LBJ: We were attacked (in the Gulf of Tonkin)!

Nixon: I am not a crook!

Clinton: I did not have sex with that woman… Miss Lewinski!

Bush – 41: Read my lips – No new taxes!


I will have the most transparent administration in history.

TARP is to fund shovel-ready jobs.

I am focused like a laser on creating jobs.

The IRS is not targeting anyone.

It was a spontaneous riot about a movie.

If I had a son.

I will put an end to the type of politics that “breeds division, conflict and cynicism”.

You didn’t build that!

I will restore trust in Government.

The Cambridge cops acted stupidly.

The public will have 5 days to look at every bill that land on my desk

It’s not my red line – it is the world’s red line.

Whistle blowers will be protected in my administration.

We got back every dime we used to rescue the banks and auto companies, with interest.

I am not spying on American citizens.

Obama-Care will be good for America

You can keep your family doctor.

Premiums will be lowered by $2500.

If you like it, you can keep your current healthcare plan

It’s just like shopping at Amazon

I knew nothing about “Fast and Furious” gunrunning to Mexican drug cartels

I knew nothing about IRS targeting conservative groups

I knew nothing about what happened in Benghazi

And the biggest one of all:

“I, Barrack Hussein Obama, pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America


It’s really a shame we have to lose a program representing the best science, mathematics and engineering America can produce which inspires not only generations within the U.S. populace, but the world’s as well.

Obama speaks long and hard about achievements and personal endeavors but has no qualms about killing them with the stroke of his pen.

This man is a dangerous bane to this country and for its sake, he needs to go.

If anyone deserves to be on the moon, it’s Obama.

What could be more nuttier and dumber than liberals voting for Obama? For the left, that would be the right voting Palin for President of the United States. Yet, the left cannot begin to quantify the reasons why. All they know is something is wrong with it, while Obama and his definitive and destructive policies get a pass.


How the Ding-bats on the left view Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin’s Accomplishments
Since 1992, Sarah Palin has served on Wasilla’s city council, was elected as Mayor of Wasilla and served 2 terms. In 2006 she was elected Governor of Alaska.

On July 3, 2009, Palin announced at a press conference that she would not run for reelection in the 2010 Alaska gubernatorial election and would resign before the end of July. Palin gave a speech offering reasons for her departure. She argued that both she and the state have been expending an “insane” amount of time and money to address “frivolous” ethics complaints filed against her. She also said that her decision not to seek reelection would make her a lame duck governor. Palin did not take questions at the press conference. A Palin aide was quoted as saying Palin was “no longer able to do the job she had been elected to do. Essentially, the taxpayers were paying for Sarah to go to work every day and defend herself.”


A quick review of Obama’s Background and First Year in Office.

Obama was hired as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland and worked there as a community organizer from June 1985 to May 1988.

Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988. After graduating with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago.

From April to October 1992, Obama directed Illinois’s Project Vote, a voter registration drive with a staff of ten and 700 volunteers; it achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African Americans in the state.

For 12 years, Obama was a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School. In 1993 he joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a law firm of 12 attorneys that specialized in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004, with his law license becoming inactive in 2002.

Obama was a founding member of the board of directors of Public Allies in 1992. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1999. He also served on the board of directors of the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the Lugenia Burns Hope Center.

Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996 and reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998 and was reelected again in 2002. In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate’s Health and Human Services Committee.

Obama was sworn in as a senator on January 4, 2005. The National Journal ranked him as the “most liberal” senator based on an assessment of selected votes during 2007; in 2005 he was ranked sixteenth most liberal, and in 2006 he was ranked tenth.

Raised as a Muslim and with over 20 years of attendance at a Chicago church with a pastor’s anti-Semite and anti-American preachings, Obama today nurtures embedded socialist values and has carefully surrounded himself with radical leftist thinkers, many of them now appointed as “Czars” in his administration.

Obama’s thinking and vision for America embodies just about every value America has fought against for over 230 years. Many Americans have sacrificed their lives to preserve the way of life which Obama seems bent upon changing.

Thanks to Obama’s keen and well honed community organizing skills, Amercia faces generations of overwhelming and alarming debt. With the bailouts and handouts of his socialist policies and with the specter of HR3962 and Crap and Trade, it appears there is no end in sight.


A typical left-wing voter?

Where’s the Concern?

With all of the adverse and self-inflicted effects of Obama’s policies you would think liberals would share in the rest of America’s concern for her future. But alas, it appears liberals only have the vacant head to worry about and focus upon Sarah Palin. That’s it. Palin. We have unemployment rates which the country has not seen in over 25 years and an economy falling down around us brought upon us through decades of Democrat’s inept and arrogant mismanagement of flawed socialist programs and Palin is their target of worry. It’s clear liberals aren’t mentally fit to operate a toothbrush without supervision, much less America’s economy.


In a November 17, 2009, article about Associated Press dedicating 11 reporters to “Fact Check” her new book, “Going Rogue”, Palin eloquently makes the point about misplaced concerns.

The AP claims Palin misstated her record with regard to travel expenses and taxpayer-funded bailouts, using statements widely reported elsewhere. But it also speculated into Palin’s motives for writing “Going Rogue: An American Life,” stating as fact that the book “has all the characteristics of a pre-campaign manifesto.”

Palin quickly hit back on a Facebook post titled “Really? Still Making Things Up?”

“Imagine that,” the post read. “11 AP reporters dedicating time and resources to tearing up the book, instead of using the time and resources to ‘fact check’ what’s going on with Sheik Mohammed’s trial, Pelosi’s health care takeover costs, Hasan’s associations, etc. Amazing.”

The attraction to Palin doesn’t appear to be partisan, since AP didn’t fact-check recent political tomes by Republicans Rudy Giuliani or Newt Gingrich.

Obama’s Spending

President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.


For the challenged who declare we don't know what we're talking about, the short lines mean less, the long lines (in red) mean more. Which side of the graph would any thinking American prefer? (Studies show times required to answer that question may vary if a liberal.)

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Say it slowly, now … S-p-e-n-d-i-n-g.

  • President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion. (Psst. That makes it a new historic number which eclipses Bush’s. Yep. It would.)
  • President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
  • President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
  • President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
  • President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
  • President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
  • President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

Those figures, in case you’re wondering, include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above.

Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

Source:Heritage Foundation

Conservatives Need to Wake Up To The Idiotic and Infantile Policies of The Left.

This country cannot afford one more day of the policies of Barack Obama and Democratic Party. They are literally destroying America’s way of life, her stature among the world community, the dollar and her future.
I have often said conservatives get what they deserve if they don’t get off their collective butts and vote. With the polls showing conservatives outnumbering liberals 2 to 1, it would appear many conservatives chose to stay home, setting the stage for that Obamanation we have sitting in the White House today.

Maybe the silent and apathetic will wake up. Maybe the liberal and radical left tide can be turned in 2010 and 2012. But it will take more than 4 years to fix the damage already done.

Yes, you read the title correctly.

It’s a new theory out there which advances the preposterous notion that President Bush is responsible for the Fort Hood massacre.

I’m not kidding. You can read the post here.

The advocate of this brave idea begins by citing the case of poor communication between various agencies which is supposed to be the center of blame for 9/11. The theory continues with President Bush’s “failure” to remedy the situation which has been allowed to fester to the point where the Fort Hood massacre couldn’t be stopped even though the proper authorities knew about it. The author then posits that “Bush didn’t do his job” and hopes that “Obama will recognize this as a high priority and do something.”


What a pile of horse shit.

Here’s a Real Case of Deliberate Obstruction

Yesterday, Congressman Peter Hoekstra, Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, charged that the Obama White House intervened to keep him from obtaining critical information regarding the Fort Hood murders.

A member of the Committee since 2001, Hoekstra is responsible for providing Congressional oversight as the United States battles a global war on terror and Congress works to modernize and reform the U.S. Intelligence Community.

Several members of Congress, particularly Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, have also called for a full examination of what agencies knew about Hasan’s contacts with a radical Muslim cleric in Yemen and others of concern to the U.S.

Hoekstra confirmed that government officials knew of about 10 to 20 e-mails between Hasan and the radical imam, beginning in December 2008.

Lawmakers have announced they want their own investigations and are frustrated with what they view as a less-than-forthcoming administration.
Source:Fox News

Nixon era abuses

Warrantless electronic surveillance of foreign powers has historically been a tool of presidents during war time or time of international tension. President Franklin Roosevelt conducted wire taps prior to World War II and the use of electronic eavesdropping by U.S. intelligence agencies expanded greatly during the Cold War in the 1960s and 1970s.

However, events during the Nixon administration raised concerns about the abuse of presidential power when conducting wiretaps.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, President Nixon was concerned about unrest caused by the ongoing war in Vietnam War and the civil rights movement. Nixon asked the CIA and the National Security Agency, intelligence organizations charged with foreign surveillance, to eavesdrop on U.S. Citizens The domestic spying program targeted the political activities of members of the anti-war and civil rights movements including singer Joan Baez, the family of Martin Luther King Jr. and members of a group called the White Panthers.

The White Panthers were charged with bombing a CIA office in Michigan in 1968. During the trial, prosecutors submitted into evidence conversations taped by federal agents without a warrant on the authority of President Nixon’s attorney general, John Mitchell.

In 1971, Mitchell submitted a sworn statement defending his actions saying the surveillance was necessary to protect the nation from “attempts of domestic organizations to attack and subvert the existing structure of the government.”

However, the Supreme Court disagreed. In 1972 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously to prohibit warrantless electronic surveillance of domestic organizations. The freedoms protected by the Fourth Amendment “cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillance may be conducted solely within the discretion of the executive branch,” wrote Justice Lewis Powell, a Nixon appointee.

More intelligence abuses came to light during the Watergate investigation and in a lengthy New York Times article by Seymour Hersh published in 1974. As a result, the Senate convened a special investigative committee headed by Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho, to investigate the intelligence abuses.

Convinced that congressional oversight of the intelligence community was necessary to protect the public from such abuses, the intelligence committee later became a permanent fixture of both the House and Senate.

Source:PBS Report on Domestic Security

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

In 1978, the Democrat controlled Congress (from 1977 to 1981) passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

This law regulated intelligence collection directed at foreign powers and agents of foreign powers in the United States. It was a compromise. FISA did not require traditional court approval of a warrant, but established a special new court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to review requests for surveillance pursuant to this law. The department of Justice created an Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OlPR). OIPR would be responsible, inter alia, for presenting surveillance applications to the FISA court.’

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of “foreign intelligence information” between “foreign powers” and “agents of foreign powers” (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of being engaged in espionage and violating U.S. law on territory under United States control).

To use FISA, the government must show probable cause that the “target of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.”

The law is the result of extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin (D-NC) and Frank Church (D-ID) in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources to spy on political and activist groups, which violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Able Danger and 9/11

According to a former defense intelligence official and a Republican member of Congress, during the Clinton Administration, more than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, “a small, highly classified military intelligence unit identified Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers as likely members of a cell of Al Qaeda operating in the United States.”

Representative Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, and the former intelligence official report that in the summer of 2000, the team, known as Able Danger, “prepared a chart that included visa photographs of the four men and recommended to the military’s Special Operations Command that the information be shared with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

On the basis that Mr. Atta, and the others were in the United States on valid entry visas, under American law, “United States citizens and green-card holders may not be singled out in intelligence-collection operations by the military or intelligence agencies.” Consequently, the recommendation was rejected and the information was not shared.

“That protection does not extend to visa holders, but Mr. Weldon and the former intelligence official said it might have reinforced a sense of discomfort common before Sept. 11 about sharing intelligence information with a law enforcement agency.”

Source: New York Times (Something tells me I shouldn’t be relying on the New York Times for in-depth reporting, but there it is.)

The “Wall”

The joint House and Senate Intelligence Committees’ report of pre-September 11 intelligence failures produced a report which describes the ‘wall’ as

a series of restrictions between and within agencies constructed over a period of 60 years. It is the result of legal, policy, institutional and personal factors.

A once-secret report released by the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States entitled “Legal Barriers to Information Sharing:The Erection of a Wall Between Intelligence and Law Enforcement Investigations” reports on the history of tensions between intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Issues regarding the sharing of information between intelligence and criminal investigations did not arise suddenly in the summer of 2001. There was a long history of concerns about how the FBI collected intelligence activities within the United States and what was done with the information that it gathered.

The FBI’s domestic intelligence gathering dates from the 1930s. With World War II looming FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, at President Franklin Roosevelt’s direction, added to the FBI’s duties investigation of possible espionage, sabotage, or subversion. After the war, foreign intelligence duties were assigned to the newly established Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA was expressly precluded from engaging in domestic law enforcement activities.’ Domestic intelligence responsibilities remained with the FBI.

The report states further on the restrictions placed upon intelligence agencies

It is important to understand what these procedures did and did not do. First, these procedures only applied to information gathered by the FBI as part of an intelligence investigation. They did not control information gathered by the CIA or the NSA.

In December 1999, during the high terror alert surrounding the Millennium, OIPR presented an unprecedented number of FISA applications to the court. Because of existing related criminal) cases, including the prosecutions of the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings suspects and the outstanding indictment against Bin Ladin,’ OIPR and the court agreed that additional information sharing controls were needed to ensure that the new FISAs were intended to gather foreign intelligence, not enhance exiting criminal matters.

As a result, at a time when portions of the Justice Department were considering to modify the 1995 procedures to increase information sharing, elsewhere more barriers to such sharing were being erected.

The case of Mihdhar and Nawaf

The report by the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States describes the efforts of agents in the intelligence community who were investigating the movements of 2 participants in the 9/11 attacks who were working with information which they felt had to be ignored because of the restrictions outlined by FISA.

In December 1999 the NSA had picked up the movements of Khalid al Mihdhar and an individual then only identified as Nawaf. Mihdhar was linked him to a terrorist facility in the Middle East. He was tracked to Kuala Lumpur where he met with other then unidentified individuals. Some photographs were taken of these individuals on the streets of Kuala Lumpur. The surveillance trailed off when three of the individuals moved on to Bangkok on January 8,2000. The NSA reporting regarding the links to the facility and Mihdhar’s travel was disseminated to the intelligence community, including the FBI. The reports, however, bore caveats that precluded sharing the contents with FBI criminal investigators without first obtaining Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR) permission. The CIA reports regarding the surveillance were not disseminated outside CIA.

In late May and early June 2001 an FBI analyst assigned to the investigation of the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole was investigating an individual involved in the Cole attack named Fahd al Quso, The analyst knew that Quso had traveled to Bangkok in January 2000 to give money to Tawfiq bin Attash, aka Khallad. Khallad was believed tohave been a liaison between the attackers and Usama bin Ladin. A CIA analyst who had been working on Cole-related issues suggested showing some photographs to FBI agents in New York who were working on the Cole case and had interviewed Quso.

The FBI analyst was given three surveillance photographs from the January 2000 Kuala Lumpur meeting to show to the New York agents. She was told one of the individuals was named Khalid al Mihdhar. She was not told why the photographs had been taken or why the Kuala Lumpur travel might have been significant. When the FBI analyst did some research of past intelligence reports, she found the original NSA reports on the planning for the Kuala Lumpur meeting. Because the CIA had not disseminated itsreporting) the analyst did not locate any of its reports on the meeting.

On June 11, 2001, the FBI analyst, an FBI analyst on detail to the CIA, and the CIA analyst who had suggested showing the photographs to the agents, went to New York to meet with the Cole investigators. At one point in the meeting, the FBI analyst showed the three photographs to the agents and asked whether they recognized Quso in any of them. The agents asked questions about the photographs – Why were they taken? Why were these people being followed? Where are the rest of the photographs?

The only information the FBI analyst had regarding the meeting – other than the photographs – were the NSA reports that she had found. These reports, however, contained caveats that their contents could not be shared with criminal investigators without OIPR’s permission. Therefore, the analyst concluded she could not pass the information contained in these reports to the agents. She did not ask OIPR for permission to share these reports. She did not explain to the agents about the caveats but merely said she could not share the information due to “the wall.”

The CIA analyst at the meeting knew much more about the Kuala Lumpur meeting. No one at the meeting asked him what he knew; he did not volunteer anything. He later told investigators that as a CIA analyst he was not authorized to answer FBI questions regarding CIA information. The FBI analyst said that she assumed that if the CIA analyst had the answers to the agents’ questions, he would have volunteered them.

The report’s conclusion on these pre-September 11 intelligence sharing failures states,

… the failures in the summer of 2001 were … the result of … the ‘failure of individuals to understand … why the information could not have been shared.

The Irony Literally Kills Us

So there we have it.

In their attempts to prevent abuses of power such as those conducted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, President Nixon, et. al., Democrats craft laws to make it illegal for our intelligence agencies to share intelligence (Able Danger) which could have been used to help prevent 9/11 resulting in the deaths of over 3,000 Americans.

Making it worse, as seen in the case of Mihdhar and Nawaf, the bill also served to obfuscate the use of the law to the degree where it actually prevented the sharing of information when in fact, there were no legal barriers to doing so.

While there are individuals “out there” who honestly believe George W. Bush was responsible for the Ft. Hood shootings of 51 service men and women resulting in 13 deaths, with the evidence presented above, it appears the fault actually lies with members of the Democrat Party.

How’s THAT for a theory?

U.S. Representative Pete Stark

(D-CA) meet with residents of the 13th Congressional District on Saturday, September 12th in Fremont, San Leandro, and Alameda.

A senior citizen lit into various Obamacare talking points and told Rep. Stark: “Don’t pee on my leg and then tell me it’s raining.”

Stark grabbed the microphone and lashed back: “I wouldn’t dignify you by peeing on your leg. It wouldn’t be worth wasting the urine.”

This behavior to the people is generally ignored and dismissed. Meanwhile, congress, led by Nancy Pelosi, formally admonished Republican Rep. Joe Wilson for shouting “you lie” during President Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress last week.

“When we are done here today, we will not have taken any further steps toward helping” the nation deal with urgent challenges, said Wilson, of South Carolina. “It is time that we move forward and get back to work for the American people.”

Wilson’s “You lie” outburst came as Obama said that illegal immigrants would not be eligible for federal subsidies to purchase health insurance under his overhaul plan. Democrats have insisted that their proposals prohibit undocumented immigrants from getting assistance. Republicans say the legislation needs stronger verification requirements.

The fact remains that the bill does not explicitly state undocumented immigrants will be prohibited from getting assistance.

In the final analysis, Mr. Wilson’s claim that Mr. Obama lies, stands.

International Herald Tribune: “Democratic takeover of Congress was major victory for Fannie and Freddie … Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two mortgage finance giants, which have been recovering from accounting scandals, had faced the possibility of tight new oversight laws pushed largely by Republicans. But some powerful Democrats had resisted, preferring to promote the companies’ housing mission over tighter capital standards and portfolio limits. (International Herald Tribune, 11/8/06)

American Banker: “Democrats Oppose White House plan to strengthen Fannie and Freddie oversight.” In late summer Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. began an effort to reach an agreement in the Senate, where Democrats oppose a White House-favored provision that would force Fannie and Freddie Mac to slash their mortgage portfolios. (American Banker, 12/1/06)

Origination News: “Until recently, the administration and Sen. Shelby have pushed for limits on the size of the GSE portfolios, which Democrats opposed. Now it appears that Secretary Paulson will insist on language that would allow the new GSE regulator to use systemic risk considerations in determining proper size of the portfolios. But the Democrats see systemic risk as a code word for portfolio limits.” (Origination News, 12/1/06)

Since 1989, Rep. Frank has received $42,350 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog,

Since 1989, Senator Reid has received $77,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog,

Since 1989, Sen. Dodd has received $165,400 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, more than any other Member of Congress. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog,

Since 1989, Sen. Carper has received $55,889 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog,

In just four years, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has received $126,349 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, more than any Member of Congress except for Sen. Dodd. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog,

Since 1989, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) has received $111,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog,

Since 1989, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has received $76,050 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog,

Since 1989, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has received $56,250 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog,

Since 1989, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) has received $51,750 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog,