The Democrat Party Surpasses Itself For Total Lack Of Leadership And Chaos And Deceit On Vote To Add God, Jerusalem Back Into Party Platform

One wit in Wisconsin said it best: The Democrats voted against God before they voted for Him.  Not that they actually DID vote for God, as you will see.

Yesterday the Democrat Party took a vote to adopt a new party platform that specifically purged language of God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

After that vote, Brett Bair, anchor of Fox News Special Report, had a bizarre interview with Dick Durbin.

I have seen the same look that was on Dick Durbin’s face three times in my life.  Once was when I was a soldier and inadvertently cornered a large nasty rat during a training exercise; once was when I lived in Oregon and inadvertently cornered a possum when I was trying to take the trash to the curb; and once was when I was looking at trapped, cornered, vicious Dick Durbin trying to explain why Democrats had just purged language about God and Jerusalem as Israel’s capitol from its platform:

Notice that Brett Bair is merely trying to ask a VERY legitimate question: why did you remove that language from your platform? And notice that the rabid freaking rodent in Durbin comes out and he not only refuses to EVER answer the question in spite of being REPEATEDLY asked, but demonizes Fox News and Brett Bair personally merely for daring to ASK the question.

But it quickly became apparent to anyone who WASN’T crawling with demons that what the Democrats had just done to purge God and kick Israel to the curb was a mega-giant loser.

In a bizarre display of deceit and total inability to exercise anything even remotely CLOSE to leadership, the Democrat National Convention gave us the following utterly pathetic display:

I loved it when Antonio Villaraigosa said, “The chair recognizes…” and “In the opinion of the chair two-thirds have voted in the affirmative, the motion is adopted…”  Because it reminded me of Clint Eastwood and his conversation with the EMPTY damn chair.   Because if there’s anybody sitting in the “chair” of the Democrat Party, it is a fat, bloated damn demon.

Did it sound to you in the video like the “ayes” won by the required two-thirds margin?  If it did I’ve got four words for you: “Stupid Idiot Deaf Liar.”  If anything, the “no” vote was LOUDER and there was no freaking way the voice vote carried.  But the Democrats have always been a party of fascists masquerading as populists and so the leadership just did whatever the hell it wanted to do – which was try to sweep a real disgrace under the rug as quickly as possible.

This was just bizarre on every single level under the sun.  This is the party you want leading America?  Seriously?  The party of evil clueless clowns and rabid fools?

Now, I couldn’t tell you whether Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a clueless clown or a rabid fool if I had to pick just one, but here is what the chair of the Democratic National Convention said:

CNN White House correspondent Brianna Keilar, on the floor of the convention with Wasserman Schultz, asked about the process of changing the platform, the three voice votes, and the “discord.”

Wasserman Schultz amazingly replied, “There wasn’t any discord.”

Keilar responded that it seemed like people on the floor didn’t feel it was a two-thirds vote.

Wasserman Schultz again amazingly replied, “It absolutely was two-thirds.”

Continuing to press, Keilar noted that this seemed to be a change in policy from yesterday by the Obama campaign because they made it clear Tuesday that they stood by the platform with the controversial language regarding Jerusalem and the word “God” left out.

“No, no, it’s not actually,” Wasserman Schultz again amazingly replied.

At the end of the interview, the segment switched back to CNN’s booth at the convention where Anderson Cooper said, “I just got to go to the panel with this. I mean, Debbie Wasserman Schultz said it wasn’t a change of language, there was no discord that we saw, and it was a two-thirds vote.

“And it was a technical oversight,” added David Gergen.

“I mean, that’s an alternate universe,” replied Cooper. […]

Cooper added a few moments later, “I just think from a reality standpoint, you can defend it as the head of the DNC, but to say flat out there was no discord is just not true.”
 
At that point, John King fabulously said, “If I had a follow-up question, it would be did she ever get away with the dog ate my homework?”
 
That led to laughter from all present making it clear that this panel was not buying the DNC chair’s explanation.

The question remains: if the Democrats AREN’T the Party of godless communism and hostility toward God’s chosen nation Israel, then why the hell did they remove it from the platform to begin with?  I think you can tell by the vote that the answer is pretty straightforward: because most Democrats ARE “Democrats” – by which I mean, “Demonic Bureaucrats“.

The other – and just as dangerous to America – reason is because the platform had merely been adopted and passed to reflect the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION POLICY, as abundant evidence documents.

Obama was trying to throw Israel under the bus in 2008 but – I suppose fortunately lacking courage – he cut and ran from his statement that Jerusalem was merely one of many issues to be bargained away:

“Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations,” Obama told CNN when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

Obama has absolutely no regard for Israel or Jerusalem, and history proves it.  If Obama gets reelected, you can count on him to force Israel to give up Jerusalem for the pseudo-peace he will force Israel to accept so we can have Armageddon just like the God the Democrats purged from their platform told us we would have.

Obama is no friend of Israel.  That is a fact.

His call for Israel to be forced to return to its indefensible 1967 borders is more than proof enough of that all by itself.

At least ABC had the integrity to reveal the abject hypocrisy of the Democrat Party on this.  Charlie Rose repeatedly asked Senator Charles Schumer – who is THE Democrat authority on Israel and the Middle East – “What is the president’s position on Jerusalem?”  And Schumer refused to answer (because the American people would not LIKE Obama’s answer):

The new platform has still purged the language denying the “right of return” and the rejection of the terrorist group Hamas as well as the issue of the 1967 borders.  Any Israel-loving Jew or American who votes for the Democrat Party is an idiot or worse.

The Democrat Party is an evil, rabid, radical party.  It is the party of God damn America.  It has nothing to do with the Democrat Party that existed prior to the 1968 Democrat National Convention when the very radicals who now dominate it violently took it over.

Update: For the record, it was being circulated that Obama was the hero who courageously demanded that the God and Jerusalem language be put back into the DNC platform.  The only problem with that is that it is an utter fabrication.  In fact Obama saw the new language prior to its being put into the platform.  So the real question becomes, “Why did Obama allow and approve the language to be taken out to begin with?”

Anthony Weiner A Too-Typical Liberal Bureaucrat: A Pervert With No Marketable Skills Whatsoever

One of the reasons it took twenty days for Rep. Anthony Weiner to resign when it didn’t take much more than twenty minutes for Speaker Boehner to demand Rep. Chris Lee’s resignation turned out to be the hold-up of some kind of job for him.

Here are the facts:

Want to know a primary reason that thus far Weiner is refusing to quit  despite the calls for him to do so from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, DNC  Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, NY Rep. Steve Israel, chairman of the House  Democrats’ campaign committee and others?  A big reason is he simply cannot  afford to. His world has been turned upside down overnight, and the nation’s  politicians are incensed by it – but it really comes down to the fact that his finances  don’t lend many options right now.

As The NY Post reported “Weiner doesn’t have a business or even a law degree  to fall back on. He made $156,117 in 2010, and owes between $10,000 and $15,000  on his American Express card according to his most recent financial-disclosure  forms.” Anthony Weiner, the man, has never had another job since starting in  politics at the age of 21 in 1985. The future career possibilities for the 46  year old “object” Anthony Weiner aren’t too bright these days.

We are talking about a man who has never held a private sector job in his entire life.

Michelle Malkin has more to say about this:

Last year, the now-jobless Weiner joked on former roommate Jon Stewart’s cable comedy show that he didn’t “have a lot of marketable skills.” It’s one of Weiner’s rare truthful utterances over the past year.  A protégé of fossilized New York Sen. Charles Schumer, Weiner has spent the last 20 years in politics – straight out of college to the present. Through seven consecutive congressional terms, he has stridently advocated job-killing policies in the name of the working class. About which this ruling-class elitist knows nothing.

But it turns out Weiner DOES have one highly marketable skill: he is a rarefied pervert.  And in a degenerate world of pornography (a gift of liberals and liberal judges who said they couldn’t tell the difference between “art” and “porn” no matter how much of it they watched), being the level of sexual pervert that Weiner clearly is DOES have value:

Anthony Weiner Gets Offer From Larry Flynt to Work For His Hustler Empire in Beverly Hills

So I’m sure Weiner will be fine doing what he loves for fellow Democrat Larry Flynt.  Together they can continue to work for “liberal values.”  Such as LYING.

But here’s the thing.

Anthony Weiner was one of THE leading voices of the Democrat Party and THE voice for liberal values.  Bill O’Reilly demonstrated that the real loser in this Weinergate scandal is liberalism; they lost their star voice.  He debated with two liberals who couldn’t come up with anybody better than also-utterly-disgraced Rep. Charlie Rangel.  Even über über liberal Rachel Maddow says Weiner’s resignation will hurt the Democrat Party “probably for a generation.”

And who is this voice of liberalism?  An arrogant perverted punk who has spent his entire life on the taxpayer dole and who has absolutely no redeeming quality whatsoever in the world he demanded to have the power to regulate and then regulate some more.

I have pointed this out before: why on earth would any decent American want a Weiner running their lives???  Why would anyone but the worst fool imaginable want a guy like Anthony Weiner – who is not only a lying pervert but who literally is utterly USELESS in the real world – writing the laws that will control our economy and our lives???

Which just gets more to the point: if you vote for Democrats, you are a true fool indeed.

Michelle Malkin wrote a brilliant chapter in her book, Culture of Corruption.  It details how liberals make incredibly lucrative careeers moving from politics (either in elected office or as staffers) to crony capitalism (as lobbyists or in firms that want to schmooze politicians).  Michelle Obama is an example of this, as is Rahm Emanuel, as is Valerie Jarrett.  Crony capitalism is nothing more than fascism in waiting.  These people get rich gaming the system even as they corrupt and rot the system from within like leeches.

Schumer, Democrats Goose-Stepping To Their Fuhrers’ Marching Orders

When Charles Schumer’s caucus gives marching orders, Charles Schumer knows exactly how to proceed: “Jawohl, mein Fuhrer!”

Even the New York Times of all sources affirms this was  an incredibly stupid display.  But it is an incredibly stupid act that reveals that the Democrats are strickly a Big Brother-style operation.  And that Republicans are their Immanuel Goldstein.

March 29, 2011, 12:30 pm
On a Senate Call, a Glimpse of Marching Orders
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
4:58 p.m. | Updated Um, senators, ever heard of the mute button?

Moments before a conference call with reporters was scheduled to get underway on Tuesday morning, Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, apparently unaware that many of the reporters were already on the line, began to instruct his fellow senators on how to talk to reporters about the contentious budget process.

After thanking his colleagues — Barbara Boxer of California, Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — for doing the budget bidding for the Senate Democrats, who are facing off against the House Republicans over how to cut spending for the rest of the fiscal year, Mr. Schumer told them to portray John A. Boehner of Ohio, the speaker of the House, as painted into a box by the Tea Party, and to decry the spending cuts that he wants as extreme. “I always use the word extreme,” Mr. Schumer said. “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.”

A minute or two into the talking-points tutorial, though, someone apparently figured out that reporters were listening, and silence fell.
Then the conference call began in earnest, with the Democrats right on message.

“We are urging Mr. Boehner to abandon the extreme right wing,” said Ms. Boxer, urging the House to compromise on the scale of spending cuts and to drop proposed amendments that would deny federal financing for Planned Parenthood and for government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Carper continued with the theme, referring to some House Republicans’ “right-wing extremist friends.” Mr. Cardin decried Mr. Boehner’s giving into “extremes of his party.” Mr. Blumenthal closed by speaking of the “relatively small extreme group of ideologues” who are “an anchor” dragging down the budget negotiation process.

How news is made . . .

Update: Later in the day, Mr. Schumer’s spokesman, Brian Fallon, issued this statement about the senator’s remarks: “There’s nothing wrong with reporters overhearing him calling the House Republicans’ [position] extreme, because that’s what it is. He had just given a speech on the Senate floor saying the same thing. The sooner Speaker Boehner abandons the Tea Party’s extreme demands, the sooner there can be a bipartisan deal on the budget.”

So’kay, Republicans are “extreme right wing.”  But you guys are nothing more than a bunch of Nazis, goose stepping to your fuhrers’ marching orders.

The “relatively small extreme group of ideologues” just won the largest landslide election in 70 years, while Democrats – the “mainstream” in their warped view – just LOST the largest landslide election in 70 years.  What is wrong with this picture?

The Republican House is trying to fulfill the campaign pledge that won them victory in that landslide.  The are trying to cut a MERE $61 billion out of a $1.65 TRILLION deficit.  Democrats falsely and deceitfully claim they want to reduce the deficit when literally everything the Republicans propose to do so is “extremist.”

Let’s talk “extremist”:  When Democrats took over, Republicans had left them with a deficit of $161 billion (the deficit in the Republican-passed FY-2007 Budget).  The very next budget, and the first budget passed by Democrats (FY-2008), contained a $459 billion deficit – nearly three times larger than the previous year’s GOP budget.  If that seems crazy, consider their next budget, the FY-2009 budget that had a $1.4 TRILLION deficit – which again virtually tripled their previous tripling of the deficit.  Then there was the Democrats’ FY-2010 budget with a deficit of $1.6 trillion.  And even with total control over the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate, Democrats – caught like cockroaches with the kitchen lights turned on – couldn’t pass a budget at all prior to the election that threw them out of that total control.

Thanks to the Democrats, the United States is adding $4 billion to the deficit every single day this year. 

Now, you need to decide that either THAT is “extreme,” or Republicans trying to cut just a tiny fraction – just 1.5% – of that deficit, is “extremist.”

Republicans are the extremists?  Again, what is wrong with this picture???

Let us see who has used this tactic of unrelenting blame in the past:

Hitler wrote his Mein Kampf.  He blamed the Jews for pretty much everything that was wrong with Germany.

Hitler seized power after blaming the Reichstag fire on a communist conspiracy.

Hitler launched his Anschluss in Austria claiming that he was “protecting” the Austrian people from a Communist uprising (i.e., he blamed the communists).  For the record, both Nazi fascism and Soviet communism were both socialist and both left wing (“Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party”).  The Nazis were “rightwing” only in that they were the far right of the extreme left.

Hitler demanded the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia after blaming the Czechs for oppressing the Volkdeutsch (ethnic Germans) there.

Hitler invaded Poland after fabricating the Gleiwitz incident which provided him with the pretext to blame the Poles.

The tactic of demagogic blame has worked for fascist socialists many times before.  Only an evil people falls for this tactic.

It remains to be seen whether it will work this time.

Corrupt Financier Bernard Madoff Supported Democrats

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.

Democrats Refuse to Allow Domestic Oil Production

Gene Dale wrote:

OK, want to know why I detest Chuck Schumer?:

NY Times, 1999, on releasing strategic reserves…

Mr. Schumer said the United States should begin selling a few hundred thousand gallons a day from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which now contains 571 million gallons. ”A relatively modest amount of oil released from our oil reserves will keep prices flat and actually reduce them,” he said.

April 30, 2008

Senator Schumer, responding to Bush’s ANWR proposal: ““And what does the President do? He takes out the old saw of ANWR. ANWR wouldn’t produce a drop of oil in 10 years, and its estimated that if they drilled in ANWR in twenty years it would reduce the price one penny.

You should know ANWR will produce 1 million barrels a day.

May 14, 2008

“If Saudi Arabia were to increase its production by 1 million barrels per day that translates to a reduction of 20 percent to 25 percent in the world price of crude oil, and crude oil prices could fall by more than $25 dollar per barrel from its current level of $126 per barrel,” Schumer insisted during a speech on the Senate floor.

“In turn, that would lower the price of gasoline between 13 percent and 17 percent, or by more than 62 cents off the expected summer regular-grade price – offering much needed relief to struggling families,” he added.

And that is a pretty darned good reason to detest Sen. Chuck Schumer. A classic example of the twisted logic of a pandering demagogue in action.

First of all, it is important to point out that if President Bill Clinton hadn’t vetoed the Republican measure to drill in ANWR in 1995 – by Schumer’s own 10 year timeframe – we would have oil from those fields stabilizing our energy for a good three years now.

Second, ANWR has a lot more oil than Democrats or their environmentalist “experts” admit, and ANWR is only the tip of the U.S. oil supply iceberg: we have massive sources of oil all over the continent that Democrats won’t allow us to touch, such as the continental shelf.

It is simply a fact that Democrats have been obstructing efforts to increase U.S. domestic oil production for years and years. While Democrats and their many media allies have attempted to phrase this issue in terms of everything BUT oil independence, it remains a fact that the steadfast policy of Democrats has been to oppose every effort to increase our supply of oil.

Last year President Bush again attempted to open up more areas to drilling, but Democrats wouldn’t have any of it. “Whatever pressing energy issue comes before the American people, the Bush administration always responds with the same oil answer: more oil,” said Representative Nick J. Rahall II, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.”

MAYBE THAT’S BECAUSE WE NEED MORE OIL!!!

Shell’s John Hofmeister tried to explain this to Democrats, but Democrats view “hearings” as opportunities to pander, not as opportunities to learn:

While all oil-importing nations buy oil at global prices, some, notably India and China, subsidize the cost of oil products to their nation’s consumers, feeding the demand for more oil despite record prices. They do this to speed economic growth and to ensure a competitive advantage relative to other nations.

Meanwhile, in the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.

Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.

According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.

The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40 specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay or restrict natural gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I offer it today if you would like to include it in the record.

When many of these policies were implemented, oil was selling in the single digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of these policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S. companies outside the United States to produce new supplies.

As a result, U.S. production has declined so much that nearly 60 percent of daily consumption comes from foreign sources.

The problem of access can be solved in this country by the same government that has prohibited it. Congress could have chosen to lift some or all of the current restrictions on exportation and production of oil and gas. Congress could provide national policy to reverse the persistent decline of domestically secure natural resource development.

Senator Orrin Hatch also questioned Hofmeister about proven reserves discovered in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming totaling at least 800 billion and as many as 2 trillion barrels of oil, which could be recovered at a cost that would be a powerful offset against the rising cost of oil. The last part of this discussion is insightful:

HOFMEISTER: I don’t know what the exact cost would be, but, you know, if there is more supply, I think inflation in the oil industry would be cracked. And we are facing severe inflation because of the limited amount of supply against the demand.

HATCH: I guess what I’m saying, though, is that if we started to develop the oil shale in those three states we could do it within this framework of over $100 a barrel and make a profit.

HOFMEISTER: I believe we could.

HATCH: And we could help our country alleviate its oil pressures.

HOFMEISTER: Yes.

HATCH: But they’re stopping us from doing that right here, as we sit here. We just had a hearing last week where Democrats had stopped the ability to do that, in at least Colorado.

HOFMEISTER: Well, as I said in my opening statement, I think the public policy constraints on the supply side in this country are a disservice to the American consumer.

Add to that the recent discovery in the Bakken Play, a North Dakota field that stretches into Montana and Saskatchewan, Canada, which is expected to yield 100 – and possibly even 200 – billion barrels of oil, and we truly have an abundance of domestic oil that could easily meet American energy needs for decades to come. If we were only allowed to exploit those resources.

Instead, the United States is forced to rely on countries and regimes that are either hostile to our interests or politically unstable. This dependence is a clear threat to our national security, and – as long as this situation remains – “oil security will continue to be one of the primary drivers of US foreign and military policy.”

In other words, if Democrats really want America out of the turmoil of the Middle East, THEY SHOULD LET US TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR OIL RESERVES.

But these people have long since proven that they would rather pander than produce, would rather demagogue than dialog.

Take a leading Democrat, Rep. Maxine Waters.  Her contribution to the Democrat-engineered “show trial” of oil executives was to say, “And, guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will be about socializing… uh, will be about, basically taking over and the government running all of your companies.”  That’s right.  That ought to work.  The government that brought us the $1500 toilet seat will undoubtedly do a bang-up job in lowering gas prices.  And the fact that this prominent Democrat is openly proclaiming socialism while calling for a heavy-handed Marxist approach to economics shouldn’t trouble anyone.

The United States has not had a new oil refinery since 1976, due to a pattern of unyielding Democratic opposition, nonstop environmentalist litigation, and one impossibly burdensome environmental regulation after another. Democrats are clearly standing in the way of any kind of increase in refining capacity. In the last effort to increase our refining capacity, 99% of Republicans supported the bill, and 92% of Democrats opposed it.

“Everyone is quick to say “look at these refiners, they’re driving up the price,'” said Phil Flynn, senior market analyst at Alaron Trading in Chicago. “But if I wanted to build a refinery tomorrow, I couldn’t do it.”

Today on Fox News, one industry expert predicted that if we have a single refinery disaster during this hurricane season, we will see $7.00 a gallon gasoline this summer. Why? Because our limited refining capacity is already stretched to maximum, and any delay will send already stressed prices through the roof.

Why? What possible explanation can Democrats offer to account for their incredibly absurd energy positions?

Here’s a couple Democrat’s answers to the question “Why Are Democrats Against Building More Refineries?” that quite accurately reflect the Democrat position:

* “As a Democrat I want alternative fuel not more oil. More refineries = more oil. Let us turn the page and go forward.”

* “We don’t need more refineries, we need alternate and better fuel sources. More refineries is a temporary “fix” to a very big problem. Also, was there anything hidden in the bill?“

Democrats dismiss the FACT that increasing the domestic oil supply will have a profound positive impact on the price of U.S. gasoline.  Amazingly, by and large Democrats readily acknowledge that an increase in OPEC production will decrease prices; yet in practically the same breath they claim that a similar increase in American production would have no effect whatsoever.

Democrats demand that we turn away from what has provided well over ninety percent of our energy for a century and instead rely on costly, inefficient, impractical, and unproven alternatives. As one example, “Take out the 51-cents-a-gallon federal subsidy, and the true cost of U.S.-produced ethanol is equivalent to paying $6 a gallon for the same energy as gasoline, calculates Michael B. McElroy, Harvard professor of environmental studies.”

Democrats – who frankly don’t seem to understand much of anything – point to the complexity of the “very big problem” of meeting our energy needs.

And of course, Democrats love to punt to some version of a conspiracy theory rather than allowing any effort that would solve our energy crisis. One Democrat during yesterday’s hearings told the oil executives that, although she had no proof of collusion, believed that oil companies were conspiring to keep prices high, and challenged them to prove her wrong. I’ve actually wanted to pose a similar “when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife”-style question to Democrats by demanding that they prove to me that they are not insane, but I thought it would be unfair to ask until now.

Democrats keep refusing to allow any increase in oil production or refining capability, citing the argument that they want to reduce demand by means alternative energy and by changing American’s behavior. But the problem is, the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t want to change. Not long ago, I set my cruise control to the speed limit on the highway while on a sixty-mile drive, and counted the number of cars, trucks (excluding big rigs), and SUVs that went by me versus the number of cars I passed. The result: 421vehicles passed me, and I passed only 5. And cars and trucks routinely go flying by me on the road.

And while people are currently not buying a lot of gas-guzzling pickups and SUVs, previous gas-spike behavior assures me that once prices come back down, people will quickly go back to their previous ways and go back to buying the guzzlers.

The Democratic Party’s approach is to try to force automakers to produce cars that by-and-large customers don’t want; try to force vehicles to conform to shockingly-stringent environmental standards that will add thousands of dollars to the sticker price of each car; and try to force oil companies to invest in non-oil energy technologies (which is rather like trying to force Microsoft to invest in Apple). Such measures are largely ignored by consumers. What would really be interesting is if Democrats attempted to pass legislation requiring that speed-restricting governors to be placed on every new car sold. THAT would be a nice barometer to gauge genuine public opinion of their approach to energy.

The sad truth of the matter is that, unless draconian limitations on individual freedom are imposed, most of the Democrats’ energy policy will do nothing to nothing to reduce the costs of energy for the overwhelming majority of Americans. In fact, by refusing to increase the supply of oil in a global environment that is increasingly demanding a resource in increasingly restricted supply, they are only serving to drive up the cost of that energy.

That is outrageous enough. But to then turn around and attack President Bush, the Republican Party, and oil companies for a problem that Democrats themselves have been creating for over thirty years is nothing short of despicable.

Schumer Shows Democrat Hypocrisy Over Demand for MidEast to Pump More Oil

Sen Charles Schumer of New York demanded that OPEC pump more oil to ease the cost of gasoline, or he will hold up valuable arms deals with Arab countries.

Just wanted to point out the three examples of mass hypocrisy:

1) Democrats oppose any new drilling in the United States, but they are demanding that Arabs pump more? Isn’t that just dripping with hypocrisy? And they’re upset that OPEC can inflate the price, but they refuse to allow a the creation of a stable source of oil that we can control?

2) Democratic candidates for president are urging Sunni Arab countries to trust the United States to protect them and NOT develop nuclear weapons to balance the power of a Shiite Iranian program. But they then turn around and say, “We’ll cut your weapons supply off?”

3) Democrats scream about jobs, but then they threaten to cancel arms deals that employ so many American workers? Don’t they want American jobs?

Democrats drive up the costs of American business by demanding higher worker pay and benefits, by refusing to limit their costs of even frivolous litigation, by imposing one regulation after another on them, and by imposing incredibly expensive environmental restrictions. But its Republicans fault that companies are shipping jobs overseas to lower their costs. And then on top of that they use American contracts with foreign countries as a bargaining chip to score a cheap political point?