logo

Update:Glenn Beck Says “Pay No Attention to AIG”

logo

I am listening to Glenn Beck’s insider radio podcast. He is saying that something much more important than the AIG bonuses is coming down the pike—just within the last few hours. I don’t have all the details yet. Will post details when I get them. It has to do with the Federal Reserve.

Update:

He hasn’t said specifically what the Fed did. But he said it was yesterday. So this link may be what he is talking about. I haven’t read it completely yet.

More later.

————————————————————————————————————————-

I think this may be the quote from the press release of the Federal Reserve that has sent up red flags:

“the Committee decided today to increase the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet further by purchasing up to an additional $750 billion of agency mortgage-backed securities, bringing its total purchases of these securities to up to $1.25 trillion this year, and to increase its purchases of agency debt this year by up to $100 billion to a total of up to $200 billion.  Moreover, to help improve conditions in private credit markets, the Committee decided to purchase up to $300 billion of longer-term Treasury securities over the next six months.”

I am not an expert on these things but that quote sounds ominous to me for some reason. I am sure Glenn will break it down. He is also going to cover this on his tv show on Fox News tonight.

8 Responses to “Update:Glenn Beck Says “Pay No Attention to AIG””

  1. Sara, that video is riddled with mistakes. I just saw it on facebook. Almost everything he says about Social Security is wrong.

    I’m all for protesting government excess, but there is no reason to lie. The truth is bad enough.

  2. DJ says:

    I just looked up Senate Resolution 511. I see the wording “born to American citizens” but this resolution was passed to confirm John McCain’s eligibility, not Barack Obama’s. Would this resolution be sufficient to challenge Obama’s eligibility? The resolution also states that the term “natural born citizen” is not defined in the Constitution. Is there any legal precedent for ousting a sitting President based on lack of natural born citizenship? And, even if there is a legal standing in this issue, I can only imagine in my wildest nightmare what would happen if this path were seriously pursued. Who would pursue it and where would it lead us as a nation? Who would be President? John McCain? I don’t know, at this point, if that would lead us away from socialism or continue us on the path toward socialism, not to mention the possible blood-bath that would ensue between the citizens of the United States themselves. This sounds like a keg of TNT with a short fuse. How do you see it playing out, Stock?

  3. Stock says:

    There are going to be many many issues which are going to arise reflecting the Obama administrations heavily Socialist tendencies. The point is that the challenge must be to cure the disease and not just symptoms. As many of you know, Obama is Constitutionally ineligible under Art II Sec 5 which reqires the President to be a “natural born citizen”. On 4-30-08 the Senate as part of Resolution 511 provided the definition as being, “born to American citizens”, and as you know Mr. Obama was born of a Kenyan father and is therefore Constitutionally ineligible to be President. Unfortunately, due to a massive level of misfeasance due to fear, political correctness, ignorance or just plain negligence our legislators and government officials allowed the ballot process to proceed so that we are now faced with the uphill battle to fight the policies of an (ineligible) but sitting President. Shouldnt some consideration be made towards pursuit of the appropriate legal remedies to resolve the problem in its entirety?

  4. DJ says:

    Yeah Craig, Glenn is crazy like a fox!

  5. katablog says:

    What that means is that the Fed just printed more money that we don’t have.

    Glenn may be a “little out there” but he’s not wrong.

  6. Craig says:

    Glen is insane i cant believe people actually listen to this nut job

  7. Brooke says:

    And he’s right. The bonuses are required to be given because the bailout “law” requires that all contracts entered into before the bailout be honored. For Congress and the White House to be outraged and attempt to do something to block or recover the payments is for them to disregard the law that they wrote and passed. They want us to be outraged at anything but them and the massive spending that they are doing. Comparatively, the AIG bonuses are only a drop in the bucket.

Leave a Reply

logo
logo
Paid for by Liberty First PAC
Not endorsed by any candidate or campaign committee
Close
E-mail It