Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Investigate This! By Ann Coulter
The Republicans are back in charge in the House of Representatives this week, and not a moment too soon!
Forget "stimulus" bills and "shovel-ready" bailouts (for public school teachers, who need shovels for what they're teaching), the current financial crisis, which is the second Great Depression, was created slowly and methodically by Democrat hacks running Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the past 18 years.
As even Obama's treasury secretary admitted in congressional hearings, "Fannie and Freddie were a core part of what went wrong in our system." And if it's something Tim Geithner noticed, it's probably something that's fairly obvious.
Goo-goo liberals with federal titles pressured banks into making absurd loans to high-risk borrowers -- demanding, for example, that the banks accept unemployment benefits as collateral. Then Fannie repackaged the bad loans as "prime mortgages" and sold them to banks, thus poisoning the entire financial market with hidden bad loans.
Believe it or not, the loans went belly up, banks went under, and the Democrats used taxpayer money to bail out their friends on Wall Street.
So far, Fannie and Freddie's default on loans that should never have been made has cost the taxpayer tens of billions of dollars. Some estimates say the final cost to the taxpayer will be more than $1 trillion. To put that number in perspective, for a trillion dollars, President Obama could pass another stupid, useless stimulus package that doesn't create a single real job.
Obama's own Federal Housing Finance Agency reported recently that by 2014, Freddie and Fannie will cost taxpayers between $221 billion to $363 billion.
Over and over again, Republicans tried to rein in the politically correct policies being foisted on mortgage lenders by Fannie Mae, only to be met by a Praetorian Guard of Democrats howling that Republicans hated the poor.
In 2003, Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee wrote a bill to tighten the lending regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Every single Democrat on the committee voted against it.
In the House, Barney Frank angrily proclaimed that Fannie Mae was "just fine."
Rep. William Clay, D-Mo., accused Republicans of going on a "witch hunt" against Fannie Mae and attempting a "political lynching of Franklin Raines" (which, in a game of "bad metaphor Scrabble" would have been a double word score).
Fannie was pressuring banks to write mortgages with no money down and no proof of income. What could go wrong?
In 2004, Bush's White House Chief Economist Gregory Mankiw warned that Fannie was creating "systemic risk for our financial system." In response, Barney Frank went to a champagne brunch with his partner "just because."
Democrats saw nothing of concern in the Fannie debacle. Bad mortgages don't contain sodium, do they? They don't engage in "hate speech." And they don't emit carbon dioxide. There was nothing to catch a Democrat's eye.
In 2005, when the housing bubble burst, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., introduced a bill allowing Fannie Mae to buy up even more schlock mortgages, apparently reasoning that if owning some toxic mortgages is bad, owning lots of them must be better!
He accused Republican opponents of his suicidal bill of being against affordable housing. (And that is a specific example of how liberals love the poor so much, they promoted policies to create millions more of them.)
As late as 2008, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who had received more than $133,000 in political contributions from Fannie Mae, called Fannie "fundamentally strong" and "in good shape" -- which is the kind of thing the Politburo used to say about Yuri Andropov right after he died.
(Amazingly, Dodd was only the second most embarrassing Democrat to run for president in 2008, but only because John Edwards was also running that year.)
As the titanic losses were racking up, Fannie Mae's operators, Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick, disguised the catastrophe by orchestrating a $5 billion accounting fraud -- all the while continuing to pressure banks to make absurd, politically correct loans and denouncing Republicans as enemies of the poor.
In Gorelick's defense, at least when she was wrecking the economy, she wasn't able to wreck national security by building any more walls between the FBI and the CIA.
Have you ever noticed that whenever there's a major calamity in this country, the name "Jamie Gorelick" always pops up? I think I'll pull some articles about the Great Chicago Fire from Nexis to see if there was a "Gorelick" living on Catherine O'Leary's block.
As Peter Schweizer points out in his magnificent book "Architects of Ruin," which everyone should read, Enron's accounting fraud was a paltry $567 million -- and it didn't bring down the entire financial system. Those involved in the Enron manipulations went to prison. Raines and Gorelick not only didn't go to jail, they walked away with multimillion-dollar payouts, courtesy of the taxpayer.
(Here's more fascinating Jamie Gorelick trivia: That giant wall she built between the FBI and the CIA, making 9/11 possible? It was financed with a risky loan from Fannie Mae.)
Under the Democrats' 2010 "Financial Reform" bill (written by Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Goldman Sachs), Raines keeps his $90 million, Jamie Gorelick keeps her $26.4 million, and Goldman keeps its $12 billion from the AIG bailout.
Let's get it back. Twelve billion, one hundred and sixteen point four million dollars might not sound like a lot to you, but it starts to add up.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41005
Forget "stimulus" bills and "shovel-ready" bailouts (for public school teachers, who need shovels for what they're teaching), the current financial crisis, which is the second Great Depression, was created slowly and methodically by Democrat hacks running Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the past 18 years.
As even Obama's treasury secretary admitted in congressional hearings, "Fannie and Freddie were a core part of what went wrong in our system." And if it's something Tim Geithner noticed, it's probably something that's fairly obvious.
Goo-goo liberals with federal titles pressured banks into making absurd loans to high-risk borrowers -- demanding, for example, that the banks accept unemployment benefits as collateral. Then Fannie repackaged the bad loans as "prime mortgages" and sold them to banks, thus poisoning the entire financial market with hidden bad loans.
Believe it or not, the loans went belly up, banks went under, and the Democrats used taxpayer money to bail out their friends on Wall Street.
So far, Fannie and Freddie's default on loans that should never have been made has cost the taxpayer tens of billions of dollars. Some estimates say the final cost to the taxpayer will be more than $1 trillion. To put that number in perspective, for a trillion dollars, President Obama could pass another stupid, useless stimulus package that doesn't create a single real job.
Obama's own Federal Housing Finance Agency reported recently that by 2014, Freddie and Fannie will cost taxpayers between $221 billion to $363 billion.
Over and over again, Republicans tried to rein in the politically correct policies being foisted on mortgage lenders by Fannie Mae, only to be met by a Praetorian Guard of Democrats howling that Republicans hated the poor.
In 2003, Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee wrote a bill to tighten the lending regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Every single Democrat on the committee voted against it.
In the House, Barney Frank angrily proclaimed that Fannie Mae was "just fine."
Rep. William Clay, D-Mo., accused Republicans of going on a "witch hunt" against Fannie Mae and attempting a "political lynching of Franklin Raines" (which, in a game of "bad metaphor Scrabble" would have been a double word score).
Fannie was pressuring banks to write mortgages with no money down and no proof of income. What could go wrong?
In 2004, Bush's White House Chief Economist Gregory Mankiw warned that Fannie was creating "systemic risk for our financial system." In response, Barney Frank went to a champagne brunch with his partner "just because."
Democrats saw nothing of concern in the Fannie debacle. Bad mortgages don't contain sodium, do they? They don't engage in "hate speech." And they don't emit carbon dioxide. There was nothing to catch a Democrat's eye.
In 2005, when the housing bubble burst, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., introduced a bill allowing Fannie Mae to buy up even more schlock mortgages, apparently reasoning that if owning some toxic mortgages is bad, owning lots of them must be better!
He accused Republican opponents of his suicidal bill of being against affordable housing. (And that is a specific example of how liberals love the poor so much, they promoted policies to create millions more of them.)
As late as 2008, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who had received more than $133,000 in political contributions from Fannie Mae, called Fannie "fundamentally strong" and "in good shape" -- which is the kind of thing the Politburo used to say about Yuri Andropov right after he died.
(Amazingly, Dodd was only the second most embarrassing Democrat to run for president in 2008, but only because John Edwards was also running that year.)
As the titanic losses were racking up, Fannie Mae's operators, Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick, disguised the catastrophe by orchestrating a $5 billion accounting fraud -- all the while continuing to pressure banks to make absurd, politically correct loans and denouncing Republicans as enemies of the poor.
In Gorelick's defense, at least when she was wrecking the economy, she wasn't able to wreck national security by building any more walls between the FBI and the CIA.
Have you ever noticed that whenever there's a major calamity in this country, the name "Jamie Gorelick" always pops up? I think I'll pull some articles about the Great Chicago Fire from Nexis to see if there was a "Gorelick" living on Catherine O'Leary's block.
As Peter Schweizer points out in his magnificent book "Architects of Ruin," which everyone should read, Enron's accounting fraud was a paltry $567 million -- and it didn't bring down the entire financial system. Those involved in the Enron manipulations went to prison. Raines and Gorelick not only didn't go to jail, they walked away with multimillion-dollar payouts, courtesy of the taxpayer.
(Here's more fascinating Jamie Gorelick trivia: That giant wall she built between the FBI and the CIA, making 9/11 possible? It was financed with a risky loan from Fannie Mae.)
Under the Democrats' 2010 "Financial Reform" bill (written by Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Goldman Sachs), Raines keeps his $90 million, Jamie Gorelick keeps her $26.4 million, and Goldman keeps its $12 billion from the AIG bailout.
Let's get it back. Twelve billion, one hundred and sixteen point four million dollars might not sound like a lot to you, but it starts to add up.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41005
Morning Bell: Tea Party Congress Returns to Constitution
Shortly after noon today, all 435 Members of the House of Representatives will raise their right hands and take the following oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
This constitutionally mandated oath plays two important roles. First, by requiring all Members of Congress—as well as state legislators and all executive and judicial officers—to support the Constitution, the “Oaths Clause” obliges them to observe the limits of their authority and act in accordance with the powers delegated to them by the Constitution. Second, contrary to what leftist legal reporters believe, the oath serves as a solemn reminder that the duty to uphold the Constitution is not the final responsibility of the courts but is shared by Congress and the President as co-equal branches of the United States government.
To help Members better fulfill their oath, the House will not only read the Constitution aloud on Thursday but also adopt a rule requiring that every bill cite what specific provisions of the Constitution empower Congress to enact it. Hopefully these measures will force some Members to re-familiarize themselves with our nation’s governing document, because as the last two years demonstrated, the last Congress sorely needed the lesson:
•In September 2009, then-Majority Whip James Clyburn (D–SC) told Fox News: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.”
•In October 2009, a reporter asked then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–CA): “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Speaker Pelosi shook her head dismissing the question: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
•In April 2010, then-Representative Phil Hare (D–IL) responded to constituents asking about Obamacare: “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this to be honest.”
•In August 2010, Representative Pete Stark (D–CA) told constituents asking if the Constitution limits Congress in any way: “The federal government can, yes, do most anything in this country.”
There are many reasons the American people soundly rejected the 111th Congress at the polls last November, but the flippant attitude that many in the last Congress took toward fulfilling their oath to defend the Constitution is perhaps the most troubling.
The 112th Congress has a lot of work to do. Shortly after the November elections, The Heritage Foundation released A Checklist for Congress calling on the 112th to honor the voters who elected them to Congress by (1) freezing and cutting spending, (2) repealing Obamacare, (3) stopping the Obama tax increases, (4) protecting America, and (5) getting control of government. That last item is perhaps the most significant, and it is exactly why the 112th’s return to the Constitution is so important. Our Constitution is a document of limited, enumerated powers, forming the architecture of our liberty. It is the way “We the people” control the government.
But not everyone sees it this way. The New York Times editorializes this morning: “There is a similar air of vacuous fundamentalism in requiring that every bill cite the Constitutional power given to Congress to enact it.” We’ll let President Abraham Lincoln respond:
Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap—let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;—let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/05/morning-bell-tea-party-congress-returns-to-constitution/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
This constitutionally mandated oath plays two important roles. First, by requiring all Members of Congress—as well as state legislators and all executive and judicial officers—to support the Constitution, the “Oaths Clause” obliges them to observe the limits of their authority and act in accordance with the powers delegated to them by the Constitution. Second, contrary to what leftist legal reporters believe, the oath serves as a solemn reminder that the duty to uphold the Constitution is not the final responsibility of the courts but is shared by Congress and the President as co-equal branches of the United States government.
To help Members better fulfill their oath, the House will not only read the Constitution aloud on Thursday but also adopt a rule requiring that every bill cite what specific provisions of the Constitution empower Congress to enact it. Hopefully these measures will force some Members to re-familiarize themselves with our nation’s governing document, because as the last two years demonstrated, the last Congress sorely needed the lesson:
•In September 2009, then-Majority Whip James Clyburn (D–SC) told Fox News: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.”
•In October 2009, a reporter asked then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–CA): “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Speaker Pelosi shook her head dismissing the question: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
•In April 2010, then-Representative Phil Hare (D–IL) responded to constituents asking about Obamacare: “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this to be honest.”
•In August 2010, Representative Pete Stark (D–CA) told constituents asking if the Constitution limits Congress in any way: “The federal government can, yes, do most anything in this country.”
There are many reasons the American people soundly rejected the 111th Congress at the polls last November, but the flippant attitude that many in the last Congress took toward fulfilling their oath to defend the Constitution is perhaps the most troubling.
The 112th Congress has a lot of work to do. Shortly after the November elections, The Heritage Foundation released A Checklist for Congress calling on the 112th to honor the voters who elected them to Congress by (1) freezing and cutting spending, (2) repealing Obamacare, (3) stopping the Obama tax increases, (4) protecting America, and (5) getting control of government. That last item is perhaps the most significant, and it is exactly why the 112th’s return to the Constitution is so important. Our Constitution is a document of limited, enumerated powers, forming the architecture of our liberty. It is the way “We the people” control the government.
But not everyone sees it this way. The New York Times editorializes this morning: “There is a similar air of vacuous fundamentalism in requiring that every bill cite the Constitutional power given to Congress to enact it.” We’ll let President Abraham Lincoln respond:
Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap—let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;—let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/05/morning-bell-tea-party-congress-returns-to-constitution/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
The Patriot Post Chronicle Highlights
Editorial Exegesis
Boehner to have the Constitution read aloud "For the last decade, presidents and Congresses representing both major political parties have caused federal spending, regulation, and debt to explode as never before, with a result that the central government is in truly dire financial shape even as its power to control the most minute details of American daily life has never been greater. ... [W]e think incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner has been unjustly criticized in some, mostly liberal, precincts for his decision to open the 112th Congress with a public reading of the Constitution. Aside from the sad fact that the reading will likely be the closest encounter many lawmakers have ever had with the actual words of the document, the occasion will be a happy one because it will also provide citizens across the country with an opportunity to join Congress in examining and discussing the words of our founding document. Comparing the words of the Constitution to the actions of our leaders in recent years will surely make clear the enduring wisdom of James Madison's warning that 'there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.' Talking seriously about this condition is the first step to remedying it, just as Madison and the rest of the Founders intended." --The Washington Examiner
UPRIGHT
"[T]he 13 'Republicans' who helped provide Barack Obama and Harry Reid with the super majority required to pass START, they were Corker and Alexander from Tennessee, Snowe and Collins from Maine, Brown (Massachusetts), Bennett (Utah), Murkowski (Alaska), Voinovich (Ohio), Cochran (Mississippi), Gregg (New Hampshire), Isakson (Georgia), Johanns ( Nebraska) and Lugar, the pride of Indiana. The reason that the vote was 71-26 when there are 100 members of the Senate was because three Republicans, Bond (Missouri), Bunning (Kentucky) and Brownback (Kansas), all decided to play hooky because they apparently had more important things to do than vote on a major arms treaty. I'm sure that Obama's only regret is that he didn't ask Santa for Cap & Trade, card checks and the opportunity to make Ramadan a national holiday, while he was at it." --columnist Burt Prelutsky
The Demo-gogues
Executive overreach: "Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. I'm going to be looking for other means to address this problem." --Barack Obama on looking for ways to bypass Congress to fight climate change
READ THE CHRONICLE: http://patriotpost.us/edition/2011/01/05/chronicle/
Boehner to have the Constitution read aloud "For the last decade, presidents and Congresses representing both major political parties have caused federal spending, regulation, and debt to explode as never before, with a result that the central government is in truly dire financial shape even as its power to control the most minute details of American daily life has never been greater. ... [W]e think incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner has been unjustly criticized in some, mostly liberal, precincts for his decision to open the 112th Congress with a public reading of the Constitution. Aside from the sad fact that the reading will likely be the closest encounter many lawmakers have ever had with the actual words of the document, the occasion will be a happy one because it will also provide citizens across the country with an opportunity to join Congress in examining and discussing the words of our founding document. Comparing the words of the Constitution to the actions of our leaders in recent years will surely make clear the enduring wisdom of James Madison's warning that 'there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.' Talking seriously about this condition is the first step to remedying it, just as Madison and the rest of the Founders intended." --The Washington Examiner
UPRIGHT
"[T]he 13 'Republicans' who helped provide Barack Obama and Harry Reid with the super majority required to pass START, they were Corker and Alexander from Tennessee, Snowe and Collins from Maine, Brown (Massachusetts), Bennett (Utah), Murkowski (Alaska), Voinovich (Ohio), Cochran (Mississippi), Gregg (New Hampshire), Isakson (Georgia), Johanns ( Nebraska) and Lugar, the pride of Indiana. The reason that the vote was 71-26 when there are 100 members of the Senate was because three Republicans, Bond (Missouri), Bunning (Kentucky) and Brownback (Kansas), all decided to play hooky because they apparently had more important things to do than vote on a major arms treaty. I'm sure that Obama's only regret is that he didn't ask Santa for Cap & Trade, card checks and the opportunity to make Ramadan a national holiday, while he was at it." --columnist Burt Prelutsky
The Demo-gogues
Executive overreach: "Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. I'm going to be looking for other means to address this problem." --Barack Obama on looking for ways to bypass Congress to fight climate change
READ THE CHRONICLE: http://patriotpost.us/edition/2011/01/05/chronicle/
NEWS FROM FAIR TAX NATION
Happy New Year to everyone!
This is going to be an exciting year for the FairTax!!! With tax reform on the horizon for the upcoming congress we have a good chance to bring the FairTax to the floor of the House for a vote.
First, if you have not seen the home page of Fair Tax Nation, there is a video of the press conference in DC on Congressman Linder's (FairTax sponsor) retirement from Congress. Congressman Linder has passed the FairTax torch to Congressman-Elect Rob Woodall. Rob has made it his goal to bring on more cosponsors to the FairTax than we have ever had in the past.
Second we have the Storm the Hill event in DC on February 9. For this event we visit congressional offices educating Congressmen and staff about the FairTax. We hope you can join us in DC. If you can not go to DC, you can Storm the Hill with us by contacting your Congressmen to educate them about the FairTax.
Please remember to always ask them to cosponsor the FairTax bill
Next on February 10, 11, & 12 we have a booth at CPAC in Washington, DC. CPAC is the largest gathering of Conservatives in the nation. It has been named as the 4th most important event in DC.
Then on February 25, 26, & 27 is the American Policy Summit - Tea Party Patriots event in Phoenix, AZ
We will have a booth and participate in a FairTax versus Flat Tax debate.
As you can see we have a lot going on! We need your help by attending these events or making a donation to fund our booths and provide FairTax materials to thousands of people who may or may not know about the FairTax. You will find donation information on our home page. http://www.fairtaxnation.com/
Remember here at Fair Tax Nation we are all volunteers so we need you to volunteer your talents to move the FairTax on to the next level!
Questions? Just ask!
Marilyn
Visit FairTax Nation at: http://fairtaxnation.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network
This is going to be an exciting year for the FairTax!!! With tax reform on the horizon for the upcoming congress we have a good chance to bring the FairTax to the floor of the House for a vote.
First, if you have not seen the home page of Fair Tax Nation, there is a video of the press conference in DC on Congressman Linder's (FairTax sponsor) retirement from Congress. Congressman Linder has passed the FairTax torch to Congressman-Elect Rob Woodall. Rob has made it his goal to bring on more cosponsors to the FairTax than we have ever had in the past.
Second we have the Storm the Hill event in DC on February 9. For this event we visit congressional offices educating Congressmen and staff about the FairTax. We hope you can join us in DC. If you can not go to DC, you can Storm the Hill with us by contacting your Congressmen to educate them about the FairTax.
Please remember to always ask them to cosponsor the FairTax bill
Next on February 10, 11, & 12 we have a booth at CPAC in Washington, DC. CPAC is the largest gathering of Conservatives in the nation. It has been named as the 4th most important event in DC.
Then on February 25, 26, & 27 is the American Policy Summit - Tea Party Patriots event in Phoenix, AZ
We will have a booth and participate in a FairTax versus Flat Tax debate.
As you can see we have a lot going on! We need your help by attending these events or making a donation to fund our booths and provide FairTax materials to thousands of people who may or may not know about the FairTax. You will find donation information on our home page. http://www.fairtaxnation.com/
Remember here at Fair Tax Nation we are all volunteers so we need you to volunteer your talents to move the FairTax on to the next level!
Questions? Just ask!
Marilyn
Visit FairTax Nation at: http://fairtaxnation.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network
Norman Sanderson Takes Oath of Office in New Bern
Norman Sanderson was sworn in as a State Representative on January 3 in New Bern.
The Republican will be replacing Democrat Alice Underhill when the state legislature meets, now with a Republican Majority.
http://www.examiner.com/craven-county-elections-2010-in-raleigh/norman-takes-oath-of-office-new-bern
The Republican will be replacing Democrat Alice Underhill when the state legislature meets, now with a Republican Majority.
http://www.examiner.com/craven-county-elections-2010-in-raleigh/norman-takes-oath-of-office-new-bern
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Love him or hate him ... Limbaugh Nailed This One
Tue, January 4, 2011
A sad state of affairs! I bet you didn't know this, but it is factual and sad at the same time. Our men and women in the service of their Country deserve better. I am sure you will agree when you read this. Love him or loathe him, he nailed this one right on the head..........
By Rush Limbaugh:
I think the vast differences in compensation between victims of the September 11 casualty and those who die serving our country in Uniform are profound. No one is really talking about it either, because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11. Well, I can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country. If you lost a family member in the September 11 attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million..
If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable.
Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt.
Keep in mind that some of the people who are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough. Their deaths were tragic, but for most, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Soldiers put themselves in harms way FOR ALL OF US, and they and their families know the dangers.. (Actually, soldiers are put in harms way by politicians and commanding officers.)
We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11 families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well.
You see where this is going, don't you? Folks, this is part and parcel of over 50 years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad. Every time a pay raise comes up for the military, they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low-rent housing. Make sense?
However, our own US Congress voted themselves a raise. Many of you don't know that they only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month. And most are now equal to being millionaires plus. They do not receive Social Security on retirement because they didn't have to pay into the system. If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7, they may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed them in harm's way receives a pension of $15,000 per month.
I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and daughters who are now fighting.
"When do we finally do something about this?" If this doesn't seem fair to you, it is time to forward this to as many people as you can.
A sad state of affairs! I bet you didn't know this, but it is factual and sad at the same time. Our men and women in the service of their Country deserve better. I am sure you will agree when you read this. Love him or loathe him, he nailed this one right on the head..........
By Rush Limbaugh:
I think the vast differences in compensation between victims of the September 11 casualty and those who die serving our country in Uniform are profound. No one is really talking about it either, because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11. Well, I can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country. If you lost a family member in the September 11 attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million..
If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable.
Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt.
Keep in mind that some of the people who are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough. Their deaths were tragic, but for most, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Soldiers put themselves in harms way FOR ALL OF US, and they and their families know the dangers.. (Actually, soldiers are put in harms way by politicians and commanding officers.)
We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11 families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well.
You see where this is going, don't you? Folks, this is part and parcel of over 50 years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad. Every time a pay raise comes up for the military, they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low-rent housing. Make sense?
However, our own US Congress voted themselves a raise. Many of you don't know that they only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month. And most are now equal to being millionaires plus. They do not receive Social Security on retirement because they didn't have to pay into the system. If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7, they may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed them in harm's way receives a pension of $15,000 per month.
I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and daughters who are now fighting.
"When do we finally do something about this?" If this doesn't seem fair to you, it is time to forward this to as many people as you can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
