Gay Patriot Header Image

Dems Trapped In Cycle of Corruption

“Republicans don’t want real reform, because for more than 10 years they have benefited from their culture of corruption. Instead of seizing the opportunity today to enact real reform, Republicans once again put the special interests first, leaving the American people to pay for the Republican culture of corruption.” — (Not My)– Feb. 1, 2006 Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Well, well, well.   Hypocrisy, thy name is Nancy (and Harry, and Barry, and Charlie, and Rahm and Murtha, etc., etc.,)

The Texas financier accused by the Securities and Exchange Commission Tuesday of “massive ongoing fraud” was a generous political donor who gave more heavily to Democrats.

Since 2000, R. Allen Stanford, the chief of the Stanford Financial Group in Houston, his wife and company gave $2.2 million in political contributions — $1.7 million to Democratic candidates and committees — according to Federal Election Commission records.

The most recent donation on record was $300,000 from Stanford Financial Group to the Democratic Governors Association, a so-called 527 group not subject to campaign contribution limits.

Other big beneficiaries included the Democrats’ congressional campaign committees, which received $1.2 million over the years, and their Republican counterparts, which got $322,000, including a $28,500 personal donation last year to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Stanford and his companies gave $128,500 to the Republican National Committee, plus $2,000 to Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), $4,000 to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), $4,000 to Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas), $4,000 to Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and $4,800 to the committees of Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), among other contributions.

Under Nancy’s breaking the “Republican culture of corruption”, she has successfully cowed MILLIONS of dollars to keep her and the Socialist Democrats of America in power.

Let’s take a bet on which of the parties’ groups and Members of Congress return the money… and which don’t.   I’m confident Charlie Rangel will be the last to cough up his green.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)



  1. Bernie Madoff was a huge Democratic Party contributor, too.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 6:24 pm - February 17, 2009

  2. #1 – Gee, that’s something the MSM sure covered extensively. (SARC)

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 17, 2009 @ 6:26 pm - February 17, 2009

  3. […] […]

    Pingback by Obama Corruption Machine, 17,000! Soldiers to The Afghan Quagmire? (Silence, msm silence, leftist blog silence……………) « Zipline Conservative — February 17, 2009 @ 7:35 pm - February 17, 2009

  4. Not only was Madoff a huge Democrat contributor, ILC, but on the day he learned of his impending indictment, he cut a check to the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee in DC for…. $25,000. And he did the same thing in 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 with added contributions in 2008, 2006, 2004 and 2002. The DSCC funneled tons of cash to challengers Al Franken in MN, Jim Martin in GA, Kay Hagan NC and Jeff Merkley in OR. He also was responsible for bundling contributions to the same –as well as Lautenberg and Schumer– via several “investment advisor” associations and PACs.

    Did the DSCC return the Madoff money so that the little Jewish investors and non-profits he ripped off could be made a little bit whole? Nope… “sorry, it’s been spent”.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 17, 2009 @ 7:44 pm - February 17, 2009

  5. Once again, liberals prove that they are the swamp we supposedly elected them to drain.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 17, 2009 @ 8:22 pm - February 17, 2009

  6. MM, thank you kindly for an informative response.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 8:23 pm - February 17, 2009

  7. Not to mention Dodd, Frank, et al who accepted bribes favors from industries they’re supposed to oversee… acts that would get a rank-and-file government employee or government contractor jailed.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — February 17, 2009 @ 9:00 pm - February 17, 2009

  8. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    And since the MSM is the PR wing of the Democrat Party… the USA is little different than a one-party state where the party owns the media. The MSM won’t cover Democrat corruption since they’re in bed with the perpetrators.

    Comment by V the K — February 17, 2009 @ 9:41 pm - February 17, 2009

  9. You called Pelosi a hypocrite.
    Wow. You’re intelligent, and I love your blog…but…..
    Pelosi isn’t a hypocrite. She’s a completely corrupt liberal hack. (I apologize, technically and factually, Pelosi fits the qualifications of hypocrisy) But what you seem to miss, is that Libtard/Marxists are HYPOCRITES……………..on PURPOSE!!!!! Deception and Dishonest is a TOOL to the MARXIST. People like you seem to think SHAMING a LIBTARD/MARXIST has some use. IT DOES NOT.
    PELOSI USES HYPOCRISY to an end. So does Obama and most libtards.
    I guess what it boils down to, is that, honesty has no use or value to the LIBTARD/MARXIST. They are not playing by the heretofore rules we’ve all accepted as HONORABLE.
    Think about what I’m saying. It will make fighting the BEAST much easier.
    NAZI’S and the JAPANESE didn’t follow any code of honor with regard to their treatment of opponents.
    MAO and STALIN likewise.
    I’m not trying to be dramatic, I just SEE IT CLEARLY.
    Pelosi, Obama, Schumer, and many others have no use for honesty, honor or rules.

    Comment by libocrat — February 17, 2009 @ 10:23 pm - February 17, 2009

  10. I love how in the first article you quote you completely ignore the fact that one of the few individuals to receive a special perk, not just a campaign contribution, was John Cornyn (R-TX) who the Stanford Group had personally flow to Antigua for a “fact finding mission.” And I love how you altogether ignore that the Republican party and Republican congressman were also recipients of donations from this individual.

    And then when you read the second item you quote, it’s clear to see that Pelosi raises issue with “gifts from lobbyists and organizations that employ or retain lobbyists” which would be Cornyn.

    You’re either going to have to try harder to find actual support for your ridiculous posts or finally learn what the word hypocrisy means.

    Comment by george — February 18, 2009 @ 1:00 am - February 18, 2009

  11. Actually, George, the hypocrisy here is shown neatly by your attempt to attack Cornyn for doing something that you deny is wrong when Obama Party members do it.

    Meanwhile, as Riehl World View has pointed out, the biggest single recipient of largesse from Stanford was The One. Wonder what you have to say about THAT?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 18, 2009 @ 1:20 am - February 18, 2009

  12. So george is squealing, like Ned Beatty, the old “Republicans do it tooooo!!!!” never once acknowledging that it was wrong regardless.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 18, 2009 @ 2:28 am - February 18, 2009

  13. No, TGC, george is saying it’s only wrong when Republicans do it.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 6:54 am - February 18, 2009

  14. V the K,

    So at least he’s consistent then?

    Comment by The Livewire — February 18, 2009 @ 8:27 am - February 18, 2009

  15. “Meanwhile, as Riehl World View has pointed out, the biggest single recipient of largesse from Stanford was The One.”

    Yet its an SEC led by Obama appointee Mary Shapiro who took him down….
    Thus you should be applauding Obama…No?

    Comment by gillie — February 18, 2009 @ 8:54 am - February 18, 2009

  16. In other scumbag news, Ted Stevens may walk because of prosecutor’s misconduct. Ted Stevens is a scumbag and deserves to go down. At the same time though, one has to marvel at the double standard here. What Charlie Rangel and Tim Geithner did was orders of magnitude worse than Ted Stevens, but they get to keep their jobs.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 9:08 am - February 18, 2009

  17. gillie, you’re wrong on three counts about all this and your suggestion we should be applauding Obama for appointing Mary Shapiro as SEC Chair is off-base, by a Michigan mile.

    First, the investigation of Stanford pre-dates even Obama’s entry into the Democrat Prez Nomination contest… it long pre-dates Shapiro’s announced appointment… it was conducted by career investigators at SEC and DOJ and came “ripe” when senior partners refused to be deposed by SEC regulators.

    When it comes to security enforcement and oversight, Sen Obama has one of the worst Congressional records on thwarting fed investigating or calls for reform… if this had been the era of the Keating 5 standards, Obama would have never made it to the WH.

    Second, Mary Shapiro is a career security regulator with a long professional history dating back to her original appointment by, guess who, Pres Reagan. She was reappointed by Bush 41, made Chair of the CFTC by Pres Clinton, served on a number of security ethics boards by appointment of Bush 43 and, during the ENTIRE Bernie Madoff scandal, she was head of the industry’s regulatory organ, FINRA. In fact, in leaving FINRA, she’ll be walking away with anywhere from $5.9-18.7m in severance compensation. And the effectiveness of FINRA, whether one counts fines and levies, cases adjudicated or enforcements engaged is highly controversial… on all three counts, FINRAs been on a sharp downward trend.

    Sorry for the length gillie but I’m not sure you want to be holding that “We (heart) Mary” sign quite yet.

    Did Obama make the right choice? We’ll see in time… she has the farLeft feeling very uncomfortable with her appointment, if Crooks&Liars and HuffingtonPost are indicators. Frankly, that makes me feel better even though I’ve only heard her speak once at a NCEE event and she’s been generally a quiet, heads-down kind of operator in the securities industry.

    Third place you’r wrong in your assumptions, in each transition you can find dozens of prominent cases where professional career regulators seize the opportunity created by the chaos of an incoming Administration to press forward on key cases without vetting or oversight by the incoming political appointees. That’s what happened at the SEC… in fact, you might argue that the professional career non-political appointees moved on this matter before an Obama political operative could impede action.

    Again, sorry for the length but your suggestion we should cheer Obama for his appointment of Shapiro at SEC is pre-pre-premature.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 18, 2009 @ 10:17 am - February 18, 2009

  18. The culture of corruption among Republicans pales along side that of the Democrats. In two short years Pelosi´s Demoscrats have had nore scandel in two years than the Republicans in the six years prior. Even Mark Foley´s Democratic replacement had his sex scandel in his one and only term. Nancy doesn´t want to drill in ANWR but wants alternative energy, especially wind, because she is and her husband have a big block of stock in T. Boone Pickins company that produces windmills. Corruption seems to be endemic among Democrats. Prior to 1994 there was the scandel of abuse of franking privileges and the congressional bank. Barbara Boxer led the list of congress persons with over 400 NSF checks outstanding. Does anybody believe that the moeny was used for projects in her district? No commercial bank would permit it. The account would be closed and the checks returned. Instead of being punished by the voters for fiscal irresponsibility she was rewarded a seat in the Senate. When a Republican is tainted with scandel, The MSM plays it up big and hounds the persons until he/she resigns. When it is a Democrat they keep it low keyed, almost as though it is business as usual. Democrats seem to have a problem managing money.

    Comment by Roberto — February 18, 2009 @ 12:04 pm - February 18, 2009

  19. Two Democrat House members to return “donations” from a lobbying firm raided in December. One of them chairs the House Ethics committee.

    Culture of Corruption? The Democrats are soaking in it.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 12:55 pm - February 18, 2009

  20. So the new Democrat Ill Sen Burriss is in trouble for corruption and funnelling money toex Democrat Gov Blago. He lied under oath and said he made no such contributions. Because he is black he may get drummed out of Congress while the old mens club of Dodd,(D) Reid (D), Frank(D), et al tisk tisk tisk, and shake their finger at Mr Burriss. The Democrat party stinks to high heaven.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — February 18, 2009 @ 9:14 pm - February 18, 2009

  21. #20 – Gene, that’s what happens to black Dhimmicrats when they stray off the plantation. Of course, we know how Dingy Harry Reid flip-flopped on the issue of seating Burris in the first place.

    Maybe the current DNC like its members in the 1860s prefer to think of Burris as three-fifths of a senator.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 19, 2009 @ 11:08 am - February 19, 2009

  22. I wonder when Barry will fire all (but one) US attorneys ala Clinton – especially any who are investigating Democrat politicians. When he does, I’ll hold my breath waiting for the media/liberal outrage (forget that – I can’t hold my breath forever).

    #15: cases involving complex financial scams are not put together in a couple of weeks. As MM points out, this has been in the works for a while.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — February 19, 2009 @ 9:12 pm - February 19, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.