Diane Feinstein: An Unanswered Mystery of the World

Some of life’s more imponderable marvels are: Is the Loch Ness Monster real? Where is the Ark of the Covenant? Where is the Holy Grail? Where is the location of Atlantis? And the most imponderable of all: Why is Diane Feinstein not incarcerated?

Diane Feinstein is front and center for advocating the persecution, prosecution, and public character assassination of the patriots involved in the detention and interrogation-related activities since 9/11 that have prevented and protected this country from a repeat of such a disastrous event; specifically including those responsible for the enhanced interrogation of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, which irrefutably prevented a 9/11 type attack on Los Angeles.

Diane Feinstein is also front and center as a war profiteer, and most definitely front and center for leading corruption within Congress.

Feinstein’s political corruption did not begin in the Senate. As Mayor of San Francisco, she failed to disclose her husband’s ownership in Marriott Corp, which was bidding on a $3 billion redevelopment contract with the city of San Francisco.

Soon after the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress, with the battle cry “we will end the culture of corruption,” Feinstein was forced to resign from her position as Chair of the Senate Military Appropriations Subcommittee. Her transgression: reviewing of multi-billion dollar contracts for construction work with the U.S. military, then approving the contracts worth billions of dollars for her husband’s companies through a no bid process. Feinstein and her husband profited millions of dollars off the military with these contracts. Astonishingly, Feinstein was allowed to continue her chairmanship of the Senate Rules Committee, the committee that is responsible for the rules of the Senate, the very rules she breaks with impunity.

The Military Appropriations Subcommittee not only oversees military construction, but also the housing for military families and medical care for wounded military personnel. While she was forced to resign from the committee because of corruption, a wake of destruction followed as the Department of Veteran Affairs left wounded soldiers from Afghanistan and Iraq in despicable conditions without the benefit of even perfunctory medical care in some cases. And her husband, coincidentally, was selling medical supplies and equipment to the military as basic medical care was spiraling into an abyss. So as she was rattling her saber against the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, denouncing the Bush administration’s interrogation techniques, etc., she and her husband were profiting like gangsters off the American taxpayer and the blood of American soldiers. For this action to be labeled merely just a conflict of interest and ethics violation, is as corrupt as Feinstein’s actions.

After bleeding all she could from the military budget, Feinstein has moved on to another American misfortune to leach off for profit: the mortgage crisis.

Fast forward to April 2009, and Feinstein is perpetuating her one person crime syndicate again. According to an exclusive from the Washington Times, she sponsored legislation that sent $25 billion to the FDIC. Coincidentally, it was the day before CB Richard Ellis Group, the company which her husband is Chairman of the Board, was awarded a contract to sell foreclosed properties that the FDIC inherited from failed banks at coincidentally higher than industry rates. Coincidentally, again, Feinstein is not on the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, which would be the committee to fund, or propose a bill to fund, the FDIC. Coincidentally, again, the FDIC is funded from insurance premium payments from banks, not directly from federal funds. Coincidentally, again, Feinstein’s husband’s private investment firm purchased over 10 million shares in CB Ellis. Feinstein’s husband bought the shares at $3.77, and they closed Monday, April 20th, at $5.14, for a tidy profit in the short term of $14,000,000–and this is exclusive of the profit that will be made from the compensation of her husband’s firm from the management of the foreclosed properties. Coincidentally, again, Feinstein said there was no connection between her senate position and the deal. And coincidentally, her husband, Chairman of the Board of CB Ellis, stated that he was not aware the company he ran was bidding on a $25 billion contract. Also, coincidentally, EB Ellis was the least qualified company to submit a bid and was awarded the contract with little to no exposure in the liquidating and managing of foreclosed residential property.

Feinstein’s political hypocrisy runs as deep as her political corruption. According to Feinstein, she was terrorized in the 1990’s by the New World Liberation Front. Feinstein said they tried to bomb her house. She bought a hand gun for protection, yet she has, and still continues, to spread erroneous facts about guns and crime, as she is a staunch advocate of strict gun control and would outlaw all personal firearms in the United States if she had her way.  During a 60 Minutes interview, Feinstein stated, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, I would have done it…Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in, I would have done it…The votes were not here.” As Feinstein was making this statement, she was packing a .38 Smith & Wesson in her purse. Legal of course. She obtained a permit to carry in 1995, the same permit she wants to deny the rest of the country to have access to. When asked why she carried a .38 in her purse, she stated: “I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I’d walk to the hospital while my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

Why is Diane Feinstein not incarcerated, or at least at the top of Janet Napolitano’s Homeland Security radical watch list? After all, she is highly trained in firearms, and displays a pathological desire to acquire money through skirting rules. It truly is a mystery for the times, or perhaps just a labyrinth of coincidences.

3 Responses to “Diane Feinstein: An Unanswered Mystery of the World”

  1. James Pirretti says:

    Rules are for us common folk – not the effete, liberal Democrats. Al Gore and his ilk take limos, private aircraft etc. while telling us to drive subcompact hybrid autos. Feinstein is just part of the same crowd: do as I say, not as I do.

  2. dwss5 says:

    Of special concern are several of Feinstein’s approaches to personal privacy.
    Specifically, her 2002 and 2003 arguments in
    She makes great starting points in these that presumably defend we American citizens against rapacious businesses.

    But then reading these pieces in further detail, we reach these buried statements:

    1. Privacy Act of 2001
    — begin quote —
    Bill recognizes the legitimate needs of business:

    However, to reflect the legitimate needs of business, the Privacy Act of 2001 proposes a lower threshold for the sale of less sensitive information such as a person’s name and address.

    Under this lower threshold, businesses must give NOTICE of their intent to use this information. After giving notice, the business can sell this less sensitive data unless an individual tells them not to do so.
    — end quote —

    2. Privacy Act of 2003
    — begin quote —
    * Prohibit the sale or display of Americans’ Social Security numbers to the public, but would allow businesses to share these numbers with other businesses and government entities.
    — end quote —

    — begin quote —
    * Permits businesses to share financial information with their affiliates or joint venture partners, unless a customer objects (opt-out).
    — end quote —

    Note that in all these quotes, Feinstein clearly bends over backwards in maximizing questionable use of privacy information for businesses at the risk of the loss of control of such privacy for the individuals to which this information directly concerns. Instead of individuals having any chance to opt-in to control of their info, they are limited in these examples by a default decision solely to opt-out.

    Feinstein has mandated a disingenuous sleight-of-hand here in foisting more limited opt-out control of private information away from individuals and potential consumers.
    Her wresting out of such privacy controls for individuals and hand-delivering them to both responsible and IRRESPONSIBLE businesses thus strongly belittles any claims she has that she is just “looking out” for the best interests of all parties concerned including we “Main Streeters”.
    This is certainly consistent with jimbyrd’s depiction of the senior Senator here.

  3. […] Narrow constricted versions of what we really are.  Back in the nineties somebody (supposedly the New World Liberation Front) put a bomb under DiFi’s house here in SF… they got to it before it exploded, but for […]

Leave a Reply

What is 2 + 15 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)