sikis
porno izle
porno videolar
porn videos

LONG LIVE PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA!

Speaking of Barack Obama:

Barack Obama is a racial-minority individual and does not like racism:

(I) I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention. Many people know what Bush did. And many people will know what Bush did—even until the end of the world. Bush was absolute evil. Bush is now like a fugitive from justice. Bush is a psychological prisoner. Bush often worries. In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.

(II) It is opined that Bill Clinton committed terrifying, racist, hate crimes during his presidency, and I am not free to say anything further about it.

(III) What if basically all racial-minority people would subscribe to the interpretations that George Herbert Walker Bush committed monstrous, racist, hate crimes while he was the President of the United States? It will eventually come out: it is only a matter of time.

(IV) I know it may be hard to believe. However, it is absolutely true that Ronald Wilson Reagan committed horrible, racist, hate crimes during his presidency. Numbers 32:23: “Be sure your sins will find you out.”

Respectfully Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang, J.D. Candidate
B.S., With the Highest Level of Academic Honors at Graduation, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

(I can type 90 words per minute, and there are thousands of copies on the Internet (by March 29, 2009) indicating the contents of (I), (II), (III), and (IV). And there are thousands of copies in very many countries around the world.)

“BAD NEWS FROM THE UNITED STATES: ON THE HATE CRIMES AND ETERNAL INFAMIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH, BILL CLINTON, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, AND RONALD REAGAN” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG

http://badnewsfromtheunitedstates.blogspot.com/2009/03/eternalinfamyofbush2clintonbush1reagan.html
_______________
‘If only there could be a ban against invention that bottled up memory like scent & it never faded & it never got stale.’ Off the top of my head, it came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

The Lincoln Savings led to the Keating five political scandal, in which five U.S. senators were implicated in an influence-peddling scheme. It was named for Charles Keating, who headed Lincoln Savings and made $300,000 as political contributions to them in the 1980s. Three of those senators – Alan Cranston (D-CA), Don Riegle (D-MI), and Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ) – found their political careers cut short as a result. Two others – John Glenn (D-OH) and John McCain (R-AZ) – were rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for exercising “poor judgment” for intervening with the federal regulators on behalf of Keating.[11]

Im sure McCain, part of the Keeting scandal, and Palin, moosehunter, would know what to do, right?

Before making such a foolish statement, you should research who were involved in the Keeting Scandal.It may surprise you. Or not.

We need to do whats worked before FIRST.

That’s how you do it in science.

When the proven methods don’t work, THAT’S when you explore your options.

Once you’ve tried the PROVEN way first.

We’re down in a hole, and you and people like you are standing there saying to those of us who understand this crisis and know how we got out before;

“Hey, would you guys quit playing around with that ladder and help us figure a way out of this hole?”

MapleStreet Says:

Waynebro,

reading some of your other posts, one place where we may differ.

I would hold that there is no perfect solution in a difficult situation. I’m not pushing for nationalization; I’m just not willing to take it off the table yet.

Instead, we would benefit from keeping a wide range of options open and then winnow down to the best possible solution.

That “lets explore all options” talk works good when we’ve got time on our hands. We don’t. We don’t have time for nonsense.

Just because you are not familiar with history does not mean that others aren’t, and it does not mean that the rest of us have to wait on the people like you who are speaking about things you clearly do not understand.

You’re approaching this from a partisan perspective, I can see that. That’s fine but this is a crisis and we need action now by people who know a little about our history. If you understood the RTC you’d never call it “de-facto nationalization”.

Nationalization is the fed OWNING THE BANKS.

Here the fed owns the RTC. NOT the banks.

Just like they own the FDIC. NOT the banks.

MapleStreet Says:

211. Waynebro,

Like I said before, for the RTC to work, it would require a measure of govt control so great that it would be, de facto, a nationalization.

I know what you said before and it’s still as incorrect now as it was then. It shows you don’t understand what nationalization means. And I don’t say that mean spirited. It just means you don’t understand.

We already have and have had privately owned corporations that have a ROLE in managing certain functions for the banks, like liquidation and injecting capital, extending notes, etc.

What do you think the FDIC is?

No one would call the FDIC “de-facto nationalization”.

Because its a completely different entity from the banks and it is NOT a branch of the government.

Just like the RTC, the RFC, the HLC, and other federal entities set up to ASSIST banks.

The RTC would ASSIST banks.

The RTC would NOT be a branch of the govt. It is a corporation.

And the government would own the RTC, NOT the BANKS.

Nationalization means the government OWNS THE BANKS.

Something that is against our entire system of capitalization and something that would not only allow, but NECESSITATE the government monitoring every single nickel you spend and what you spend it on.

Do you understand now?

The two things are entirely different and what you are saying is just incorrect.

reading some of your other posts, one place where we may differ.

I would hold that there is no perfect solution in a difficult situation. I’m not pushing for nationalization; I’m just not willing to take it off the table yet.

Instead, we would benefit from keeping a wide range of options open and then winnow down to the best possible solution.

Like I said before, for the RTC to work, it would require a measure of govt control so great that it would be, de facto, a nationalization.

11. Temporary nationalization is another way for the federal government to deal with large banks in danger of failing. This is where the government takes over a failing bank, cleans its balance sheets, and then quickly sells it off. In general, which do YOU think is the better way to deal with failing banks…

29 Government financial aid WITHOUT any government control of the bank, OR
56 Nationalization, where the government takes temporary control?
11 Neither/Other (VOL.)
4 (DO NOT READ) Don’t know

It appears that the Obama administration has thus far resisted nationalizing the banks because it views that option as not politically viable. Obama has argued “America’s different” than other countries which have embraced nationalization.

The Obama administration has resisted not only because its not politically viable, which its not, its political suicide, but its also just not necessary when there are other options out there. He is trying many of those options but I hope he listens to history, and brings back the RTC or something like it.

Because nationalizing the banks BEFORE we even try what worked before, is stupid. Just plain stupid.

Its not necessary, and it will damage the democratic party for years to come, plus, who among us wants the government looking at every single cent we spend?

We preach about privacy and the 4th Amendment, and we condemned Bush for looking into some of our bank accounts.

Well now the government will OWN our bank accounts!

They will not need to “look” at our transactions. They’ll be making them! They’ll see them as a function of their new job.

Every single one.

Is that what you want people? Is that what you’re all in here pleading for? You complained when Bush spied on them and now you want them to own them?

We can do the exact same thing by bringing back the RTC and the management and oversight that comes with it. It worked before and it can work again.

I’m sorry for over posting on this topic but I feel almost duty bound to do so. For some reason we are not supporting our President. He says no to nationalizing the banks, and why are we challenging him on that. He’s been in office for less than 2 lousy months.

Can’t we at least give him the benefit of the doubt for 90 days or so?

I mean come on people. Since when did we start listening to LINDSEY GRAHAM?

Or JAMES BAKER????

I mean JAMES BAKER??

Are you serious???

Lets get behind our President for a while folks, and know that some smart people are advising him and they are advising him right.

Nationalizing the banks is what the REPUBLICANS want us to do.

So if what I and others have said about how we can do the same thing just by using the RTC like we did before hasn’t convinced you its a bad idea, ….then maybe the fact that its what the republicans want, will.

James Baker and Lindsey Graham leading this charge towards nationalization, should be enough to send us running in the opposite.

“We’ve experienced great trials before. And with every test, each generation has found the capacity to not only endure, but to prosper — to discover great opportunity in the midst of great crisis.

And I am absolutely confident that is what we will do.“

President Barack Obama
March 7, 2009

MapleStreet Says:

I’m also not willing to see nationalization taken off the table. The economic flow is so vital to a country, I see a compelling national interest in protecting the USA interests. I also note that the option being discussed is a **temporary** nationalization – as the bank regains its footing, it may repurchase itself from the govt. I also see this as a possible option.

Yea, so does Lindsey Graham.

My question is why?

Well not why for Graham, I know why he wants to nationalize. So he and the RNC can label the democrats socialists and say it was on a democrats watch the day capitalism died.

That much I know.

But why you?

Why would you want to nationalize the banks, when the Resolution Trust Corp can do the exact same thing, WITHOUT nationalizing the banks?

So, of course, the conservative Republicans are against our federal government lending a helping hand, remaining true to their toxic ideological positions, making matters even worse among the widespread wreckage caused by their insane, anti-American, neo-fascist policies.

Which makes one wonder if there are any true Christians still left in the toxic, greed-mongering, war-mongering Republican Party?

Perhaps we’re so caught up in blaming the other party, that when a truly bi partisan effort appears, we shun it, in favor of our own spite for the opposition.

I don’t know.

But this article is as brilliant as it is accurate, and represents a bi partisan outreach to Americans everywhere, (originally intended for Bush, and he rejected it, what does that tell you?) to simply take confidence in our strengths, and to do what has worked before.

Bush rejected this article and mocked the notion that such government involvement was necessary. And look where that got us.

Now, people are IGNORING this article, and acting like they’ve never heard of the RTC, and instead, they are listening to LINDSEY GRAHAM, and calling for the President to nationalize the banking system.

Fortunately for now, President Obama is smarter than most of those calling for this, and refusing to give up on our centuries old system of capitalism. And he likely is fully aware that the only reason Graham and the rest want us to nationalize the banks is so they can complete their portrait of him as a socialist.

But I fear given his proclivities towards compromise, that he will succumb to the ever growing voices on the left that are joining this crusade simply because they don’t know any better. And the way I know they don’t know any better is by the fact that they keep asking, “if not nationalization, then what?”. That question demonstrates a remarkable unfamiliarity with our own recent history.

We’ve been down this hole before, and we know the way out.

Its written down for us.

But for some reason, everyone’s saying, “quit playing with that ladder over there and tell us how we’re going to get out“.

-From the Wall Street Journal-

Resurrect the Resolution Trust Corp.

By NICHOLAS F. BRADY, EUGENE A. LUDWIG and PAUL A. VOLCKER

We are in the midst of the worst financial turmoil since the Great Depression. Absent bold action, matters could well get worse.

Neither the markets nor the ordinary diet of regulatory orders, bank examinations, rating downgrades and investigations can do the job. Extraordinary emergency actions by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury to date, while necessary, are also insufficient to resolve the crisis.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giants in the mortgage market, are overextended and now under new government protection. They are not in sufficiently robust shape to meet all the market’s needs.

The fact is that the financial system needs basic, long-term reform, but right now the system is clogged with enormous amounts of toxic real-estate paper that will not repay according to its terms. This paper, in turn, is unable to support huge quantities of structured financial instruments, levered as much as 30 times.

Until there is a new mechanism in place to remove this decaying tissue from the system, the infection will spread, confidence will deteriorate further, and we will have to live through the mother of all credit contractions. This contraction will undercut the financial system, and with it, the broader economy that so far has held up reasonably well.

There is something we can do to resolve the problem. We should move decisively to create a new, temporary resolution mechanism. There are precedents — such as the Resolution Trust Corporation of the late 1980s and early 1990s, as well as the Home Owners Loan Corporation of the 1930s. This new governmental body would be able to buy up the troubled paper at fair market values, where possible keeping people in their homes and businesses operating. Like the RTC, this mechanism should have a limited life and be run by nonpartisan professional management.

Such a stabilizing mechanism would accomplish four much-needed tasks:

- First, by buying paper that otherwise is effectively not trading, it would help restore liquidity to the marketplace and help markets to function more fluidly again.

- Second, by warehousing the troubled paper for a longer period than, for instance, the Fed’s discount window typically should or could, it would allow for a more orderly liquidation of this paper, and the chance for much of it to recover a portion of its value.

- Third, by giving the agency the ability to manage mortgages with flexibility to keep people in their homes and businesses running, it should lessen the number of foreclosures. This, in turn, would help moderate the decline in real estate values and the deterioration of neighborhoods, thus supporting house prices that in fact lie at the heart of the crisis.

- Fourth, where necessary, like the RTC of the 1980s, this new mechanism can assist the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in resolving sick institutions that are so clogged with the troubled paper they cannot continue as independent entities. However, we would hope that purchasing the mortgage-related paper will minimize the need to provide emergency, short-term assistance to solvent banking institutions.

It is certainly the case that the new institution we are proposing will in the short run require serious money. That will involve a risk to the taxpayer; but the institution, administered by professionals, means that ultimate gains to the taxpayer are also possible.

Moreover, a failure to act boldly in the fashion we are suggesting would cost the taxpayer and the country far more. The pathology of this crisis is that unless you get ahead of it and deal with it from strength, it devours the weakest link in the chain and then moves on to devour the next weakest link. A deteriorating financial system, diminished economic activity, loss of jobs and loss of revenues to the government is enormously costly. And the cost to our citizens’ well-being is incalculable.

Crisis times require stern measures. America has done well in the past to face up to economic turmoil, take strong measures, and put our problems behind us. RTC-like mechanisms have worked well in past crises. Now is the time to take a similarly forceful step.

The American economy still has enormous underlying strengths. What we need, and in part are proposing, is a road map to financial stability.

Mr. Brady was U.S. Treasury secretary from 1988-1993. Mr. Ludwig was U.S. comptroller of the currency from 1993 to 1998. Mr. Volcker was chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979-1987.

- WALL STREET JOURNAL