This is merely a place where I can express myself. I will post news articles, points of faith, stories, fellow blogger posts (with due credit of course), and generally anything I feel is worthwhile.
(Sorry, folks, Bloomberg doesn’t allow embedding from YouTube)
Please understand that it is not my intention to force you to sit through this entire thing unless you feel like being a glutton for liberal lies and rear-end raping. However, this was the only clip I could find with what I wanted you all to hear.
One of my state Representatives, Jim Clyburn, D-SC, the House Majority Whip, gave props to several democrats involved. The thing that struck me was someone’s urging him to mention a name of someone who isn’t even in the House of Representatives. And that this person be given leadership credit. So pay attention to the following time indices and Dow numbers:
At the start of the clip the Dow was at +128.68
Clyburn’s comments start at 07:33 into the clip where the Dow was at +73.19
At about 08:40, a female voice urged Clyburn to mention Barack Obama. This was to ensure that his messiahness would be revered as the leading “executive” on this issue. What a shock of crit!!!
Of course Clyburn was going to mention Obama, but obviously the libturd pawns of the Oompelosi didn’t have confidence from her so that his messiahness would get presidential brownie points.
At the end of the clip the Dow was at +44.12.
The Dow dropped 84.56 points during the Democrats announcement.
Now the question I have is: What exactly did Barack Obama do to lead the House in this. I though Nancy Pelosi was their leader there. Can anyone please comment and tell me what Obama did that made such a big difference in the vote.
Barack Obama himself said, in a recent interview, that he wouldn’t have sway with any GOP Congressional members, so how could he have led the House.
Barack is supposed to be the one that unites this country for change. Well, a loss of 84.5 points on the Dow in TEN MINUTES is not the change I want from Congress or its exalted leader, Barack Hussein Obama.
AIM COLUMN BY CLIFF KINCAID SEPTEMBER 28, 2008 (article condensed)
With one socialist “bailout” bill apparently on the way to passage by Congress, two more are pending―both of them sponsored by Senator Barack Obama. One is the Jubilee Act, which would cancel as much as $75 billion worth of Third World debt, and the other is the Global Poverty Act, which would cost an estimated $845 billion. Total potential cost: $920 billion.
Meanwhile, in an appearance on the Fox News Channel on Sunday, Republican Rep. Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan called the $700 billion plan now before Congress “Fleece in our time,” a reference to Neville Chamberlain’s “Peace in our time” appeasement deal with Hitler that eventually plunged the world into a World War. The House is scheduled to vote on the measure on Monday.
Calling the deal “Wall Street socialism,” McCotter added, “Now the Wall-Street crony capitalists have put a 700-pound billion dollar bag of dung on taxpayers’ doorsteps, rung the bell, and expect you to thank them when you answer it. I think the American people will believe otherwise.”
But consider what’s going to happen when the American taxpayers realize that more and larger bailouts are on the way.
Commentators such as Andrew C. McCarthy have pointed out that Obama’s Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) would cost even more than the $700 billion that is being proposed as part of a socialist takeover of the U.S. financial sector. Obama’s bill passed the House and Senator Joe Biden’s Foreign Relations Committee and now awaits full Senate action.
But the Jubilee Act (S. 2166), which is co-sponsored in the Senate by Barack Obama, has also passed the House and awaits Senate action.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain is not an official sponsor of the Jubilee Act or Obama’s Global Poverty Act. But the pressure is mounting on McCain, as well as running mate Sarah Palin, to endorse the legislation.
While the Global Poverty Act has started getting more serious attention, the implications of passage of the Jubilee Act have been generally ignored. Yet, a representative of the Treasury Department, Assistant Secretary For International Affairs Clay Lowery, testified at a Senate hearing in April that “The Jubilee Bill represents an unfunded international mandate to fully cancel roughly $75 billion worth of debts owed by the potentially eligible countries to official bilateral and multilateral creditors.” This is on top of the $110 billion in debt reduction already being granted to various countries, he said.
Also bowing to the left, before he came to Washington, D.C. to work on the $700 billion federal takeover plan for the U.S. financial sector, McCain had taken time to attend and speak at the “Clinton Global Initiative,” a campaign underwritten by big companies and rich individuals to promote the pet causes of the disgraced former president. One of these causes has been an international tax on airline tickets to generate funds to fight HIV/AIDS.
Obama, as well as Bono, also spoke at the Clinton event.
On September 25, after conversing with McCain and Palin, Bono and his collaborators were scheduled to hold a “United Nations emergency summit on the Millennium Development Goals.” Bono’s ONE organization described them as “eight goals” that were “drawn from the targets contained in the Millennium Declaration that was adopted by 189 nations―and signed by 147 heads of state and governments during the UN Millennium Summit in September 2000.”
Similar language is incorporated in Obama’s Global Poverty Act, which has passed the House and Senator Joe Biden’s Foreign Relations Committee, and now awaits full Senate action. As AIM has documented repeatedly, a careful analysis of the legislation, as well as the follow-up 2002 U.N. Financing for Development Conference, which was designed to make the “goals” into a reality, leads to the conclusion that the U.S. will have to provide $845 billion in increased foreign aid spending, generated if necessary by a global tax on the American people.
At the Clinton Global Initiative meeting, Obama reaffirmed a “commitment” to “embracing the Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015.” He added, “This will take more resources from the United States, and as President I will increase our foreign assistance to provide them.”
Once again, observers say, the McCain staffers seem to have tried to strip the Alaska Governor of her conservative core beliefs.
For his part, if McCain backs a financial bailout of the rest of the world, on top of an endorsement of the $700 billion Wall Street socialist scheme, some conservatives are saying that they may start looking elsewhere for a presidential ticket to support.
One place some may look is Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, who has already been endorsed for the presidency by Rep. Ron Paul. Baldwin, calling the Wall Street plan a “fraud” on the American people, has called for “No Amnesty” for the Wall Street “banksters.”
Jim DeMint, who has a successful business background, seems to be the only one who is addressing this bailout with any semblance of logic. Vierra didn't spur this debate well at all and gave Schumer the go ahead to tout his desire for another great depression. And Schumer was way out of line with the "Hoover" remark.
And notice that DeMint is shown as being in D.C. and Schumer is on Capitol Hill. Another biased way to show that one guy is in the trenches and the other guy isn't. But is is NBC after all so I shouldn't be shocked.
The Democrats will not be satisfied unless Americans are miserable and they get to baloon government with a facade of philanthropy. Yet, the innards of it will be nothing but chitterlings and fatback. (And no that is not a racist remark)
