Since Jun 10, 2005
MG Vernon Chong, USAFR, forwarded:
This WAR is for REAL!
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
2 Why were we attacked?
3. Who were the attackers?
4 What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.
5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
6. So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.
We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them. We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage.. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims.
If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?
The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to.. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.
And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.
And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.
Can this be for real?
The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years
Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world.
We are the last bastion of defense.
We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant..' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!
If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.
And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.
And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.
They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?
I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.
After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.
Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world!
For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
You can read about them here: Albino Deer
Here's a fun ~but aggravating Ripleys puzzle ~Try it!
Try this math puzzle:
1. Grab a calculator. (You wont be able to do this in your head)
Do you recognize the answer?
Here is another interesting Quiz--testing your Senses.
Here is a Mindless fun little match game:
Smack the Penguin and get rid of your frustration!!
Ripleys puzzle solution:
Air Sack Mites ... Air Sack Rupture ... Allergic Alveolitis ... Anatomy (Avian) ... Aspergillosis ... Avian Brain Disease ... Avian Flu ... Avian Goiter (Thyroid Hyperplasia or Dysplasia) ... Avian Gout ... Avian Influenza ... Avian Pox ... Avian Tuberculosis (Mycobacterium avium) Bacterial Infections ... Baldness ... Beak & Feather Disease ... Beak Problems / Deformities ... Bird Fancier's / Breeders Lungs (Allergic Alvolitis) ... Bird Flu ... Bite Wounds ... Bleeding ... Blepharitis ... Blocked Gizzard ... Bordetella ... Botulism ... Brain Disease ... Breeding-related Problems ... Broken Legs / Toes ... Bronchitis ... Bumble Foot ... Bursal Disease Canary Pox Virus ... Candida / Candidiasis ... Cancer ... Canker (Trichomoniasis, more commonly known as pigeon canker) ... Chick Deformities ... Chlamydia / Chlamydiosis ... Chronic Egg Laying ... Cryptosporidium / Coccidia ... Coccidiosis ... Conjunctivitis ... Coryza Diabetes ... Diarrhea Egg Binding ... Egg Laying (Chronic) ... Egg Yolk Peritonitis / Egg Peritonitis ... Emphysema ... Enteritis ... Eye Problems Fatty Tumors ... Feather Cysts / Feather Lumps ... Feather Disorders ... Feather Lice ... Feather Plucking / Chewing ... Fowl Cholera ... French Molt ... Fungal Infections Giardia ... Gizzard (Blocked) ... Gout Heavy Metal Poisoning ... Hemochromatosis ... Herpes ... Hypothyroidism Infectious Bronchitis ... Infectious Bursal Disease ... Infectious Coryza ... Infectious Sinusitis ... Influenza Kidney Disease / Problems Laryngotracheitis Lead Poisoning ... Liver Disease ... Lymhpoid Leukosis Macaw Wasting Disease ... Marek's Disease ... Megabacteria / Megabacteriosis ... Metal Poisoning ... Mites & Lice ... Mutilation ... Myialges Nudus ... Mycoplasmosis Necrotic Enteritis ... Neuropathic Gastric Dilatation ... Newcastles Disease ... Nutritional Disorders Omphalitis ... Overheating Pacheco's Disease ... Pasteurella ... Papilloma ... Parasites ... Parrot Fever ... PBFD ... Pneumonia ... Psittacosis / Chlamydiosis / Ornithosis ... Pseudomonas ... PDD ... Poisoning ... Polyoma ... Pox Virus ... Prolapsed Cloaca ... Psittacine Beak & Feather Disease. Regurgitation ... Respiratory Distress / Diseases Salmonella / Salmonellosis ... Sarcocystosis ... Scaly Face & Scaly Feet Disease ... Seizures ... Self / Skin-Mutilation ... Sinusitis ... Skin & Feather Disorders ... Stargazing Teflon Poisoning ... Thyroid Problems ... Tuberculosis ... Tumors (Cancer) ... Tumors (Fatty) ... Toxicities / Poisoning / Ingestion ... Trichomonas Visceral Gout ... Visceral Leukosis (Marek's Disease) ... Vomiting West Nile Virus ... Wet Vents Yeast Infections Zinc Poisoning ... Zoonotic (Bird / Human) Diseases
In 2006 many of you supported the CABS/Proact campaign against the reintroduction of stone crush traps in the Central Massif sanctioned by the then French Environment minister Mme Nelly Olin. Tens of thousands of song birds, many of them protected by EU legislation, are trapped and crushed under stone slabs weighing several kilograms and then eaten as delicacies. Since the elections in June 2007 France has a new Minister for Ecology, Sustainable Development and Planning, Jean-Paul BORLOO (MBA Manchester University, graduated in philosophy, history, economic science and law). Please protest AGAIN against this brutal and literally stone age practice to the new minister at http://www.proact-campaigns.net/proact_france/stone_traps_02.html
January 3, 2008
ATLANTA -- Officials have quarantined birds from a Florida dealer and 35 PetSmart stores in Georgia after an outbreak of a bacterial disease that could affect humans.
The Georgia state Department of Agriculture said two confirmed cases of avian chlamydiosis have been reported. The bacteria affects parakeets and other parrots.
Once passed to humans, it is called psittacosis.
Georgia agriculture commissioner Tommy Irvin said stores are required to move the birds away from customers and feed the animals medicated food for the next 45 days.
Irvin says Preferred Birds, which is based in Florida, has also had confirmed cases of bacteria.
Humans who catch the illness may experience fever, chills, headaches, muscle aches, and a dry cough. The disease can be treated with antibiotics.
Israel was investigating a fresh outbreak of avian flu after 18 contaminated birds were found dead on Thursday at a kindergarten in a coastal town in the north of the country.
"This morning, 18 ducks, chickens and pigeons were found dead among a total of 25 birds held in a petting corner in a kindergarten in Binyamina," an agriculture ministry spokesman told AFP.
Tests discovered the presence of the H5 virus category, which only kills birds, unlike the highly pathogenic H5N1 sub-type of the virus that is dangerous to humans.
Experts were examining the infected birds to see if they had been infected with the H5N1 strain.
Authorities have banned the transportation of animals in a three-kilometre (two-mile) radius around Binyamina, a coastal town north of Tel Aviv, in a bid to prevent the spread of the virus, the agriculture ministry said in a statement.
WHAT KILLS BIRDS?
Curry & Kerlinger has compiled the following information from environmentalorganizations and government agencies.
Bird Deaths a year: 100 to 900+ million
Automobiles / Trucks
Bird Deaths a year: 50 to 100 Million
Electric Transmission Line Collisions
Bird Deaths a year: up to 174 million
Bird Deaths a year: 67 million
Bird Deaths a year: unknown
Bird Deaths a year: 4 to 10 million
Stock Tank Drowning
Bird Deaths a year: unknown
Oil and Gas Extraction
Bird Deaths a year: 1 to 2 million
Logging and Strip Mining
Bird Deaths a year: unknown
Bird Deaths a year: unknown
Raptor Deaths a year: more than 1,000
Bird Deaths a year: 100 + million
Setting the Record Straight: Anti-Cruelty Laws Protect All Cats
On November 12th, the founder of the Galveston Ornithological Society will go on trial for felony cruelty for intentionally shooting and killing a cat with a .22-caliber rifle. The Houston Chronicle reported that he claims "feral cats are not protected by the law." The Wall Street Journal reported that he admits he killed the cat, but that the law "would permit radical measures in defense of a piping plover," an endangered species of bird that winters in Galveston.
Whether or not hes guilty is for a Texas jury to decide. The trouble is, in the national medias coverage of the case, little effort has been made to report on what the law really is. Lets set the record straight: Intentionally killing a cat is a criminal offense in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Anti-cruelty laws apply to all catspet, abandoned, lost, and feraland there is no such thing as a piping plover defense.
Anti-cruelty laws are among many types of laws designed to protect society from violent people. In fact, anti-cruelty laws, first enacted in the late 1800s, were established to protect animals from human violence, irrespective of ownership. These laws led to the creation of child abuse laws and then, in the 20th century, elder abuse laws. The common denominator in all of these laws is protection from a violent person. Scientific research now provides a nuanced understanding of the link between different types of violence. An aggressive individual who lashes out in response to conflict is a threat to society, whether the victim is a child, a spouse, or an animal. Intentionally shooting a cat is a violent act. That fact doesnt change because the animal isnt wearing a collar.
Like the laws against homicide, anti-cruelty laws excuse intentional killing in the rare cases when harm is imminent and serious, making lethal force necessary. Although anti-cruelty laws include other defenses, they do not recognize a bird-protection defense. Indeed, the piping plovers at issue in the Galveston case are already protected by federal laws, as are hundreds of other bird species. Those laws reflect decisions made by elected officials, informed by scientific evidence, on the best measures to protect and recover endangered species. In fact, scientific research shows that humans, not cats, are the overwhelming cause of declining bird populations. No individual is entitled to act contrary to the law simply because that persons opinion differs from the collective judgment of the legislature.
Anti-cruelty laws protect all cats. That protection is notand as a practical matter, cannot bebased on ownership status. We wouldnt want such distinctions to be made anyway, because like many criminal laws, these laws exist to protect all of us from aggressive individuals. We are a nation of laws, not of violence. For this to hold true, we must remain vigilant against every act of violence, inflicted on any victimeven when the victim is a cat.
DOGS ARE KILLING AND SERIOUSLY MAIMING PEOPLE
If people care enough about birds to warrant killing feral cats....I'm sure they'd want to put an end to hurting people and therefore want to eradicate dogs...right? Or they are hypocrits
Cats nearly invisible and often reviled have prowled into the spotlight.
The free-roamers with an aversion to humans have grabbed headlines this spring because of a bounty on their heads in Iowa, a threatened roundup and disposal in Fairfax County, Va., and other elimination plans across the country.
But the cats also are receiving attention of a different sort.
Grass-roots groups and animal-welfare organizations are directing money and energy toward helping the tens of millions of feral cats that skulk about college campuses, cluster around back-alley trash bins, swarm among the rocks at beach communities and colonize the nether-reaches of suburban parks, military installations and abandoned barns and fields:
PetSmart Charities will announce in July a $13 million spay-neuter program in Los Angeles. A clinic in Burbank, which Best Friends Animal Society in Utah also is helping fund, will sterilize 20,000 feral cats a year. PetSmart Charities has committed $862,000 to feral cat programs in Austin and Dallas as part of a $5.5 million five-year grant to Texas cities
The Humane Society of the United States has just completed a CD/DVD. Effectively Managing Feral Cats will be free to 6,000 shelters, communities and feral-cat advocates through a PETCO Foundation grant. The Humane Society also holds workshops and has given thousands of dollars to a few small groups launching initiatives to protect feral cats.
Alley Cat Allies, which advises individuals and groups on feral-colony management, is embarking on major research to collect data about ferals and the people who help them. The non-profit group also will launch a year-long educational campaign beginning Oct. 16, National Feral Cat Day, and will push for public disclosure on how many feral cats shelters take in and euthanize to "make more transparent" every community's "animal-control practices applied to feral cats, which most often rely on lethal control methods," president Becky Robinson says.
No More Homeless Pets in Utah runs a sterilization program and works with city, county and animal control officials to develop alternatives to trapping nuisance homeless cats and depositing them at shelters "a practice which almost guarantees euthanasia," says the group's Gregory Castle. A decrease in the number of cats in colonies and concurrent lower euthanasia rates have been "dramatic" in some locations, he says.
All major efforts involve trapping, neutering and returning the cats to their colonies. This method thwarts future litters and reduces the yowling, spraying and fighting that annoy humans. In the process, the cats usually are vaccinated, treated for minor problems and given a notch in the ear to identify they are sterile. Over time, the colony will grow smaller through attrition.
"TNR is not only the most humane, it is the most practical way of stabilizing the populations and reducing them," Castle says.
"Some New York neighborhoods no longer have feral colonies, or the colonies are much smaller," says the ASPCA's Aimee Hartmann, which holds workshops throughout the city, performs hundreds of sterilizations and loans traps to groups employing the method.
Scores of other groups participating in the practice report similar results.
Opponents speak out
The TNR method is not without detractors. Many veterinarians refuse to do such sterilizations because they say cats shouldn't live outdoors because they become victims of the elements, predators and vehicles. And some bird and conservation groups say feral cats can decimate bird and small-mammal populations and spread disease.
Advocates counter that ferals exist because house pets were set loose or escaped, they adapted to survive, had litters, and now, a generation or more removed from being house cats, they can't be tamed. And refusing to deal with that reality leads to more litters and more cats killed once they become public nuisances, are captured, taken to shelters and euthanized because no one will adopt them, advocates say.
Moreover, most ferals don't live short, hideously deprived lives but are quite healthy and less apt to harm wildlife than toxins and development that overtakes habitats, says Julie Levy of the University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine, an expert in infectious disease and feral cats. When neutered and vaccinated, such animals live many years.
A right to roam free
"For a long time, the prevailing feeling was that these animals aren't deserving of help," Robinson says.
But attitudes are changing.
"There are people who have been taking care of these colonies for years, getting up before dawn, leaving food and water." Once regarded as odd, they're increasingly regarded as "unsung heroes."
Today, a live-and-let-live attitude is taking root, she says.
A 2007 Harris survey found that 81% believe feral cats should be allowed to live out their lives roaming free.
Still, many people have never seen a feral colony and are unaware of their numbers, which, combined with strays, could be as high as 80 million, Levy says, so these animals occupy a lower rung on the public's concern-about-creatures hierarchy.
Advocates insist the separate-and-unequal distinction is specious.
"A good proportion of these free-roaming cats were once owned, or they are one generation removed from house pets," says Susana Della Maddalena of PetSmart Charities. "We don't think it's fair to exclude them from help."
Name-calling is a form of ad hominem attack that draws a vague equivalence between a concept and a person, group or idea. By linking the person or idea being attacked to a negative symbol, the propagandist hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence.
create your own personalized map of the USA or write about it on the open travel guide
Be informed! Great article explains everything:
February 10, 2009
Question: Thank you, Mr. President. In your opening remarks, you talked about that, if your plan works the way you want it to work, it's going to increase consumer spending. But isn't consumer spending, or overspending, how we got into this mess? And if people get money back into their pockets, do you not want them saving it or paying down debt first before they start spending money into the economy?
Obama: Well, first of all, I don't think it's accurate to say that consumer spending got us into this mess. What got us into this mess initially were banks taking exorbitant, wild risks with other people's monies based on shaky assets and because of the enormous leverage, where they had $1 worth of assets and they were betting $30 on that $1, what we had was a crisis in the financial system.
That led to a contraction of credit, which, in turn, meant businesses couldn't make payroll or make inventories, which meant that everybody became uncertain about the future of the economy, so people started making decisions accordingly, reducing investment, initiating layoffs, which, in turn, made things worse.
Guest essay: Fannie and Freddie mess? Blame the Democrats
Capitalism worked well until the government began to limit free markets by forcing the Government Sponsored Enterprises called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make loans to those not worthy of receiving home mortgages (subprime mortgages).
The markets did fine until these actions were undertaken by Democratic administrations.
Here is a list of key events:
-- The Community Redevelopment Act (CRA) was passed in 1977 under the Carter Administration. This act led to the government's involvement in the subprime mortgages. It compelled banks to make loans to low-income borrowers. Supporters argued banks were making loans based on purely economic criteria.
The original lobbyists for the CRA were the hardcore leftists who supported the Carter Administration. They were rewarded with programs like the CRA. These included various "neighborhood organizations," such as ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now).
-- In 1992, oversight was pursued for Fannie and Freddie by Jim Leach. These GSEs were blessed with the advantages of a government agency and a private company. Fannie and Freddie used their windfall profits to co-opt our politicians, who were supposed to control them, with a stream of political cash to feed their supporters which have already distributed roughly $4 million to congressional members. Nearly half of the senators have received funds and most of the money is directed to incumbents. Fannie gave $10,000 to Speaker Nancy
Pelosi, $10,000 to third-ranking House Democrat Rahm Emanuel, $5,000 to Barney Frank, $10,000 to Republican House whip Roy Blunt, $8,500 to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and $7,500 to Minority Leader John Boehner and... you get the picture.
-- In 1995, the Clinton Administration strengthened CRA. The implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet low income needs. Clinton fostered the concept of the subprime loan. In other words, a bank product was created to make loans to those who were not able to repay, and to bundle these into marketable securities.
-- In 1998, Fannie and Freddie officers cooked the books in order to maximize bonuses: James A. Johnson, chairman and CEO, $966,000 salary, $1,932,000 bonus; Franklin D. Raines, chairman and CEO-designate, $526,154 salary, $1,109,589 bonus; Lawrence M. Small, president and COO, $783,839 salary, $1,108,259 bonus; Jamie Gorelick, vice-chairman, $567,000 salary, $779,625 bonus; J. Timothy Howard, EVP and CFO, $395,000 salary, $493,750 bonus; Robert J. Levin, EVP, Housing and Community Development, $395,000 salary, $493,750 bonus.
-- In 2001, the Bush Adminstration tried to raise a red flag about Fannie and Freddie.
-- In 2003, Freddie Mac admitted it understated $5 billion of earnings and was fined $125 million.
-- In 2003, Sen. Christopher Dodd, Connecticut Democrat and chairman of the Banking Committee, and Sen. Kent Conrad, North Dakota Democrat, chairman of the Budget Committee and a member of the Finance Committee, refinanced properties through Countrywide's "V.I.P." program in 2003 and 2004, according to company documents and emails and a former employee.
-- In 2004, chief executive Richard F. Syron received a memo from Freddie Mac's chief risk officer warning him that the firm was financing questionable loans that threatened its financial health.
-- In 2004, an accounting scandal emerged at Fannie Mae, resulting $6.3 billion restated earnings.
-- In 2004, both companies were ordered to raise their core capital level by 30 percent, limiting their ability to purchase mortgages.
-- In 2004 at a House committee hearing, Barney Frank said "...safety and soundness is not an issue." Maxine Waters said, "Franklin Raines has done a wonderful job."
-- In 2005, 19 Republicans sign on to radically revise Fannie and Freddie, demanding oversight.
-- In 2005, a Republican reform passed the Senate Banking Committee on a party-line vote, only to be blocked by Democrats from passing the full Senate.
-- In 2006, John McCain spoke on the Senate floor concerning the need to reform Fannie and Freddie.
-- In 2006, top executives at Fannie Mae were accused of manipulating the company's books to maximize their bonuses.
-- In 2007, Freddie Mac Chairman and Chief Executive Richard Syron pocketed nearly $19.8 million in compensation last year, while the company's stock lost half its value in 2007.
-- In 2007, subprime mortgages triggered the current financial market crisis. Foreclosures in the subprime housing market (i.e., mortgage holders with poor credit ratings) is the direct result of 12 years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers.
-- In March 2008, both companies were given permission to add $200 billion into the mortgage market.
n In July 2008, Congress authorized the Treasury Department to provide equity to Fannie and Freddie.
-- In August 2008, shares of FNM and FRE plummeted amid rumors that the two companies may need to be rescued by the government. Stocks rebounded after the Treasury denied it planned to provide capital to the companies.
-- In September 2008, both Fannie and Freddie were taken over by the government with top management dismissed.
Recipients of Fannie and Freddie Campaign Contributions, 1989 to 2008. (Note: Barack Obama is the number two recipient at $126,349, but was only been in the Senate for the last three years. The only names not on this list are Sarah Palin's and Bill Shuster's.)
Christopher Dodd, D, $165,400; Barack Obama, D, $126,349; Robert Bennett, R, $107,999; Spencer Bachus, R, $103,300; Roy Blunt, R, $96,950; Paul Kanjorski, D, $96,000; Christopher Bond, R, $95,400; Richard Shelby, R, $80,000; Jack Reed, D, $78,250; Harry Reid, D, $77,000; and Hillary Clinton, D, $76,050.
This list continues, listing 353 names. Total contributions to Congress was $4,844,572.
1. GSE executives and senior staff should be prosecuted for fraud in order to get larger bonuses?
2. GSEs should be barred from lobbying the congress?
3. GSEs should be barred from making political contributions?