Skip to main content

The Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Top 10 Includes Barack Obama and Utah Senator Bob Bennett

When Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae folded under government control a few days ago, it was rumored that the CEOs of both institutions were to be receiving a total of $24 million in severance packages. Currently, those payouts have been put on hold, but what about Fannie and Freddie bribes that have been paid to 354 different Senators and Congressmen over the last 19 years? Shouldn't they have to pay those back? Barack Obama, in his short tenure in the Senate, is number 2 on the list of 'bribees'. Utah Senator Robert Bennett, however, is not far behind.

OpenSecrets is reporting that Senator Chris Dodd has taken more in campaign contributions since 1989 from Fannie and Freddie ($165,400) than any other federal government representative. Whether that encompasses 3 or 4 senatorial election cycles, it still means upwards of $40,000 per election has been donated to Dodd by the twin sister shyster financial institutions. Having been elected to the Senate only once, Barack Obama, surprisingly, is 2nd on the list of takers at $126,349. It sounds like the financial whores want Obama to keep quiet about their field day. Interestingly, John McCain has reportedly received only $21,550. And Ron Paul is on the hook for a whopping $3,500 (that is probably an oversight that Paul is attempting to correct).

I was taken to dinner as a City Councilman one time by a

Bob Bennett has been in the Senate long enough. So has Barack Obama. And he's not fit to be president either.

developer who wanted to develop a large tract of land in our city. After the dinner, I found myself feeling beholden to the developer simply as a result of a $15 meal. I didn't like that feeling, and I never did it again. Imagine how beholden Obama, Bennett, and Dodd must feel having been wined and dined with tens of thousands of dollars.

The impending doom of Fannie and Freddie had been known or projected for several years. Yet many thereby-tainted leaders of the United States continued to accept donations from the whorehouse. I think that disqualifies them from the trust that voters must place in them to elect them to federal public office.

Don't you?

Bob Bennett has been in the Senate long enough. So has Barack Obama. And he's not fit to be president either.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

Red Clothing and Resurrection: Jesus Christ's Second Coming

The scriptures teach that when Christ comes again to the earth, that he will be wearing red apparel. Why red ? They also teach that at Christ's coming, many of the dead will become resurrected. Will this only include members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Not by a long shot, no matter what some Mormon might tell you.
2 comments
Read more

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...
66 comments
Read more

What's Your Reaction to California's Decision on Same-Sex Marriage?

Yesterday a "Republican-dominated" California Supreme Court struck down state laws against same-sex marriages. The LDS Church issued a press release, calling the decision "unfortunate". I agree, but not for reasons you might think. Did the California Court make the right decision? Update 5/17/2008 : California decision does not affect prohibitions against polygamy and marriage of close relatives. Why not? Government should not sanction same-sex marriages for the same reason that it should not sanction heterosexual adultery--such activities tend to be destructive to the family as the fundamental unit of society. Before you get too far into reading into my words, let me echo and agree with something that Madeleine Albright wrote in her recent book, The Mighty & The Almighty (one of the better books that I have read in a long time): I oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians and am convinced that heterosexual adultery is a greater danger to the institu...
67 comments
Read more