Posts Tagged ‘Gephardt’

Corrupt Financier Bernard Madoff Supported Democrats

October 6, 2009

Take a gander at king of thieves Bernard Madoff’s political contributions.  Then explain to me how the Republican Party is the party of greed.

The top three donations to the Democrats all dated 03/18/09, by the way, are in fact three separate donations (totaling over $75,00).

Contributor Candidate or PAC Amount Date FEC Filing
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) $-25,000
primary
03/18/09
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) $-25,000
primary
03/18/09
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) $-25,000
primary
03/18/09
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) $-25,000
primary
03/18/09
Madoff, Bernard L. Mr.
New York, NY 10021
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $-10,000
primary
02/27/09
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVEST.-SEC./CHAI
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) $25,000
primary
09/12/08
Madoff, Bernard L. Mr.
New York, NY 10021
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securi
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5,000
primary
08/20/08
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
SELF EMPLOYED/INVESTOR
MERKLEY, JEFFREY ALAN (D)
Senate – OR
JEFF MERKLEY FOR OREGON
$2,300
primary
04/24/08
Madoff, Bernard L.
New York, NY 10021
SAUL, ANDREW MARSHALL (R)
House (NY 19)
SAUL FOR CONGRESS INC
$-2,300
primary
12/05/07
Madoff, Bernard L
New York, NY 10021
Bernard Madoff Investment/Chairman
LAUTENBERG, FRANK R (D)
Senate – NJ
LAUTENBERG NJ VICTORY COMMITTEE
$300
primary
07/20/07
Madoff, Bernard L
New York, NY 10021
Bernard Madoff Investment/Chairman
LAUTENBERG, FRANK R (D)
Senate – NJ
LAUTENBERG NJ VICTORY COMMITTEE
$5,000
primary
07/20/07
Madoff, Bernard L
New York, NY 10021
Bernard Madoff Investment/Chairman
LAUTENBERG, FRANK R (D)
Senate – NJ
LAUTENBERG NJ VICTORY COMMITTEE
$2,300
primary
07/20/07
Madoff, Bernard L.
New York, NY 10021
Bernard L. Madoff Investment/Chairm
SAUL, ANDREW MARSHALL (R)
House (NY 19)
SAUL FOR CONGRESS INC
$2,300
primary
07/10/07
Madoff, Bernard L Mr.
New York, NY 10021
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securi
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5,000
primary
05/24/07
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVEST.-SEC./CHAI
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) $25,000
primary
05/04/07
Madoff, Bernard L Mr.
New York, NY 10021
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securi
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A $5,000
primary
10/17/06
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVEST. SEC./CHAI
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) $25,000
primary
09/30/06
Madoff, Bernard L Mr.
New York, NY 10021
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securi
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A $5,000
primary
09/22/05
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF INVEST SEC
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) $25,000
primary
05/09/05
Madoff, Bernard
New York, NY 10021
Madoff Investments/Chairman
MATHESON, JAMES (D)
House (UT 02)
MATHESON FOR CONGRESS
$250
general
10/18/04
Madoff, Bernard L
New York, NY 10021
FROST, MARTIN (D)
House (TX 32)
MARTIN FROST CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
$250
general
10/15/04
Madoff, Bernard
New York, NY 10021
Self-employed/Banker
HOOLEY, DARLENE (D)
House (OR 05)
HOOLEY FOR CONGRESS
$250
general
10/15/04
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENTS
SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D)
Senate – NY
FRIENDS OF SCHUMER
$1,000
general
08/18/04
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENTS
SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D)
Senate – NY
FRIENDS OF SCHUMER
$1,000
primary
08/18/04
Madoff, Bernard L Mr.
New York, NY 10021
Madoff (Bernard L.) Investment Secu
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A $5,000
primary
07/08/04
Madoff, Bernard L
New York, NY 10021
Madoff Investments/Chairman
MARKEY, EDWARD J MR. (D)
House (MA 07)
MARKEY COMMITTEE, THE
$2,000
primary
06/17/04
Madoff, Bernard L
New York, NY 10021
Madoff Investments/Chairman
MARKEY, EDWARD J MR. (D)
House (MA 07)
MARKEY COMMITTEE, THE
$2,000
general
06/17/04
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENTS
LAUTENBERG, FRANK R (D)
Senate – NJ
LAUTENBERG FOR SENATE
$1,000 02/18/04
Madoff, Bernard L
New York, NY 10021
Bernard L Madoff/Chairman
GEPHARDT, RICHARD A (D)
President
GEPHARDT FOR PRESIDENT INC.
$2,000
primary
09/23/03
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENTS
WYDEN, RONALD LEE (D)
Senate – OR
WYDEN FOR SENATE
$2,000
general
03/25/03
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENTS
WYDEN, RONALD LEE (D)
Senate – OR
WYDEN FOR SENATE
$2,000
primary
03/25/03
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENTS
SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D)
Senate – NY
FRIENDS OF SCHUMER
$1,000
general
04/08/02
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENTS
SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D)
Senate – NY
FRIENDS OF SCHUMER
$1,000
primary
04/08/02
Madoff, Bernard L.
New York, NY 10022
Bernard L. Madoff P.C./Chairman
RANGEL, CHARLES B (D)
House (NY 15)
RANGEL FOR CONGRESS
$1,000
primary
08/30/01
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURIT
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A $2,000
primary
11/03/00
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENT SEC
FOSSELLA, VITO (R)
House (NY 13)
COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT VITO FOSSELLA
$1,000
primary
04/20/00
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INC
OBEY, DAVID R. (D)
House (WI 07)
A LOT OF PEOPLE FOR DAVE OBEY
$1,000
primary
03/10/00
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
CHAIRMAN
CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM (D)
Senate – NY
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR US SENATE COMMITTEE INC
$1,000
primary
01/13/00
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURIT
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A $2,000
primary
12/20/99
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURIT
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A $2,000
primary
12/20/99
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10021
MADOFF SECURITIES
CORZINE, JON S (D)
Senate – NJ
CORZINE 2000 INC
$1,000
primary
08/24/99
Madoff, Bernard Mr.
New York, NY 10021
Bernard Madoff Investment Securitie
BRADLEY, BILL (D)
President
BILL BRADLEY FOR PRESIDENT INC
$1,000
primary
04/26/99
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURIT
SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D)
Senate – NY
VICTORY IN NEW YORK
$1,000
primary
10/30/98
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L MADOFF PC
RANGEL, CHARLES B (D)
House (NY 15)
RANGEL FOR CONGRESS
$1,000
general
10/23/98
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
SELF-EMPLOYED
D’AMATO, ALFONSE M (R)
Senate – NY
FRIENDS OF SENATOR D’AMATO (1998 COMMITTEE)
$1,000
general
09/21/98
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
CROWLEY, JOSEPH (D)
House (NY 07)
CROWLEY FOR CONGRESS
$-500
primary
08/26/98
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BOND BROKER
CROWLEY, JOSEPH (D)
House (NY 07)
CROWLEY FOR CONGRESS
$500
primary
08/04/98
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10021
SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D)
Senate – NY
SCHUMER ’98
$-300
primary
06/29/98
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURIT
SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D)
Senate – NY
SCHUMER ’98
$1,000
general
05/22/98
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURIT
SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D)
Senate – NY
SCHUMER ’98
$1,000
primary
05/22/98

When you take a look at who the nation’s biggest scumbags and crooks actually support, it should set to rest the lie that the Republican Party is the party that advanced these people’s greedy self-interests.

Take a look at Norman Hsu, who was a major Democrat fundraiser – and a major Democrat scumbag.  Take a look at Hassan Nemazee.  The Democrats have all sorts of slimeballs who make Jack Abramoff – as bad as he was – look like a chump change operator.

And you maintain that the REPUBLICANS are the party of greed and fraud?  And you want to give DEMOCRATS total power to control everything?  We’re about to see that actions have consequences.

Take a look at your corrupt new Chicago president.  Senator Barack Obama was the largest single recipient of corrupt and collapsed Fannie Mae campaign contributions over the last 20 years – even though he had only been in the Senate for four of those 20 years.  There is no question that Fannie Mae was at the epicenter of the subprime mortgage disaster (see here for a concise summary of the AEI article) that created the financial meltdown in 2008.  Even the liberal Newsweek acknowledges that “Fannie Mae defanged laws that could have prevented the subprime mess.”  And how did they do that?  By supporting lawmakers like Barack Obama who took their side.

Conservatives repeatedly tried – to no avail in the face of united Democrat opposition – to stop the monster (that Democrats supported, and received support from) from growing and then collapsing and taking the economy along with it.

Now Democrats are on their way to rebuilding the monster so that we can have another collapse down the road.

Obama was also right at the head of the line in campaign handouts from corrupt and collapsed Wall Street player Lehman Brothers.  Lehman Bros. was one of the worst players in the subprime game that made them so much money before exploding – and imploding the economy.

Obama had all sorts of “subprime buddies.” Obama was getting huge money from all of the very worst of the worst Wall Street players who brought us down.  You should seriously take a look at all the greedy and Wall Street entities and executives who piled money into Obama’s hands and ask yourself why they funded him.

Democrats are yelling for regulations as the “solution” to the problems caused by the free market.  But before you fall for that load of malarkey, just realize that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) – and fell under the direct oversight of the government.  The reason Democrats want to have so much authority over the economy is so they can benefit from all the cozy and profitable relationships that accrue from the finance world coming to politicians for special treatment favors.

Did Barney Frank’s regulatory oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stop their collapse?  Hardly.  In 2003, when George Bush first tried to create regulations that may well have prevented the 2008 collapse, Barney Frank represented the overwhelming Democrat opposition when he said:

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

And just before Fannie and Freddie – which controlled half of the nation’s total mortgages – collapsed, Barney Frank (who had direct authority over the GSEs as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee) said:

REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: “I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.”

You can watch Democrats fiddling while Rome burned on Youtube:

The Democrats’ “regulations” amounted to the foxes being put in charge of keeping the chickens safe.

And we’re currently seeing an explosion of frankly quasi-fascist interrelated influence between the White House and giant Wall Street entities under the president who has been bought and sold by the same people who destroyed the economy.

If you want the truth today, you have to go out and seek it.  Because the media today is as dishonest and as much of a propaganda tool for Democrats as TASS and Pravda used to be for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Advertisements

Democrats Turned 1991 George H.W. Bush Speech To Schoolchildren Into Spanish Inquisition

September 8, 2009

I got attacked by the Village Voice today for expressing my rather nasty response to the ObamaDay speech to schoolchildren and the accompanying ideological White House-dictated Department of Education lesson plans for kids (e.g., “Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals“).

I don’t particularly mind being attacked by the Village Voice.  I mean, at least they spelled my name right, as they say.

If anything, what bothers me is the smarmy, “They’re unhinged and we’re not”) tone of the article.

When Democrats act as if they aren’t the ones who are unhinged, just recognize that Democrats have a terrible addiction to “being unhinged,” and that a big part of any addiction is denial.

First, yes, Reagan and Bush 1 gave speeches to students.  But unless you can show that their speeches were accompanied by having children engage in scripted White House campaigns to create posters and write themselves letters asking,“What can I do to help the president?” it is anything but the same thing.  Rather, Presidents Reagan and Bush managed to give speeches to kids about school without lowering themselves into self-serving propaganda, as the Obama administration clearly tried to do.

[Update: it has since been brought to my attention that Reagan’s and Bush’s speeches did in fact contain certain political statements.  Barack Obama’s own speech has a fair amount of political ideology expressed in the form of rather transparent innuendo.]

Discussion questions that the White House provided to the Department of Education to pass on to public teachers included the following: “What is President Obama asking me to do?”, “What is President Obama challenging me to do today?” “What did President Obama attempt to inspire me to do?”, “What are the three most important words in today’s speech?”  How does that NOT sound like propaganda?

Second, I would point out that my article – “unhinged” as it might be – nonetheless documented repeated instances of liberals using children for political purposes including this shocking video that simply don’t have any parallels with Reagan or Bush unless you can document otherwise.

Third, I document a teacher in a public school browbeating a child to support Barack Obama and renounce his support for John McCain.  Please watch it before you ridicule the prospect over worrying about the Obama-dictated Dept of Education agenda.

I made the point in my article, “If Obama just wanted to do a brief public service announcement and call upon kids to stay in school and study harder, nobody would have a problem with it.”   And that’s exactly correct.   The problem is that a LOT more was clearly going on.   Even the Obama White House was forced to admit that there was something wrong with the appearance of the proposal they crafted for the Dept of Education to provide to teachers.

When I can document government teachers trying to brainwash public school children, I think I have a right to wonder about what teachers who will be all alone with children will do in the hour following the Obama speech.

As I say in my article, “The Obama speech to the children will very likely sound innocent and innocuous. But in the liberal public schools – which are and have been laboratories for leftist activism, it won’t be innocent or innocuous at all. Unionized Government Teachers will be free to spin their own agendas onto Obama’s speech.”

If you think that is so impossible, Please watch the video I cite above to see otherwise.

Now, having brought out those little factoids, it turns out that there is more to say: namely, when George H.W. Bush gave his speech in 1991, Democrats turned their ideological reaction to it into the Spanish Inquisition, Part Deux.

When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
09/08/09 7:11 AM EDT

The controversy over President Obama’s speech to the nation’s schoolchildren will likely be over shortly after Obama speaks today at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginningDemocrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush’s speech — they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.

Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president’s school appearance.  The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president’s political benefit.  “The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props,” the Post reported.

With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,” said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. “And the president should be doing more about education than saying, ‘Lights, camera, action.'”

Democrats did not stop with words. Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush’s appearance. On October 17, 1991, Ford summoned then-Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify at a hearing devoted to the speech. “The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC,” Ford began. “As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event.”

Unfortunately for Ford, the General Accounting Office concluded that the Bush administration had not acted improperly. “The speech itself and the use of the department’s funds to support it, including the cost of the production contract, appear to be legal,” the GAO wrote in a letter to Chairman Ford. “The speech also does not appear to have violated the restrictions on the use of appropriations for publicity and propaganda.”

That didn’t stop Democratic allies from taking their own shots at Bush. The National Education Association denounced the speech, saying it “cannot endorse a president who spends $26,000 of taxpayers’ money on a staged media event at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, D.C. — while cutting school lunch funds for our neediest youngsters.”

Lost in all the denouncing and investigating was the fact that Bush’s speech itself, like Obama’s today, was entirely unremarkable. “Block out the kids who think it’s not cool to be smart,” the president told students. “If someone goofs off today, are they cool? Are they still cool years from now, when they’re stuck in a dead end job. Don’t let peer pressure stand between you and your dreams.

So thanks for reminding us of when George Herbert Walker gave a speech to schoolchildren, Democrats.  It’s a reminder of what loathsome hypocrites you truly are.

Bush 1 gave an innocuous speech to schoolchildren that was utterly bereft of the Obama-style propaganda utilizing the Department of Education to coerce teachers into brainwashing the little darlings under their charge immediately after the speech.  Yet the Democrats came completely unglued anyway.

And yet, how the liberals roll their eyes when Republicans offer up what amounts to a FAR tamer response.

Gephardt’s replacement for Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, is hardly out there demanding an answer to the question, “Who’s Paying For Obama’s Education Speech?”  And given that Obama’s speech is far more grandiose, and going out to far more schools than Bush’s ever did, you can bet that TAXPAYERS will be forking out a whole lot more than Bush’s $26,000.  Not that these Democrats will care.

So when you reflect on how the mainstream media reported on how unhinged conservatives are over a “similar” event to what George Bush 1 did, just realize that – like the propagandists they are – they aren’t giving you any of the context that lets you know the truth.

Not only did Democrats react to the Republican President’s speech, but they reacted far more savagely.

It helps to know the truth.

It also helps to know that you will rarely ever get the truth from the mainstream media.