They say that people vote with their dollars for the goods and services they appreciate.  I think that people should pay more attention to who they are voting for, monitarily.

If we look at American society, we find that the Democratic Party’s voting base is largely comprised of people who do not pay taxes.  There is a small contingent of rich limousine liberals supporting the DFL, but much, if not most, of the Democrat base consists of welfare parasites, criminals, union thugs, and other assorted losers–the dregs of society.

By and large, the hardworking people who make America the country that it is vote Republican.  The farmers, skilled craftsmen, and professionals who actually work and pay taxes do not support the Democratic Party in plurality.

So why are people giving their hard-earned money to liberals who are working to undermine all that makes America the strong, prosperous nation that it is?

Every time you go see a movie, a liberal makes money.  Every time you purchase a music CD or MP3, a liberal makes money.  There are certain industries that are mostly dominated by liberals and it is high time that Conservatives look at who the beneficiaries are of their spending and economic power.

That’s why I would like to share a website with you that I just stumbled upon.  It is called BoycottLiberalism.com. It lists various businesses and entertainers who are allied with the liberal left and, or, the Democratic Party. Take a look at it and decide if they are worthy recipients of your money.

In case you are wondering what got me interested in this, I just read that Jimmy Buffett makes about $40 million per year.  He is also a Democrat and a huge political donor to the DFL according to the report I just viewed at fec.gov.

The LA Times ran a story on Christmas day, when few people are paying attention to political news, about Barack Obama’s upcoming inauguration party. Being a man of the people in touch with average Americans like you and me, as he was marketed to the mindless, Obama and his team are desperately scrambling to raise enough money to put on a $40 million inaugural bash in January.

LA Times Article

Forty million dollars for a party when people are losing their jobs? Absolutely. Forty million bucks when people are hungry and losing their homes and can’t afford medicine? Most definitely. This is the type of outrageous hypocrisy we have come to expect from limousine liberals like Obama. But that isn’t the worst of it. You see, Barack Obama is offering perks and special access to his greatness to the rich and famous. Those with big money to give will get some serious preferential treatment not available to the common man.

It isn’t like Barack Obama has never offered special benefits to those with money to give him before. He has a long history of taking money from people he would then repay by using his political influence to get them grants of taxpayer money. Tony Rezko comes to mind, but he isn’t the only one who has been rewarded by Obama over the years.

Obama has also granted special access to Hollywood celebrities for no apparent reason other than their fame. Some actors and actresses were so tight with Obama that they would exchange text messages with him several times a day. Do average Americans get to send text messages directly to Obama? No, of course not. They aren’t famous celebrities.

It seems that wealthy Democrats are quite eager to shower Obama with money in return for VIP status, up-front seating, admission to special events, and even the opportunity to have dinner with the messiah—if they can cough up enough cash. And Barack Obama is more than happy to rub elbows with them, provided they have the money to give. Obama is strictly pay-for-play. According to the article, the Obama team may not be able to deliver everything that some big-money-but-not-big-enough donors were expecting.

The demand for special treatment has been so great that the inauguration committee faced the possibility of well-heeled supporters being turned away from some of the most sought-after events–a fundraiser’s nightmare.

“There is frustration because individuals in some cases still do not know what they are getting for their donations,” said one fundraiser who is bundling money from several wealthy families and helping to coordinate their travel to the inauguration.

How sad for them.

People raising $300,000 or more are to be granted the title of “trustee” and will be allotted four tickets to every event, seats to the swearing-in ceremony, and prime placement at the ensuing parade.

All that for only $300,000? What a deal! Nothing beats a good bargain during an economic recession.

That Obama is such a man of the people. He has a great big heart and is always looking out for the little guy, isn’t he? This inaugural shindig proves where his heart truly is, and it isn’t with the poor and downtrodden.

How many poor people could be fed, clothed, or given housing and medical care with the money Obama is spending for one party? Doesn’t Barack Obama care about the poor he says he cares about?

It’s a shame that the media didn’t widely report more of Obama’s hypocrisy and favors-for-cash activities before the election, not that it would have made much difference. Democrat voters aren’t the brightest and most rational people you will find.

Barack Obama is one of the dirtiest, most crooked, and most hypocritical politicians of the modern era. Sadly, no matter what Obama does, the media is going to rationalize it as being a good thing.

Liberal journalists and bloggers criticized John McCain during the presidential campaign for wearing a $500 pair of Ferragamo shoes. “He’s out of touch with average Americans,” they said. What are they going to say about Barack Obama’s $40 million inauguration party? I bet nothing. Liberals tend to turn a blind eye toward hypocrisy among their heroes because hypocrisy is a requirement to be a liberal in the first place.

Can I have dinner with Obama, get close seats to his swearing-in, and good seats for his parade? No. Well, not unless I can come up with $300,000 in cash. If I’ve got the money, I’m in. Maybe that’s what Obama means when he talks about the “green economy”.

Here is a very interesting article about higher education in the United States.  More specifically, the article discusses the high cost of college education which is pushing it out of reach of average Americans.

CNN cost of higher education article

Nobody can dispute that liberals run higher education.  Not even a liberal would dare dispute that, and they are profoundly ignorant.

So what has happened to the cost of college under liberal leadership?  The cost has soared.  From 1982 to 2007, the cost of college rose 439% when adjusted for inflation.  According to the article, the cost of higher education has outpaced cost increases in food, housing, and health care.

Given that liberals run higher education and that they are a critical component of the DFL voting base, we can understand why Democrats have never spoken out about this important issue that is killing our competitiveness in the world economy.  Democrats have demanded action on food and health care costs, but have never demanded that colleges lower their tuition rates.

The only solution Democrats have proposed is to throw more taxpayer money at the problem.  Barack Obama’s plan proves what kind of idiot he truly is.  Obama’s plan to tackle the high cost of college is to give students a $4,000 tax credit in exchange for 100 hours of community service.  That’s truly stupid!  Obama wants to pay college kids $40 an hour to do community service for a measley $4,000, which wouldn’t pay for more than a few weeks of college at his alma matter Harvard.  Obama and the Democrats want to force college students to work while refusing to make welfare recipients lift a finger for their benefits that can greatly exceed $4,000 per year.

No Democrat has ever proposed looking at why college costs so much.  Because if they did, they would find waste and liberal mismanagement which would diminish their argument for more wealth redistribution.  Wealth redistribution is the foundation of the DFL platform.  Cutting the cost of college would defeat the purpose of their existence, which is to control people by redistributing wealth.

Interestingly, the more college costs, the less likely people are to attend it.  The less people who attend college, the less likely they are to get good paying jobs.  The less likely people are to get good paying jobs, the more likely they are to depend on Democrats for welfare and for everything they need to live.

See how it works?  Democrats destroy something and it ends up being beneficial to them because it keeps them in power.

As further proof of how rotten our economy isn’t, the concert industry posted a record year in 2008.

With the way Democrats are talking about everyone losing their jobs and their homes, how come people are paying record prices to attend concerts?

Maybe the economy isn’t as bad as the Democrats are saying it is.  Nobody can dispute that we are in a recession.  But economic contractions are a normal part of economic cycles.  They always have been and probably always will be.  The economy grows for a while, it contracts a little bit, then grows, and the cycle repeats every few years.  It’s called the business cycle.  Yet Democrats have no knowledge about it.  Every time the economy takes a downturn, Democrat idiots act like it has never happened before and then blame Republicans for it.

Democrat liars have been saying that the economy has been terrible for years, even when unemployment was at 4.4% in March of 2007.  I guess if you keep lying, eventually you will be right.

AP Concert Industry Article

Of particular interest is this one little nugget:  all three of the top-grossing concert tours are by Democrats.

Democrat Bon Jovi’s tour grossed an estimated $210.6 million between November 2007 and November 2008.

Bruce Springsteen, also a Democrat and a Barack Obama supporter, grossed $204.5 million.  Madonna, bleeding heart liberal Democrat that she is, had gross revenues of $162 million.

The hypocrisy of these Democrats is mind-blowing.  First off, they are already extremely rich.  They don’t need more money.  But, they go on concert tours and squeeze as much money out of their fans as possible while releasing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Then they complain about global warming.

Nothing sickens me more than rich liberals like Madonna saying that American taxpayers must do more to help the poor around the world while sitting on a huge pile of money.  Her recent divorce from Guy Ritchie revealed the material girl to be worth between $450 million and $850 million.  Why doesn’t she give her own money away?  Just more fraud and hypocrisy from rich Democrats.

Madonna poverty in Africa article

Madonna net worth article

Microsoft’s Internet Explorer is a horrible program.  It is buggy, full of security holes, and makes you vulnerable to spyware, adware, and other malicious code which can steal your passwords to important websites.  But there are alternatives that are much more secure with better features.  I recommend (all are completely free):

Firefox, Opera, Safari, Google Chrome

Using any of them will be a huge step up from buggy and insecure Internet Explorer.  Give Firefox or another one a try and I bet you will be happy you dumped IE!

Surf safely and enjoy faster performance with more features by dumping Internet Explorer today!

Every day the liberal news media runs sob stories about people losing their homes to foreclosure.  We are constantly being bombarded with stories of foreclosures with the underlying premise that the economy is solely to blame.  There are a couple of things the talking heads aren’t telling you.

• Most foreclosures up to this point have involved subprime borrowers.  These are people who never should have gotten loans in the first place, and wouldn’t have if Democrats weren’t pressuring lenders to make loans to unworthy borrowers.
• Many people who are going into foreclosure aren’t doing so because they can’t pay their mortgage, but are doing so because they don’t want to pay their mortgage any longer.

MSNBC Voluntary Foreclosure Article

Above is an article from MSNBC that mentions the fact that some people are walking away from their mortgages voluntarily.  The author introduces us to one sickening deadbeat by the name of Diane Shackle.  It seems that Ms. Shackle, a single cocktail waitress, decided that while she could still make the payment on the condominium she purchased for $191,000, it caused too much stress on her and prevented her from spending money on other things.  So, she quit making her mortgage payments and moved into a $750 a month apartment.

Isn’t that what this deadbeat should have done in the first place?  A cocktail waitress with no money for a down payment takes on a $191,000 interest-only mortgage and she walks away from her obligations.  How could people not see this kind of thing coming?

Also, if she could still make the monthly payments but struggled to afford other things, could she not have gotten a second job for a while?  I think that is what most responsible people would have done.

Democrats encourage voluntary foreclosures because they created laws in some states prohibiting mortgage companies from coming after other assets of deadbeats in the event of a foreclosure.  What do these deadbeats really have to lose?  Their credit scores will be blemished for a few years.  But do you think they care?  They have no pride and don’t believe in following through on a deal, so do they really care that their credit worthiness will be damaged for a while?  No.  They are just holding their hands out waiting for the DFL to come along with a bailout package so they can all live in homes they never could have afforded at taxpayer expense.

Luckily for the deadbeats, the DFL is salivating at the chance of showering them with taxpayer money come January.  The Democratic Party encourages and rewards stupidity and irresponsibility every chance it gets.

The “average” global temperature–as if you could measure such a thing–was down in 2008.  The average temperature of the planet was 57.76 degrees Fahrenheit, or 14.31 degrees Celsius, down 1/10th of one degree Celsius over last year and down 21/100ths of a degree Celsius compared to 1998.  (Reuters Story.)  Despite the temperature being down, global warming advocates insist that we are still experiencing a warming trend.  And as you would imagine, the only possible solution to this global warming is: higher taxes.

Isn’t it amazing how scientists can calculate the average temperature of the entire atmosphere of the earth to a precision of 1/100th of a degree Celsius?  That must be trillions of cubic meters of atmosphere to be measured, and they can do it to an amazing degree of precision.  Right?  Wrong.

Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on mankind.  Climate change is real, but only because the climate is constantly changing.  Most of North America, including the land I live on now, was once covered by a giant glacier.  Nobody complained about polar bears dying when the glaciers receded, did they?

Here is an article about a scientist who disputes the notion of an average global temperature.

Average Global Temperature Not Meaningful

Discussions on global warming often refer to ‘global temperature.’ Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.

“It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth”, Bjarne Andresen says, an expert of thermodynamics. “A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate”.

This notion that there is 100% consensus among scientists that global warming is caused by man is completely untrue.  The earth has warmed and cooled many times over the millennia, and it will continue to do so regardless of human activity.

Scientists who attempt to measure the average temperature of the earth do so using a sample as it is not possible to measure the temperature of the climate at trillions of different data points.  With any sample, there is going to be a statistical margin of error.  What is the margin of error for the average temperature sample?  That information is never divulged.  A statistical average is never supposed to be used as an absolute, as global warming advocates are trying to do.  A statistical average is a descriptor that may or may not be accurate within the margin of error.  Think of political polls and how often they are wrong.

Furthermore, the climate is very complex and largely random.  It cannot be modeled to a high degree of precision because nature does not operate according to a mathematical model.  Solar activity and even the activity in the earth’s molten core can contribute to changes in earth’s temperature.

If scientists can’t accurately predict the temperature in a certain location to within one degree 24 hours from now, how can they predict the temperature of the entire planet 50 or 100 years into the future?  They can’t.  Try explaining that to a liberal!

Why don’t you share a link to this blog with your friends?

http://dirtyfraudsandliars.com

We are starting a political forum in the near future and welcome intelligent debate on the issues of the day. Please stop back soon. 

Democrat scam artist Bernard Madoff, who orchestrated the world’s largest Ponzi scheme which may have cost investors $50 billion, was put on house arrest yesterday by a federal judge.  (Story)

House arrest?  Why is a man who committed such a massive fraud not sitting in jail with other Democrat criminals?  How come Madoff gets to await trial in his $7 million luxury penthouse apartment which was probably bought with stolen money?  I do not understand why any judge would release the biggest thief in the history of the world.  You would have to think that someone who committed such a brazen act of fraud would be a flight risk, right?  One must wonder what judge Gabriel Gorenstein was thinking.

In case you are questioning the fact that Madoff is a Democrat, please see a previous article proving that he is indeed a Democrat.  I show all of Madoff’s political contributions.  There isn’t any indication that he donated to Barack Obama, in case you were wondering, but I’m sure Madoff voted for Obama.  Nobody loves a fraud more than another fraud.

Bernard Madoff’s Political Contributions

Why don’t you share a link to this blog with your friends?

http://dirtyfraudsandliars.com

We are starting a political forum in the near future and welcome intelligent debate on the issues of the day.  Please stop back soon. 

We all know how the Democratic Party tried to steal the 2000 presidential election.  (More on that below.)  This election cycle, the Democrats are trying to steal the Minnesota Senate election between Republican incumbent Norm Coleman and multi-millionaire socialist hypocrite and failed radio talk-show host Democrat Al Franken.

What bothers me most of all in this race are the “missing” votes.  Since the race was so close, with an initial difference of just over 400 votes between the two candidates, a recount was mandated.  Coleman originally held the lead in the vote count and still does as of this writing by 328 votes.  But those dirty Democrats are trying to scrape up votes wherever they can, even out of thin air.

In the Democrat stronghold of Minneapolis, 133 ballots supposedly were lost.  How they got lost was never revealed.  Did they ever exist?  Who knows.  There is no proof since they cannot be found.  But that didn’t stop the Democrat-leaning canvassing board from insisting that those 133 missing ballots be factored into the vote total.  Those missing ballots gave Franken a net gain of 46 votes over Coleman.

I cannot understand out how anyone could rationally decide that ballots whose existence cannot be proven should be counted in a recount.  But, we are talking about Democrats…

133 Missing Ballots – Star Tribune Article

After what they said was an exhaustive search of the nooks and crannies of their Northeast warehouse, Minneapolis officials announced Monday that they were abandoning their hunt for 133 missing ballots in the U.S. Senate recount.

The Minneapolis precinct is heavily Democratic, and calculations indicate that leaving the missing ballots out of the count could cost Franken a net of 46 votes. That’s a potentially important number in a race where Coleman held a 192-vote edge…

Franken Benefits From Missing Votes – Pioneer Press Article

Democrat Al Franken had a good morning at the state canvassing board, not only winning two decisions that could be critical in determining the outcome of the 2008 U.S. Senate race but getting a surprise gift from the city of Duluth.

First, the board voted to count 133 missing ballots from a Minneapolis precinct, despite the objections of Republican U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman. (Democrat) Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson told the board this morning that it could include the ballots, which otherwise would have cost Franken dozens of votes in his bid to unseat Coleman.

Democrats want to steal this senatorial election so badly they insist phantom votes be counted!

The Stolen 2000 Election

After the 2000 election, Republican George Bush held a margin of 1,784 votes over Democrat challenger Vice President Al Gore in the state of Florida.  That meant Bush would receive Florida’s electoral college votes and would win the presidential election.  A recount was automatically mandated due to the small margin between the candidates.  The recount revealed Bush to still be the winner, albeit by a smaller margin.  Al Gore sued.  He wanted to cherry-pick districts favorable to him in an effort to scrape up enough votes to defeat Bush in a manual recount, applying all sorts of goofy standards to ballots.  Gore took the case before the Florida Supreme Court, which extended the deadline for election returns.  The United States Supreme Court eventually ruled that no recount could be completely by the legally required deadline, causing Gore to drop the case and concede the election.

Despite the Democrats’ attempts to steal the 2000 election, Bush won it legitimately.

CNN 2000 Election Study

Florida recount study: Bush still wins

A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

Bush won the 2000 election fair and square.  Unfortunately, Democrats still haven’t stopped perpetuating the lie that Bush stole the election and was “selected, not elected.”

OPEC, the cartel of oil producing nations which produces roughly 40% of our world’s oil, is planning cuts in supply to help increase the price.

Oil prices are low now due to slumping world demand.  OPEC is hoping to reduce excess supply in hopes of getting oil back up to $70 to $80 per barrel versus the $47 where it stands as of this writing.

If OPEC is cutting production of petroleum to raise prices, then wouldn’t the converse be true?  Wouldn’t you want to increase the supply to put downward pressure on prices?  Absolutely you would.  But simple logic such as this is beyond the grasp of the Democrat brain.

NY Times Article

The OPEC cartel agreed on Wednesday to reduce production by 2.2 million barrels a day, the group’s largest ever cut, in an effort to put a floor on falling oil prices.

Mr. Khelil said the group wanted to “eliminate” an overhang of commercial oil inventories, which now stand at 57 days of supplies, down to 52 days, and aimed to push up prices to $70 to $80 a barrel.

When oil prices were at their record highs of $147 per barrel back in July 2008, not only did Democrats resist all Republican attempts to expand domestic oil drilling, but they wanted to block more of it.  Don’t forget that the Democratic Party has been blocking new supplies of domestic oil for years.  Back in 2001, President Bush and most Republicans wanted to expand drilling in Alaska and offshore.  Democrats in the Senate blocked it by threatening a filibuster.  In the House of Representatives this year, Nancy Pelosi single-handedly blocked a floor vote on the issue.

Thank goodness we have the Democratic Party and people like Nancy Pelosi blocking oil drilling for years.  Heaven forbid that they actually do anything in the best interest of the American people.

All over the United States, local governments are facing budget deficits in light of the economic downturn.  These revenue shortfalls are forcing governmental bodies to make cuts in their budgets.  What are they cutting?  In Democrat strongholds, they are cutting budgets for essential services like police, fire, schools, and making cuts in other less important areas such as libraries and parks.

I have read articles about budget cuts from cities all over the country.  I have not seen one article yet that puts a priority on cutting welfare programs.  These Democrats can’t stop paying people money to do nothing, for that is how the DFL buys their votes.  You would think that in difficult budgetary conditions that governments would cut non-essential services.  But not Democrats.  They cut the most critical services first, such as police, putting the citizenry at a higher risk of being victims of crime committed by–you guessed it: Democrat voters.

The Democrat strategy of cutting police first before anything else does have one advantage for the DFL.  It makes citizens fearful.  And by making citizens fearful, Democrats can more easily convince them of the need for more tax increases.

See how it works?

• New York City Plans To Cut Police Budget
• Los Angeles Considering Cuts To Police Budget

Here’s an interesting story from a couple of weeks ago about how law enforcement infiltrated the Minneapolis-based liberal anarchist group the “RNC Welcoming Committee” that was planning to commit acts of violence and terrorism during the Republican National Convention this past September.

Star Tribune Story

The liberal anarchists have been charged with various crimes and are currently awaiting trial.  Among the charges against them are that they were planning to: puncture tires of buses carrying RNC delegates; assault police officers and delegates; and throw feces and urine on people.  That’s right.  These liberals were saving their urine and feces in buckets so they could throw them at people.

All of the liberals in this story are young, physically fit, and in the prime of life.  They range in age from 19 to 26.  They have no visible disabilities and show no reason why they can’t be productive human beings.  A couple of them are college students (liberal arts majors). Check out this line from the story:

(The undercover police officer) went “dumpster diving” at the group’s instructions to find food for the anarchists to eat.

These liberals were eating trash!  They were so lazy and such big losers that they were willing to eat food out of the garbage instead of going to work everyday like normal people.

When I was in my mid-20s, I had finished college and started a career, working 40 or more hours per week.  I, unlike these liberals, actually paid for my food.  I paid my taxes.  I contributed to society and the economy.

What bothers me most of all about these liberals is that they voluntarily chose a life of sloth and irresponsibility, then they do everything possible in conjunction with their Democrat allies to steal money away from those of us who work hard for it.  These liberal pieces of trash want to rob us of everything we have worked for and enslave us under a system of socialism and centralized planning because they of their own freewill chose not to participate in the system like most normal people do.

These liberals ate trash because they are trash.  These liberals are what they eat!

Democrat Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts was interviewed by CBS News’ Lesley Stahl on last night’s edition of “60 Minutes”.  Barney Frank demonstrated to the world that he is a true moron.  He exhibited the faulty logic typical of liberalism to a stomach-turning degree.  Not surprisingly, Lesley Stahl never pursued it.  A real journalist would have torn Frank to shreds with the ammunition he provided.

Rep. Frank is the head of the House Financial Services Committee which oversees the entire financial industry including the banking, securities, insurance, and housing industries.  The interview dealt mostly with the current subprime mortgage crisis and home foreclosures which, interestingly, Barney Frank is largely responsible for causing.  Lesley Stahl never really mentioned that.

60 Minutes Article And Video Of Barney Frank Interview

As the piece opened, it was very flattering of Rep. Frank.  It made me gag.  It started with:

Barney Frank has been called the “smartest guy in Congress,” which is lucky for us since he works on some of the thorniest issues around.

Frank has been called the “smartest guy in Congress” by whom?  Himself?  Other Democrat morons?  Nobody else could call a massive idiot like Barney Frank “smart” given what he has done.  Frank was one of the leaders who blocked Republican efforts to put stricter regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the early 2000s to prevent Fannie and Freddie from collapsing–which they inevitably did.  First, a little history lesson.

In the late 1990s, the Clinton administration was pressuring Fannie Mae to make loans to people with poor credit and low incomes in an effort to increase minority home ownership.  Fannie Mae was run by a Democrat by the name of Franklin Raines.  He made a reported $100 million in a few years time while leading the government-backed corporation during a period when it committed massive accounting fraud.  Being a loyal Democrat, Raines was more than happy to oblige the requests of the puppet master, Bill Clinton.  Making high-risk loans was good for Raines, too, since it put a lot of money into his pocket.

Home ownership is a good goal for America.  Home ownership by means of giving loans to people who can’t pay the money back isn’t wise.  In the late 1990s, people were warning that Fannie was taking on too much risk by becoming such a large player in the subprime mortgage market.

NY Times Article From Sept. 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans.

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people…

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.

In 1999–nine years before Fannie Mae collapsed–people were warning that the quasi-governmental agency was taking on too much risk and posed a huge financial danger to the taxpayers of this country (most of whom vote Republican).

So what did Barney Frank do?  Rep. Frank and his Democrat colleagues did everything they could to prevent the Bush administration and Republicans from imposing stricter regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to prevent a catastrophic failure from happening.  Let’s look at just how “smart” Barney Frank is, shall we?

NY Times Article From Sept. 11, 2003

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken.

In 2003, the Bush administration and Republicans were pushing for more regulations to prevent the collapse which occurred a few months ago.  What did “smart” Barney Frank think of this?  From the same article:

”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.”

Barney Frank said that there was no problem with Fannie and Freddie.  It turns out that there were big problems with those two taxpayer-backed corporations.  They failed, costing the hard-working taxpayers billions!

Obviously, Barney Frank was wrong.  He isn’t smart.  He’s an idiot.  And so is Lesley Stahl who opened her piece by saying that it is lucky for us that Rep. Frank has been called the “smartest guy in Congress”.

Is it lucky for us that Barney Frank blocked Republican efforts to prevent Fannie and Freddie from collapsing?  Is that Lesley Stahl’s idea of good fortune?

The Stahl piece went on to briefly mention Rep. Frank’s relationship with a male prostitute and the fact that a male prostitution ring was being run out of Frank’s home in 1989.  Amazing how he had no knowledge of that…

The entire interview with Barney Frank is a showcase of idiocy and the mental disorder of liberalism.  More to come in the next post.

Meanwhile, why don’t you share a link to this blog with your friends?

http://dirtyfraudsandliars.com

We are starting a political forum soon and welcome intelligent debate on the issues of the day.  Please stop back soon. 

Here is a list of campaign contributions and political donations from Bernard Madoff.  Bernard Madoff recently admitted to running a Ponzi scheme via his investment firm that has lost an estimated $50 billion of investor money.

Almost all of Bernard Madoff’s political contributions went to Democrats.  Only a few went to Republicans.  His children are senior executives at the company, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities.  All of his children who donated contributed exclusively to Democrats as well.

They are a crooked family.  They are a Democrat family.  No surprises here.  The Democrat culture of corruption runs deep and wide.  You can verify this information for yourself at the Federal Election Commission website.  Listed here are contributions to candidate committees and party committees.  Not included are a small number of donations to groups not identifiable to any political party.

Bernard Madoff – Founder and Chairman

• Charles (Chuck) Schumer (D-NY) 03/31/1998: $300
• Charles (Chuck) Schumer (D-NY) 05/22/1998: $2000
• Charles (Chuck) Schumer (D-NY) 04/08/2002: $2000
• Charles (Chuck) Schumer (D-NY) 08/18/2004: $2000
• Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) 02/18/2004: $1000
• Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) 07/20/2007: $2600
• Ronald Wyden (D-OR) 03/25/2003: $2000 ($1000 each from Bernard Madoff and his wife)
• James Matheson (D-UT) 10/18/2004: $250
• Jon Corzine (D-NJ) 08/24/1999: $1000
• Darlene Hooley (D-OR) 10/15/2004: $250
• Joseph Crowley (D-NY) 08/26/1998: $500
• Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) 01/13/2000: $1000
• Jeffrey Merkley (D-OR) 04/24/2008: $2300
• Martin Frost (D-TX) 10/15/2004: $250
• Richard Gephardt (D-MO) 09/23/2003: $2000
• David Obey (D-WI) 03/10/2000: $1000
• Edward Markey (D-MA) 05/15/1998: $1000
• Edward Markey (D-MA) 06/17/2004: $4000
• Vito Fosella (R-NY) 04/20/2000: $1000
• Alfonse D’Amato (R-NY) 09/21/1998: $1000
• Wilbert Tauzin (R-LA) 05/05/1998: $1000
• Charles Rangel (D-NY) 10/23/1998: $1000
• Charles Rangel (D-NY) 08/30/2001: $1000
• Bill Bradley (D-NJ) 04/26/1999: $1000
• Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee 10/30/1998: $1000
• Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee 05/09/2005: $25000
• Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee 09/30/2006: $25000
• Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee 05/04/2007: $25000
• Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee 09/12/2008: $25000

Just three months before his crooked scheme unraveled, Bernie Madoff donated $25,000 to the Democratic Party Senatorial Campaign Comittee.

There can be no doubt that Bernard Madoff is a Democrat.  He is a Democrat through and through.  And in typical Democrat fashion, he is a liar, a fraud, and a thief.

Up next:  the political contributions of his children and senior executives.

Why don’t you share a link to this blog with your friends?

http://dirtyfraudsandliars.com

We are starting a political forum soon and welcome intelligent debate on the issues of the day.  Please stop back soon. 

The news broke a few days ago about the $50 billion in potential investor losses as a result of a massive Ponzi scheme.  Bernard Madoff of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities was arrested and charged with fraud in what is believed to be the largest fraud case in the history of the world.  He is the one who provided the estimate of $50 billion in losses.

When I first heard of this, the first thing I suspected was that Madoff was a Democrat.  Despite Democrat lies that Republicans are the party of big money, Wall Street is heavily populated and largely run by Democrats.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were run and destroyed by Democrats.  Barack Obama was by far the largest recipient of donations from Wall Street employees in the 2008 Presidential campaign with Hillary Clinton not far behind.

The reason that I first suspected that Madoff is a Democrat is because that whenever you find lies, fraud, destruction, and stupidity, you will find a Democrat.

I was right.  I did a little searching for Bernard Madoff’s political contributions over at opensecrets.org. I discovered that all of his political contributions went to Democrats.  He didn’t donate a single penny to a Republican candidate or group.  Not only did the fraud mastermind Madoff donate to DFL candidates, but his children who work for him did, too.

The Madoff family is a Democrat family.  The elder Madoff is going to go down as the biggest crook in history.  It isn’t surprising that it would be a Democrat.

Read about the Democrat’s massive scheme here:

• Time
• NY Daily News

Now that Barack Obama has been elected President, one must wonder if he will pardon his former longtime friend Tony Rezko.

Rezko, a Chicago developer of welfare housing, was convicted in June of fraud, money laundering, and abetting bribery.  He is awaiting sentencing.  Rezko is currently talking to federal prosecutors in hopes of getting a reduced sentence.  What could he possibly have to say?

There is speculation that Rezko is dishing dirt on disgraced Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (Democrat) who has been under investigation by federal authorities for the past three years and was recently charged with several counts of corruption related to the attempted sale of Barack Obama’s Senate seat.  But there is a possibility, and a hope of millions, that Rezko will detail his relationship with Barack Obama.

Syrian-born Rezko was one of Barack Obama’s first backers.  He took Obama under his wing and helped him navigate the maze of Chicago politics.  Rezko was instrumental in raising money, the lifeblood of Chicago politics, for Obama, giving the newly minted politician his first campaign contributions.  Rezko got a lot from Obama in return.  On several occasions, Obama used his influence as state Senator in letters he wrote urging grants of taxpayer money to Rezko’s company.

There is absolutely no question that Barack Obama did political favors for his financial backer Tony Rezko.  None at all.  The question at hand is whether or not these favors were illegal and corrupt.

All it would take for Obama to be charged with corruption is for Tony Rezko to say that he raised money for Obama in exchange for favors.  Whether or not that occurred is unknown.  And if it did occur, we don’t know if Tony Rezko would be willing to roll over on his former buddy Obama.  But there is a clear financial relationship between the two men and clear evidence that Obama used his influence to get taxpayer money for Rezko.

The simplest way to keep Rezko’s mouth shut would be for Obama to pardon him.  The political damage from a pardon would be insignificant compared to criminal charges alleging corruption.  But, this is all dependent on what Tony Rezko says and, to a lesser extent, on what actually transpired between the two.

Here are a few sentences from an article from Obama’s hometown newspaper detailing the favors Obama did for Rezko.

Sun Times Article About Obama’s Favors For Tony Rezko

As a state senator, Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko’s successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens.

The deal included $855,000 in development fees for Rezko and his partner, Allison S. Davis, Obama’s former boss…

Obama’s letters, written nearly nine years ago, for the first time show the Democratic presidential hopeful did a political favor for Rezko…

There you have it.  There is no question that Obama did favors for Rezko.  The question is whether or not they were illegal and if Rezko will talk about it.

Here’s another article about President-elect Obama’s ties to Tony Rezko:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article

The Democrat culture of corruption continues. Rod Blagojevich, Democrat governor of Illinois, is in federal custody on charges of corruption.  He and his chief of staff, John Harris, are charged with solicitation of bribery and conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud.

Federal prosecutors allege that Democrat Blagojevich conspired with others to achieve financial gain with his power to appoint a successor to President-elect (I hate saying that!) Barack Hussein Obama to the United States Senate.  Among the allegations against Blagojevich are that he discussed (from CNN):

• obtaining a position with a non-profit or union-affiliated organization which would pay him a substantial salary;
• promises of campaign contributions;
• a Cabinet post or ambassadorship;
• a high-paying position for his wife on corporate boards of directors.

You may recall that it was rumored that convicted Barack Obama friend and finanical backer Tony Rezko was cooperating with federal prosecutors in building a corruption case against Blagojevich.  (Info) Despite this controversy swirling around Blagojevich, he could not resist his Democrat urges to use his position of power to enrich himself one more time.

Tony Rezko was convicted.  Blagojevich has been charged.  It is only a matter of time until a bright light is shined on Barack Hussein Obama.  Maybe then we’ll get to the truth of his crooked dealings which the liberal news media refused to do during the campaign season.

I was taken aback when I read the following headline from CNN’s website a few minutes ago:

CNN Story

Dow up more than 300 points on Obama comments on economy, hopes for automakers

So I read the story, then checked with Google News to verify CNN’s claim that Obama’s comments sent the market soaring.  The CNN story is as misleading as a headline can possibly get.  The story opens with this:

Stocks surged Monday on signs that the automakers will be able to avoid bankruptcy and President-elect Barack Obama’s proposed stimulus plan.

According to a Reuters news story, the White House stated this morning that a deal aiding the auto industry was “very likely” today.  So, which bit of news is responsible for moving the market?  Is Obama’s “plan”, which is nothing more than socialism and centralized planning, responsible for sending the stock market higher today, or is President Bush’s release that a bailout was likely the cause of the jump in the market?

Let’s look at the facts.  President-elect Obama’s (oh, God, how I hate saying that) plan isn’t new.  He’s been talking about it for weeks now.  Not only that, but it isn’t much different than what he said on the campaign trail.  This is from November 25th, 2008:

WSJ Article

(Obama) ticked off a list of priorities that included: creating 2.5 million jobs, and spending on roads, bridges, schools and clean-energy programs.

That is pretty much the exact same thing Obama said this past weekend.  This isn’t news, it was already known.  Thus, it is highly unlikely that Obama’s comments moved the market today.

So we are left with the other bit of news that an auto industry bailout deal was likely.  Is it big news?  Yes, absolutely.  Is it big enough to cause the stock market to jump?  Yes.  Is the Obama economic plan discussed this weekend, which we already knew about long ago, big news?  No.  We already knew about it.  Is it likely to be responsible for moving the market this morning?  Since we already knew about it weeks, if not months, ago, no, it is not likely.

This is just another sickening example of the media in Obama’s corner promoting him and his socialist economic plan.  I did not read a single news story mentioning the fact that the stock market dropped for two consequtive days starting the day after Obama was elected.  But, I’ve read several stories trying to link any increase in the stock market to Obama and his plans.  The news media is not being honest.

It is true that the market jumped immediately after Obama announced that Timothy Geithner was his pick for Secretary of the Treasury.  But that is the only time that anything Obama said has moved the market.  The only time.

Every time the market goes up, liberal journalists will portray Obama as being responsible.  Even if he didn’t do or say anything, the media will link every daily increase in the stock market to Obama and his “glorious plans”.  But when the market goes down as a result of something Obama does or says, they won’t dare link him to the decline.  The last thing they want you to know is the truth.