The Fall Of Bernie Madoff Has Political Implications

If the roller coaster ride on Wall St. was not enough to give investors nightmares, the news of the Ponzi style scam of Bernard Madoff is sure to cause many a sleepless night. Madoff made a name for himself as an investment advisor to the ultra-rich, who promised and fulfilled double-digit returns in either a bear or a bull market. His con lasted for more than 4 decades before his historic $50 billion swindle came to an end.

The scam is a relatively simple idea of taking money from investors and instead of legally investing the funds; he would pay returns to other investors, after keeping a portion for himself. The Ponzi scheme is named for Charles Ponzi, an Italian immigrant, who took millions of dollars from thousands of investors in 1920. His lie was based on buying and selling of international postal reply coupons. Basically, he promised to buy these coupons in foreign countries and redeem them here in the U.S. for a huge profit. In a matter of months he went from being broke to a millionaire before he was shutdown for mail fraud.

Madoff’s customers included some of most influential people in the country, as well as billion dollar hedge funds, and Sterling Securities, the owner of New York Mets. The fallout from this scandal will be long and painful for many financial institutions, charitable organizations, and corporations, but the question remains of how could Madoff had such a long run without ever bringing the scrutiny he deserved. Records have shown that several times over the past 40 plus years, questions arose as to how Madoff could consistently produce double-digit returns for his clients, even in down markets. The SEC chief has admitted that his agency did not properly perform their duties for at least the past decade.

Congressional leaders have called for hearings and an investigation into how and why the SEC missed all of the signs of misconduct of Madoff. Interestingly enough, the congressmen who will be investigating the SEC and Madoff are some of the same politicians who benefited from Madoff’s political contributions. Open Secrets, the non-partisan group that tracks political contributions, has listed the political contributions and lobbying efforts of Madoff and his wife for the past 15 years. Madoff has given nearly $1 million to campaigns, committees, and lobbying efforts since 1992. Now we can expect the politicians on high to pass their hypocritical judgment down, so that we may sleep well knowing they are watching over us. I realize that the shock of a $50 billion scam has dominated the headlines, but why have we not heard from any of these politicians about receiving the ill-gotten gains from Madoff? I believe that the political implications of this scandal will get swept under the rug to prevent any embarrassment on Capitol Hill.

The Culture Of Corruption In Illinois Politics

President –elect Barack Obama’s magical victory tour through the transition process was sidetracked this week by the arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich on charges of corruption. Blagojevich is accused of attempting to sell the now vacant Senate seat of the President-elect. He was caught on tape by FBI wiretaps discussing the potential for his personal and political profit off of the appointment of Obama’s replacement. The U.S. Attorney that is prosecuting this case is Patrick Fitzgerald, the same Patrick Fitzgerald of Scooter Libby fame.

Fitzgerald, you may recall, investigated the Valeria Plame leak and found that Richard Armitage was the original source of the leak. Fitzgerald learned it was Armitage during the first few weeks of the investigation and continued to investigate until Libby was charged 2 years later with a process crime. Now that Fitzgerald is on the case of corruption in the Governor’s mansion, how far will he take the investigation? The complaint documents against Blagojevich mention convicted “slum lord” Tony Rezko more than 100 times. Rezko is rumored to be talking to Fitzgerald in order to shorten his prison sentence. Rezko was very well connected within Chicago politics and the heat is now on anyone who may have had dealings with the convicted felon.

Obviously, President-elect Obama was asked what he knew about the scandal and his statements of shock, outrage, and innocence were to be expected. What was unexpected was his declaration that he had not spoken to the Governor concerning his replacement. On November 5, the day after Obama’s election victory, a Chicago news station reported that Obama’s first order of business was to meet with the Governor to discuss his replacement in the Senate. The news station is now claiming on their website that they have not verified that the meeting ever took place. Then on November 23 David Axelrod, Obama’s chief advisor, stated that he “knew” that Obama and the Governor had spoke to discuss the vacant Senate seat. After Blagojevich was arrested, Axelrod quickly claimed that he misspoke. The Huffington Post has a long article that has chronicled the news events related to the appointment of a replacement for Obama in the Senate. Several times over the past month, there have been reports of Obama advisors talking to Blagojevich about the Senate seat. I do not believe that Obama would be stupid enough to discuss any type of payment for an appointment to his Senate seat, but why did he so unequivocally state that neither he nor any of his staff had any idea of the scandal before the arrest?

This investigation will not be over quickly and it will include some very high profile names. Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., who aggressively campaigned for the Senate appointment, has been named as candidate #5. Although, he has said that the prosecutors have told him that he is not the focus of the investigation, the pressure is on him because the Governor is on tape saying that he is certain that he could get at least $500,000 if he appointed candidate #5. Another interesting point is that the Congressman’s father, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, has retained legal counsel. Now I can’t help but wonder why would the elder Jackson hire legal counsel; especially when he is not mentioned anywhere in the complaint or the media coverage since the Governor’s arrest? There are only a few certainties in the eventual outcome of this investigation. The first being that Blagojevich will not be the Governor for much longer, it won’t matter if he is ever convicted of any of the crimes for which he is charged. The second certainty is that Fitzgerald has the most secure job in the world right now. There is no possible way that Fitzgerald could ever be fired. Incoming Presidents have in the past fired many of the U.S. Attorneys from the previous administration. Clinton fired all of them the first week, Bush fired a handful after the 2004 election, but there is no possible way that Obama can even consider firing Patrick Fitzgerald until well after the investigation is over.

The Culture of Corruption Strikes Again

Washington, Jun 5

After shutting down the House Ethics Committee investigation of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) all year, today House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) finally appointed 10 members to serve as part of the Democrats’ ethics “pool” – more than five months after she promised to lead the most “open and ethical” Congress in history.

Following are 10 facts everyone should know about how House Democratic leaders have dragged their feet on the Jefferson matter and shut down the Ethics Committee investigation that was underway under the Republican-led, 109th Congress:

1) During the Republican-led Congress last year, the Ethics Committee announced the formation of an investigative subcommittee to examine the Jefferson matter.

2) At the end of the 109th Congress, the Jefferson inquiry expired, and action was delayed for more than five months by the new Democratic majority in the 110th Congress.

3) House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) was READY in January to appoint his 10 members to the ethics pool so the Jefferson investigation could continue.

4) As a courtesy, Leader Boehner waited on Speaker Pelosi to name her members so that both pools of members could be announced at the same time.

5) In February, the House Democratic Caucus unanimously approved Jefferson’s selection to the Homeland Security Committee, which would have given him access to highly sensitive top secret information.

6) The months of January, February, March, and April passed with no appointments from Pelosi – only stalling the ethics process and the Jefferson investigation.

7) On May 1, after waiting some four months for Speaker Pelosi to name her ethics pool members, Leader Boehner officially made his 10 appointments and they were printed in the Congressional Record.

8) Those 10 GOP appointments include Reps. Rob Bishop (R-UT), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Ander Crenshaw (R-FL), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Phil English (R-PA), Tom Latham (R-IA), Frank Lucas (R-OK), Sue Myrick (R-NC), Mike Simpson (R-ID), and Greg Walden (R-OR).

9) Because Speaker Pelosi refused to name her members for more than five months -- per clause 5(a)(4)(A) of House Rule X, and per Rule 19 of the House Ethics Committee -- the Ethics Committee failed to re-establish an investigative subcommittee to review this matter further.

10) Leader Boehner’s privileged resolution requires the Ethics Committee to do its work and requires a resolution in a timely manner.

Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have spent the past five months breaking nearly every pledge they’ve made to the American people – from ethics reform, to earmark reform, to fiscal responsibility, to fairness in operation of the House to any number of other hollow promises.

The American people have a right to ask. When will the Democrats live up to their promises?

And what does Nancy Pelosi have to say about all of this?

September 28, 2005“The criminal indictment of Majority Leader Tom DeLay is the latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption at the expense of the American people.”

June 05, 2007
“The charges in the indictment against Congressman Jefferson are extremely serious. While Mr. Jefferson, just as any other citizen, must be considered innocent until proven guilty, if these charges are proven true, they constitute an egregious and unacceptable abuse of public trust and power.

Thanks to GOPbloggers for the info.

Run Fred Run, But Will Newt Run With You?

Newt Gingrich recently told Diane Sawyer that there was a great possibility that he would run for president. He said sometime last year that he would run if he felt that there was no other strong candidate in the GOP. He seemed to infer that he would run if he thought there was no one strong enough to stop Hillary. Well, there is someone strong enough to beat her; the problem that that someone is Barack Obama.

Newt has been setting himself up for a run for quite some time. He has been very active in politics. You can read his articles at Human Events. He is pretty regular on FoxNews. He has been very active in working for health care reform and has even given testimony in front of Congress on changes that could be made to lower costs for the poorest of Americans without raising taxes. His book, "Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America" is great. If he were able to implement everything in that book while wisely conducting the War on Terror, he would easily go down as one of the greats. He would have to get everything past Congress of course. He is very vocal regarding immigration and the need to secure the border, a hot topic issue with conservatives, and with many liberals also.

So, the problem is this thing with an ex-wife. His past indiscretions are seen as a huge roadblock. Conservatives see it as a betrayal of core values, and liberals see him as a hypocrite for going after Clinton. Granted, Newt didn't commit perjury, so the liberals have little to stand on. But they are convinced that Clinton did nothing wrong, and they won't let facts get in the way of their agenda. Conservatives take issue with Newt because some are concerned that one who cheats on his wife will cheat on his country.

All this aside, Newt is a potential candidate who has been neck and neck with another undeclared potential candidate. Fred Thompson and Newt have both been running 3rd and 4th in the GOP presidential candidate polls despite the fact that they have not declared. Fred is seen by many as the "Reagan" candidate, but probably because they have both been in movies. Fred has quite a bit of support from people who like his attitude, even if they don't know a lot about where he stands and what he would accomplish. He did a great job of making Michael Moore look like a buffoon and has had much to say about things like taxes, security, and immigration. All of this added to his popularity means that he could probably beat Hillary if she ran with Obama as her running mate in the showdown.

So this begs the question, does Newt step aside if Fred declares, say June 12 on the Tonight Show? If Fred runs, many think he will win. The thought is that he fills the gaps left by the current field, and he doesn't have the Newt baggage. Newt wants to run, he wants to be the President of the United States. He wants to prevent another Clinton administration, but he wants to be in the White House for more than that. He has great ideas and can do some good for the country. But can he beat Fred? If Fred keeps this popularity running, and announces soon, he may be unstoppable.

There are issues with the current field. Rudy, the current front runner, won't tell us his real thoughts on abortion. He has the best leadership, but won't get the religious voters. McCain hasn't figured out that conservatives are opposed to amnesty. Romney could be the come-from-behind-to-win guy, and if he wins the primaries, has the potential to steal votes from the democratic candidates. But many don't trust him on abortion, and Baptists think Mormonism is a cult. The other candidates just aren't popular enough. Some of them have good messages, they simply haven't expressed them the way American's like to hear them expressed.

Beating the democrats may be more necessary now than ever before. The Democratic Party has no idea that we are at war. The Republican Party has sold out on too many issues and looks more corrupt every day. There are terrorists looking to sneak nukes across wide open borders. The Republican sell-out handed Congress to the likes of Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha. It could hand the White House to Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. Our country cannot afford to let this happen. We are at war regardless of our inability to accept it and a democratic President will back down in the War on Terror.

This leaves a great opportunity for someone who is very popular, and very conservative, to jump in and take the primaries. Newt and Fred are both waiting for conservatives to get tired of the flip-flops and bad answers in the debates. But I don’t think that Newt can beat Fred, and I think Newt knows it. If Fred announces, Newt may wait it out to see what happens and possibly run the next time around.

I do have an alternative though. What do you think of Thompson/Gingrich 2008?

Sold to the Highest Bidder!! Mexico

In case you haven't yet seen it, here are some links to the all new United States of Mexico.

Here is Malkin with some links and commentary from National Review and NumbersUSA. "It's here: The Bush-Kennedy amnestyReport: Potential cost = $2.5 trillionUpdated with GOP reax"

Brietbart gives some of the details of the sale.

Senator DeMint calls it what it is. "But the little we do know about the bill is troubling. According to reports, the bill contains a new 'Z Visa' that allows those who entered our country illegally to stay here permanently without ever returning home. This rewards people who broke the law with permanent legal status, and puts them ahead of millions of law-abiding immigrants waiting to come to America. I don't care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty."

And here is Mitt, who won some points from me today. "I strongly oppose today's bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach. Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new 'Z-Visa' does, is a form of amnesty. That is unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S. Today's Senate agreement falls short of the actions needed to both solve our country's illegal immigration problem and also strengthen our legal immigration system. Border security and a reliable employment verification system must be our first priority."

Rep. Steve King: "Each one of these Senators should wear a scarlet letter 'A' for amnesty." Thank you Mr. King.

I also found a good post at digg from poster ritad. Does anyone see the irony that we lost 2 pretty good Kennedy boys, now we are left with fat old windbag brother Teddy, who along with El president Bush, and the rest of the scum bags on both the left and the right have just sold our country down the river by voting to reward bad behavior by illegal immigrants with amnesty. We will now for all intents and purposes be a one party country as the stupid Republicans cannot see the fact that all these new illegal citizens will most assuredly vote democratic, and since they will be the majority now, shows the republicans have just effectively shot their own balls off and don't even realize it, oh well if they are that stupendously ignorant, they don't deserve to have a party anyway. I have one question for anyone out here who might be able to answer it, why in the world do we feel we owe amnesty to people invading our country, disrespecting our laws and our sovereignty, the way they are doing? I am sorry, I just don't get it and will never will, if the house reps, are unable to squelch this bill, our country is doomed. Gone our beautiful country, trashed as Mexico is, wonder when there are not enough original Americans left to pay for welfare, food stamps, medicaid and whatever other entitlements these people feel they should be entitled to, what will they do then? Will they "migrate" on up to Canada? God, we could be so lucky! Our, we might just join Iraq, and have our own little civil war, due to the fact that most of our American citizens are strongly against this amnesty!

And let us not forget who it is we are letting into our country.
U.S. soccer team faces chants of 'Osama'
Illegal Immigration And Terrorism

Ken Calvert and the War Against Earmarks

There is a difference between the shady land deals of Harry Reid and the shady land deals of Ken Calvert. The difference is that conservatives are fighting Calvert. Erick Erickson, editor in chief of redstate.com is calling upon conservatives to have Calvert removed from the Appropriations Committee.
"The House Republican Leadership just does not get it and they will not take us seriously until we flex our muscle against them. We must fight the House GOP and we must fight today. Today, I declare war on the Republican Leadership of the United States House of Representatives. We must scalp one member. That member's name is Ken Calvert," Erick declares on his redstate blog. Michelle Malkin has done a good job of covering this story.

Erick is encouraging members of his blog to flood their lawmakers with phone calls every day compiling a list of those who vote for Calvert. He is currently claiming that many Republicans on the Hill support his efforts.

By now you are wondering what this is all about. Well, remember that wide spread story that was front page news for all those months about Harry Reid buying land, and then selling it years later for a massive profit AFTER securing federal earmarks that may have helped the property value? You remember that don't you? Cunningham is in prison for pretty much the same thing. It was all over, no wait; it actually wasn't all over the place. No one really heard much about it. Oh well. The point is that it happened and nothing was done about it. The other point is that this is what Calvert is being accused of doing, and it really looks as though he is guilty. I don't know that what he did was technically wrong, but it doesn't look good and it brings up a bigger point that I will get to in a minute.

In September 2006, Calvert was named one of the "20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress" in a report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. He was given this award for his use of earmarks for personal gain. Calvert claims that the earmarks were all used for his district, but the land deals he has engaged in have all been in or near his district. This looks suspicious whether he is guilty or not. A list of his deals can be found at answers.com.

I don't know if he has done anything illegal or technically unethical. But I don't like the way it looks and I don't like the answers he has given. I think that Erickson is doing all Republicans a favor by bringing this out in the open and I hope that Calvert is replaced in the next election. Now if Calvert were a democrat who was caught with a hundred grand in his freezer and the FBI had people admitting to bribing him, that would be one thing. But the republicans are getting tired of their representatives taking advantage of tax dollars.

And that brings us to the root cause of this evil – earmarks. In the last SOTU address, President Bush spoke out against earmarks, calling on Congress to cut them in half. "In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of the earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and the Senate; they're dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk.
You didn't vote them into law. I didn't sign them into law. Yet they are treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice.
So let us work together to reform the budget process, expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress, and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session."

Does anyone see a problem with federal tax dollars being spent in this manner? Earmarks are treated as law, yet there is no vote. And this is what Calvert has done. He dropped millions of your dollars into land in his district. He then made personal profits selling the land.

If earmarks receive no vote whatsoever, how are we to trust Congress to use them wisely? Short answer, we can't trust them. Earmarks are the face of much corruption in D.C. The lobbyist drops ten grand into the politician’s campaign; the politician returns the favor with earmarks that benefit the lobbyist. Can you say Jack Abramoff? And beyond lobbyists, we see that politicians are using earmarks to raise the value of their own properties.

The President was almost right to ask for earmarks to be cut in half. He was almost right to have the OMB set up a database of all earmarks for us to see. He would have been completely right to tell Congress to cut earmarks off all together. The absolute best we can expect from them is the constant appearance of impropriety.

This is one more thing that gives Congress too much power, corrupting power. And to use Erickson's line, we must flex our muscle against them. "If they refuse to hear that change is needed, we will wipe them out and replace them with new blood that recognizes that a corrupt party rejected by the voters will not be embraced again by the voters until the corruption is purged."