President Donald Trump will deliver remarks during this year’s observance ceremony at Flight 93 National Memorial in Pennsylvania on the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The observance will be one of two ceremonies this year that honor the 40 passengers and crew members of Flight 93 on the 17th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. On Sunday, Tom Ridge, the first Homeland Security secretary and a former Pennsylvania governor, will keynote the dedication of the Tower of Voices, a 93-foot tall musical instrument that will serve as a visual and audible reminder of the heroism of those on board Flight 93.
"We are honored that President Trump will be in attendance on September 11, representing our country to honor our 40 heroes,” said Families of Flight 93 President Gordon Felt. “The Families of Flight 93 are grateful to all those that have helped to bring Paul Murdoch's vision of a 93-foot Tower of Voices to completion. It marks the end of our journey to see a memorial honoring the courage and heroism of the passengers and crew members of Flight 93. The story of our 40 heroes and their collective actions have been preserved so that future generations will be able to remember the pain of September 11th as well as the hope and heroism that once again helped to define our nation."
“I look back on the courageous actions of these 40 individuals with gratitude and awe,” said Governor Ridge. “Their extraordinary bravery will forever be preserved in this memorial. It is my hope that Americans will hear these chimes, walk the flight path, touch the Wall of Names, and feel a deep connection to these men and women that stood up in the face of tremendous adversity.”
The 17th annual September 11 Observance will begin at 9:45 a.m. Tuesday, September 11, at the Memorial Plaza. At 10:03 a.m. – the moment Flight 93 crashed – the names of the passengers and crew members will be read and the Bells of Remembrance will be rung in their memory. The observance is open to the public and participants include:
- Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America
- Secretary Ryan Zinke, U.S. Department of the Interior
- Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf
- Former Pennsylvania Gov. Mark Schweiker
- Gordon Felt, President of the Families of Flight 93
- Reverend Paul Britton, brother of Marion R. Britton
- United States Navy Brass Quintet
Comments
I do understand that as POTUS, Trump has an obligation to attend these events as head of state even if he doesn't really care. I don't say this lightly, but he's always had a tendency to make everything about himself if he can. There are Presidents who I didn't vote for and where I didn't believe they did a good job, but I never doubted the sincerity of George W Bush nor his father. I thought W was considerably out of his league (as is Trump) but he at least had the good sense to know to trust the adults in the room who had at least some competence, even if I didn't care for their ideology.
And our friend here (who I try my best to remain civil with) seems to be all about blame. When I said my taxes were going up, the answer was that it was my fault because of who my fellow Californians elected. Picking winners and losers based on political ideology is a losing strategy. I'm in an industry where employees are extremely worried that tariff policy could mean a loss of jobs shipped to other countries or loss of sales as a result of price increases. Trade wars are certainly not good nor easy to win. They leave a path of destruction in their wake.
As far as Trump speaking at the Flight 93 Memorial - I'm OK with that. However, I don't think of it as any more than this POTUS going through the motions as a requirement of the job.
Argalite - He had no friends that died? There are few in the NYC financial or governmental community that didn't know someone that died. Given Trumps deep roots in both, it is not unreasonable at all to think he might have have hundreds he knew - and you don't have a shred of evidence to show otherwise.
As to taxes, dollar wise the wealthy had a greater benefit, but they pay the vast majority of the taxes. If they had been left out, we wouldnt have had the stimulative effect we have. No, I am not your accountant. But I don't have to be to know they only way you wouldn't benefit was either because you pay no taxes or you had large writeoffs. You say you didnt have large writeoffs so that gives us the anwer.
Agree 100%, the government picking winners and losers based on virtually any ideology is a losing stratagy.
PS, when did I say your taxes are going up because of who you voted for President?
"While my taxes did not seem to be affected by the tax breaks, the more wealthy people got some great tax breaks."
Nearly everyone received a tax break. You may not realize it yet but you did. I think most will be in for a pleasant surprise when they do their taxes this year (if you haven't already noticed). And before you cry about the rich getting the majority of the breaks you tell me which tax bracket you would rather have your income taxed at.
https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968
Having a hard time finding it in the archives (searching for comments is clunky), but it was a discussion about the capping of state and local tax deductions to $10,000 and how that would raise my taxes. My comment was that it was laser-focused on states with higher average incomes (i.e. Washington, California, NY) that didn't vote Republican, even though it was just an offset of the higher federal taxes paid by people in those states. Your comment wasn't about who we voted for President, but who we voted for state office - that it was somehow our fault for voting for these people.
Yes, it is your fault for voting for people you did in state office. They are overwhelming you with taxes and there isn't any reason I or anyone else should subsidize your state's excessive spending. The tax plan had nothing to do with political targeting, it had to do with basic equity.
The middle-income tax rates in California haven't really changed much since before I was of voting age so I'm not sure why you're putting this on me as a voter. Residents of my state only took advantage of a deduction that had been in the tax code since there's been a federal income tax, as a hedge against double taxation.
In California we pay more in federal taxes than we get back in appropriations, so SALT deductions were eminently fair, as it was just an offset of the higher average taxes (from higher average income) that we did pay. The limit on SALT deductions was specifically targeted to affect California, Illinois, NY, Connecticut, etc (that tend to vote Democratic) and to make up for other reduction in tax revenues.
While you people are arguing about your tax benefits,
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/americans-poverty-census-bureau_us_...