” We have freed up the credit markets, in trouble due to their crippling debt, with debt. We’re on rock solid ground now.

On another note, “securitize” rhymes with “nationalize.” For some reason “Change” is beginning to feel very uncomfortable in a certain private area.