Video: Idiots React to Coronavirus

This….is….excellent: via Paul Joseph Watson on YouTube:

 

News Roundup for Wednesday November 30, 2016

First up: Nancy Pelosi is able to keep her spot as house minority leader:

The Video:

The Story via The Hill:

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday fended off a challenge to her long leadership reign, defeating Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) in a closed-door vote prompted largely by Donald Trump’s unlikely ascension to the White House.

Pelosi got 134 votes to Ryan’s 63 — winning 68 percent of the votes after declaring before the election that she had the support of two-thirds of the caucus. The victory sends a message that while there’s a growing appetite for major changes in the party’s leadership structure and messaging tactics, it’s not strong enough to loosen Pelosi’s grip on a liberal-heavy group that’s rarely challenged her authority.

Ryan and his supporters had argued that the Democrats’ grim performance in this year’s elections — the latest in a string of cycles planting Republicans firmly in the majority — was a clear signal that Pelosi’s leadership strategy has failed to attract the broad coalition of voters required to return the Speaker’s gavel to the Democrats’ hands.

The critics pointed, in particular, to the party’s alienation of the middle-class Rust Belt workers, who flocked to Trump and secured victories for a long list of vulnerable Republicans down the ballot. Ryan, who represents an Ohio manufacturing district that’s struggled to keep pace with globalization and rebound from the Great Recession, said he was the right fit to make inroads with those voters.

Most Democrats disagreed, opting to keep Pelosi and her top lieutenants — Reps. Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Jim Clyburn (S.C.) — in charge of efforts to improve the party’s fortunes heading into the 2018 midterm elections.

Ryan said after the vote that even though he lost, the 63 votes he won showed a desire to reform the House Democratic leadership structure and bring new members into the fold.

“I think it sends a message that a lot of people felt like maybe they weren’t getting heard,” Ryan told reporters. “Now, they think there’s a much better chance that they will. I think more people are inclined to speak out now.”

Ryan wouldn’t commit to staying in the House, saying he hasn’t made any decisions yet on any long-term plans. He is frequently mentioned as a possible candidate to run for Ohio governor in 2018, when Gov. John Kasich must step down due to term limits.

Asked about his next steps, Ryan joked, “I want to go, like, get a sandwich.”

In a statement released moments after the vote, Ryan pushed fellow Democrats to put a renewed focus on blue-collar voters from the Midwest.

It is too bad that the Democrats will not listen to that advice too. This is why the Democrats lost Michigan; because they decided that their pet issues were more important than the working class in this Country. This is why they lost the rust belt.

In other news, OPEC is cutting production:

The Story Via Bloomberg:

OPEC clinched a deal to curtail oil supply, confounding skeptics as the need to clear a record global crude glut — and prove the group’s credibility — brought its first cuts in eight years. Crude rose as much as 8.8 percent in London.

OPEC will reduce output to 32.5 million barrels a day, Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh told reporters in Vienna following a ministerial meeting on Wednesday. The breakthrough deal, effective January, showed an acceptance by Saudi Arabia that Iran, as a special case, can still raise production.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is ditching a pump-at-will policy introduced in 2014 to resume its traditional role as price fixer. The shift — aimed at draining a crude glut that’s pushed down prices for two years — will help revive the tattered finances of oil-producing countries and will reverberate in markets around the world, from the Canadian dollar to Nigerian bonds to U.S. shale equities.

“This should be a wake-up call for skeptics who have argued the death of OPEC,” said Amrita Sen, chief oil analyst at Energy Aspects Ltd. “The group wants to push inventories down.”

Of course, you know what this means, right? Prices will be going up again as indicated by the stock price of crude oil. Which, of course, made the stock market very happy.

The problem with that is, that you and I are going to feel it at the pump. When OPEC cuts the production of oil, the price of crude oil rises and that causes the gas stations to raise the cost of all types of fuel, gas, diesel, and other such stuff. So, as an end user, we as customers are going to feel that in the wallet.

Lastly, The Federal Debt is at $19.9 Trillion:

The federal debt moved above 19,900,000,000,000 for the first time as of the close of business, Nov. 22, the Tuesday before Thanksgiving, according to data released by the Treasury.

On that day, it rose from $19,899,004,081,493.50 to $19,907,540,739,514.52.

However, on Nov. 23, the day before Thanksgiving, the debt dropped back to $19,897,994,347,700,50, according to the Treasury.

No Treasury business was conducted on Thanksgiving.

But by the close of business on Nov. 25—“Black  Friday”–the debt had climbed back above $19,900,000,000,000, hitting 19,928,118,193,162.55.

On Monday, according to the Treasury, the federal debt continued to climb, closing the day on Nov. 28 at $19,929,184,161,352.13.

Thus, Thanksgiving week of 2016 marked the first time since the United States declared independence on July 4, 1776 that the debt of the federal government exceeded $19,900,000,000,000.

This is one thing that President-Elect Donald Trump needs to address and very quickly, when he makes it to the White House; and that doing something to bring the Federal Reserve under control and get spending under control as well. You can thank President’s Bush and Obama both, because during their eras, congress spent like drunken sailors. With the Wars and also just with reckless spending, this is where we ended up. This is why the cost of everything is so high; because of inflation, which is caused by all of the above written.

That’s all for today! See you tomorrow! Open-mouthed smile

Obama Says: "I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money"

This is unbelievable.  (H/T HotAir)

Video:

Partial Transcript:

We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.

The problem is; that was not a part of his prepared remarks, here is what he was supposed to say:

Now, we’re not doing this to punish these firms or begrudge success that’s fairly earned. We don’t want to stop them from fulfilling their responsibility to help grow our economy.

By the way, the radio host is Mark Levin, whom I normally find to be highly annoying; mainly because his voice sounds like the equivalent of dragging a cat backwards through a fan. But, I have to say, that I agree with everything that is said here.

Ed Morrissey, whom I have much respect for, points out the glaringly obvious here:

He should have stuck with the TelePrompter. The President doesn’t get to decide when people have “made enough money.” In fact, as the radio host notes, that’s a statist point of view. Furthermore, the responsibility of an entrepreneur isn’t to “grow our economy,” core or otherwise. It’s to grow his own economy. In a properly regulated capitalist system, the natural tension of self-interests create economic growth through innovation and efficient use of capital and resources.

Put simply, a free people work for themselves, not for the government. Barack Obama seems to have a problem understanding that.

But then again; Marxists usually do. Yesterday, I posted a video by Chris Matthews over at MSNBC basically saying that we should cool it with the Nazi references, when it comes to politics and the Right…and Left. The reason why I say that I agreed with that; is because comparing this President to Adolf Hitler is giving Hitler and this President way too much credit.  Nazism was started because Hitler saw the failures of socialism and sought to improve upon it; a plan the ultimately failed thankfully. This President is just a flat out socialist; he is highly against any sort of unfettered Capitalism at all. I mean, do not misunderstand me here; I am all for seeing the people that capitalized on our economy going down the toilet, having to pay the piper.  But to get in front of people and make a statement like this, is just inexcusable. This might come as a shock to those on the left; I am for Capitalism, but I am not for the reckless greed, that leads to destruction. There is a big difference.

The Bottom Line: The President needs to stick to the teleprompter. Because every time that he goes off of that teleprompter, he exposes himself and that exposure is starting to look very, very ugly.

Update: Others: RedState, Left Coast Rebel, Whiskey Fire, The TrogloPundit, Beltway Confidential, Cassy Fiano, ProfessorBainbridge.com, Neptunus Lex, Confederate Yankee, YID With LID, Animal Farm, Villainous Company, protein wisdom and Pajamas Media

Video: We Will Remember

(H/T HotAir)

Sign the Pledge at We Will Remember.

Justice: Goldman Sachs sued by the SEC for the Meltdown of 2008

Finally, some justice to these bastards:

Via the NYT:

Goldman Sachs, which emerged relatively unscathed from the financial crisis, was accused of securities fraud in a civil suit filed Friday by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which claims the bank created and sold a mortgage investment that was secretly devised to fail.

The move marks the first time that regulators have taken action against a Wall Street deal that helped investors capitalize on the collapse of the housing market. Goldman itself profited by betting against the very mortgage investments that it sold to its customers.

The suit also named Fabrice Tourre, a vice president at Goldman who helped create and sell the investment.

In a statement, Goldman called the S.E.C. accusations “completely unfounded in law and fact” and said the firm would “vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation.”

The instrument in the S.E.C. case, called Abacus 2007-AC1, was one of 25 deals that Goldman created so the bank and select clients could bet against the housing market. Those deals, which were the subject of an article in The New York Times in December, initially protected Goldman from losses when the mortgage market disintegrated and later yielded profits for the bank.

As the Abacus deal plunged in value, Goldman and a prominent hedge fund made money on their negative bets, while European investors like IKB and ABN Amro lost more than $1 billion, the S.E.C. said.

According to the complaint, Goldman created Abacus 2007-AC1 in February 2007, at the request of John A. Paulson, a prominent hedge fund manager who earned an estimated $3.7 billion in 2007 by correctly wagering that the housing bubble would burst.

Goldman let Mr. Paulson select mortgage bonds that he wanted to bet against — the ones he believed were most likely to lose value — and packaged those bonds into Abacus 2007-AC1, according to the S.E.C. complaint. Goldman then sold the Abacus deal to investors like foreign banks, pension funds, insurance companies and other hedge funds.

But the deck was stacked against the Abacus investors, the complaint contends, because the investment was filled with bonds chosen by Mr. Paulson, who is not named in the suit, as likely to default. Goldman told investors in Abacus marketing materials reviewed by The Times that the bonds would be chosen by an independent manager.

“The product was new and complex, but the deception and conflicts are old and simple,” Robert Khuzami, the director of the S.E.C.’s division of enforcement, said in a statement. “Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party.”

In response Goldman Sachs says:

The SEC’s charges are completely unfounded in law and fact and we will vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation.

Yeah, sure the accusations are unfounded. If I were a Goldman employee; I would be looking for a new job pronto.

From the SEC Press Release:

The SEC’s complaint alleges that after participating in the portfolio selection, Paulson & Co. effectively shorted the RMBS portfolio it helped select by entering into credit default swaps (CDS) with Goldman Sachs to buy protection on specific layers of the ABACUS capital structure. Given that financial short interest, Paulson & Co. had an economic incentive to select RMBS that it expected to experience credit events in the near future. Goldman Sachs did not disclose Paulson & Co.’s short position or its role in the collateral selection process in the term sheet, flip book, offering memorandum, or other marketing materials provided to investors.

The SEC alleges that Goldman Sachs Vice President Fabrice Tourre was principally responsible for ABACUS 2007-AC1. Tourre structured the transaction, prepared the marketing materials, and communicated directly with investors. Tourre allegedly knew of Paulson & Co.’s undisclosed short interest and role in the collateral selection process. In addition, he misled ACA into believing that Paulson & Co. invested approximately $200 million in the equity of ABACUS, indicating that Paulson & Co.’s interests in the collateral selection process were closely aligned with ACA’s interests. In reality, however, their interests were sharply conflicting.

According to the SEC’s complaint, the deal closed on April 26, 2007, and Paulson & Co. paid Goldman Sachs approximately $15 million for structuring and marketing ABACUS. By Oct. 24, 2007, 83 percent of the RMBS in the ABACUS portfolio had been downgraded and 17 percent were on negative watch. By Jan. 29, 2008, 99 percent of the portfolio had been downgraded.

Investors in the liabilities of ABACUS are alleged to have lost more than $1 billion.

The SEC’s complaint charges Goldman Sachs and Tourre with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. The Commission seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, prejudgment interest, and financial penalties.

Allow me to humbly submit that I hope that these bastards get exactly what is coming to them. I mean, these guy literally gambled as the stock market and by proxy; our economy went straight into the toilet.   Many people that I know; like my parents, lost a good deal of money on this stuff. Not only that, after the credit crises hit; G.M. ended up having to shed a bunch of expenses; and as a result, my parents lost their optical and dental insurance. That came as a indirect result of this Wall Street mess. So, as far as I am concerned; throw the book at these bastards.

Capitalism is one thing, heartless greed is another; and these bastards crossed that line, big time. 😡


Movie: Just in case anyone has forgotten

Just remember, Ron Paul believes in negotiating with these bastards. Therefore, he is a terrorist supporter. So are Democrats.

Not everyone is sold on the iPad

Irk! Now this is not a good thing to read:

Gadgets come and gadgets go. The iPad you buy today will be e-waste in a year or two (less, if you decide not to pay to have the battery changed for you). The real issue isn’t the capabilities of the piece of plastic you unwrap today, but the technical and social infrastructure that accompanies it.

If you want to live in the creative universe where anyone with a cool idea can make it and give it to you to run on your hardware, the iPad isn’t for you.

If you want to live in the fair world where you get to keep (or give away) the stuff you buy, the iPad isn’t for you.

If you want to write code for a platform where the only thing that determines whether you’re going to succeed with it is whether your audience loves it, the iPad isn’t for you.

via Why I won’t buy an iPad (and think you shouldn’t, either) – Boing Boing.

I have to give props to Mr. Cory Doctorow for his brutal honesty. The article is quite the good read; from a standpoint of someone, who does not even own a iPod, much less an iPhone! 😀 I mean, I am just not big into, what I like to call, useless gadgets. To me, a phone is for making phone calls. Not for sitting there and playing games and all the crap you can do on them today. I mean, there is a thing called “Sexting” which is transmitting rather nasty pictures of one’s self over the internet. We never had to contend with stuff like that when I was a kid. (I am 37, by the way…) Besides that, you would not want to be transmitting naked pictures of my body anyhow; as I am almost sure it would cause someone great problems of the psychological sort to see me naked.

Now, from a greedy capitalist’s stand point; if I had a bunch of shares with Apple right about now and I saw this article. I would be asking for this guys head on a platter. I mean, just who the hell does this grumpy old jackass think he is? I am sure that Steve Jobs is not too happy about someone dissing his product, that he’s worked his rear end off to produce. On the other hand, this is just one man’s opinion of this product and I am sure that there are many others who have written that this is an exciting product to try.

The bottom line is this; we live in a free market, capitalistic society, and that free market will decide if this product is a smashing success or if it will be a flop. That is because that Free Market allows the PEOPLE, not the Government, to choose whether a product will be sold or even successful or not. Granted, it will take effort to make this happen; promotion by the company, the sales people and even the customer to buy the product. However the point is….. the freedom of choice is there. You can choose which product you wish to own by apple, all of them or none of them at all. That is the beauty of America. The only thing stopping you is your financial situation and also possibly your personal desire to own such product. Personally, even if I did have the money to own one of these iPads, I most likely would not own one. Because I personally do not see the point in owning such a thing. I have a very nice laptop, which suits my needs perfectly. I also do not see the point in owning something like this, and then having to own a iPhone or something similar, why not just put a camera and the ability to make phone calls in it as well? Again that is wonderful power of personal freedom and choice.

Now I could yammer on here about how the some of the Democrats and the socialists want to do away with all this freedom and change the system we have here in America. But I think everyone that reads this knows my position on those subjects. It also is not lost on me, where this thing is produced and the political positions of some of the people that will own one of these things.  However, I will not bring that into this discussion here, as I am blogging about an iPad. 😉 😀 😛

Update: Others Talking about the iPad: Pajamas Media, The Confluence, Althouse, Vanity Fair, Bits, Scripting News, VentureBeat and Gawker

Update #2: Message to AllahPundit: Do you really want to be known as the dude who owns a electronic gadget, who’s name basically invokes thoughts of a Electronic Maxi-Pad or Internet Maxi-Pad? Not if you are Beta-Male. I mean, you are already being called a candy-ass Rhino as it is; you do not need anymore help. I’m just sayin’ 😛

Obama announces spending freeze, Liberals heads explode

I am sure that you have already heard about President Obama’s proposed spending freeze.  I’m sure you also have read the reaction of the Blogosphere as well. To be blunt, the left is not happy at all. To see a representation of this, check out this video of Rachel Maddow going toe to toe with Biden’s economic guy.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I have to give Rachel Maddow credit; She might be as left wing-dingy as a I am a right wing-dingy — But she sure as hell can make the Obama Administration explain themselves and defend their policies very well. So, I give her credit for that, she handled herself very well and did not give this guy a pass or go light on him. Color me quite impressed. Now, as for her politics, I disagree with it. Further more, the spending thing is nothing more than good political theater. See Rachel Maddow maintains that Obama would be pulling a Hover, sorry, that is just wrong. There are many things that have changed in way Wall Street and further more, the United States handles its affairs, since the big wall street crash of 1939 and the subsequent depression. Further more, it would help stop this out of control deficit that we have on our hands. Now, I will give her credit, she does rightly (Um, sorry, just a figure of speech) observe that this politically for the Obama Administration is a political blunder; because basically, Obama is doing what John McCain ran on in the 2008 election and lost. However, Obama’s guy explained that the cuts are not across the board. Hence my idea that it is nothing more than political slight of hand.

Further more, as much as I know this is going to make me sound like Pat Buchanan; (NTTAWT!) we need to repeal NAFTA and TAFTA and the rest of those Free Trade agreements with all these Countries. We need to go back to imposing tariffs on ALL imports from around the world. That would raise capital that our Nation so desperately needs. Now politically, that could cause us problems; but it would put a huge dent in our Nation’s debt to China. It would also encourage manufactures to build their products here in America, instead of overseas — and as an “America First” type of Conservative, that would make me extremely happy.  😀

Bottom Line: While Rachel might be good at interrogation, her hypothesis is just flat out wrong or at the least, overstated.