Although the information about to be shared deals with only one person, the story is not unique. I am posting this example because it was very easily researched. More diligent research could probably find at least fifty more examples of what I am about to illustrate.<\/p>\n
The following was posted by a Facebook friend today:<\/p>\n
THE TRUTH ABOUT FEINSTEIN<\/strong> The sale of these properties will fetch about$19 billion!<\/strong><\/p>\n A regular real estate commission will be paid to the company that was given the exclusive listing for handling the sales. That company is CRI and it belongs to a man named Richard Blum.<\/strong><\/p>\n Richard Blum is the husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein!(Most voters and many of the government people who approved the deal have not made the connection between the two because they have different last names).<\/strong><\/p>\n Senator Feinstein and her husband stand to make a fortune, estimated at between $950 million and $1.1 BILLION from these transactions!<\/strong><\/p>\n His company is the sole real estate agent on the sale!<\/strong><\/p>\n CRI will be making a minimum of 2% and as much as 6% commission on each and every sale. All of the properties that are being sold are all fully paid for. They were purchased with U.S. taxpayers\u2019 dollars.<\/strong><\/p>\n The U.S.P.S. is allowed free and clear, tax exempt use. The only cost to keep them open is the cost to actually keep the doors open and the heat and lights on. The United States Postal Service doesn’t even have to pay county property taxes on these subject properties. QUESTION? Would you put your house in foreclosure just because you couldn’t afford to pay the electric bill?<\/strong><\/p>\n Well, the folks in Washington have given the Post Office the OK to do it! Worse yet, most of the net proceeds of the sales will go back to the U.S.P.S, an organization that is so poorly managed that they have lost $117 billion dollars in the past 10 years!<\/strong><\/p>\n No one in the mainstream media is even raising an eyebrow over the conflict of interest and on the possibility of corruption on the sale of billions of dollars worth of public assets.<\/strong><\/p>\n How does a U.S. Senator from San Francisco manage to get away with organizing and lobbying such a sweet deal ? Has our government become so elitist that they have no fear of oversight?<\/strong><\/p>\n It’s no mere coincidence that these two public service crooks have different last names; a feeble attempt at avoiding transparency in these type of transactions.<\/strong><\/p>\n Pass this info on before it’s pulled from the Internet. You can verify it on TruthorFiction and Snopes:<\/strong><\/p>\n http:\/\/www.truthorfiction.com\/\u2026\/Blum-Post-Office-Sale-06101\u2026<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n http:\/\/www.snopes.com\/politics\/business\/blum.asp<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n If this doesn’t upset you, don’t complain about the corruption and the ineptness in D.C.<\/strong><\/p>\n It didn’t take a lot of research to verify most of this. I found a few interesting tidbits. Snopes describes the claims as ‘mixed.’ In case you are not aware, Snopes has a bit of a mixed record itself.<\/p>\n From a website called The New American<\/a>:<\/p>\n It\u2019s unfortunate that Snopes didn’t dig any further into the matter. It could have, for instance, sourced an 11-page expos\u00e9 of Blum and Feinstein<\/a> published by the online site FoundSF\u00a0entitled \u201cRichard C. Blum and Dianne Feinstein: The Power Couple of California.\u201d There Snopes would have found how this couple, through a continuing series of events that could only be called crony capitalism on steroids, grew their wealth, starting in 1980 when they were married, from a\u00a0modest sum to well over $100 million.<\/strong><\/p>\n In that expos\u00e9 they would have uncovered another source, this time from the Los Angeles Times<\/em>, which noted the couple’s illicit activities from the beginning:<\/strong><\/p>\n A review of the senator\u2019s first two years in office found that Feinstein supported several positions that benefited Blum, his wealthy clients and their investments. She was a vocal proponent of increased trade with China while Blum\u2019s firm was planning a major investment there. She also voted for appropriations bills that provided more than $100 million a year in federal funds to three companies in which her husband is a substantial investor.<\/strong><\/p>\n Visiting the Times<\/em> article would have led them to another source that<\/a> explained in detail her votes as head of the Military Construction Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Subcommittee (MILCON), which funneled $1.5 billion worth of military construction contracts to URS Corporation<\/a>,\u00a0an engineering, design, and construction company located (where else?) in San Francisco \u2014 in which Blum had a significant financial interest. Her committee also funneled millions into Tutor Perini<\/a>,\u00a0one of the largest general contractors in the country, also located in California, and in which Blum also had a significant financial interest. When Blum sold his interests in URS and Tutor Perini, he booked profits estimated at between $5 and $10 million.<\/strong><\/p>\n Another example from Breitbart<\/a>:<\/p>\n On April 21, 2009, the Washington Times<\/em><\/a> broke an exclusive story that Feinstein proposed legislation to direct $25 billion in taxpayer money to the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation<\/a>.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The alleged Blum connection was that the FDIC had just awarded Blum\u2019s real estate firm a profitable contract to resell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n According to the Washington Times<\/em><\/a>, \u201cMrs. Feinstein\u2019s intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn\u2019t a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments\u2013not direct federal dollars.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Documents obtained by the newspaper exposed that Feinstein had\u00a0sent a letter to the FDIC<\/a> on October 30, 2008 offering to help it secure funds to help them stave off ensuing foreclosures.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n That letter was sent only a few days before CB Richard Ellis Group (the commercial real estate firm that Blum serves as board chairman) had won a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC was taking on from failed banks.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n According to Weiss, \u201cthis is an allegation that has totally been discredited.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Feinstein\u2019s explanation was that the senator simply introduced legislation to allocate $25 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program<\/a> (TARP) in 2009 because California had the third highest number of foreclosures in the nation. \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cSenator Feinstein learned of FDIC Chair Sheila Bair\u2019s proposal for foreclosure relief from news reports, expressed her support in a letter<\/a>, and introduced legislation to implement it,\u201d Weiss wrote to Breitbart News.\u00a0\u201cShe was unaware of CBRE\u2019s bid for an FDIC contract so it clearly played no role in her decision to introduce legislation.\u00a0The Inspector General at the FDIC reviewed this and concluded there was \u2018no improper influence\u2019 in the awarding of the contract.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n LaJuan Williams-Young<\/a>, a spokeswoman for the FDIC, declined to explain why CBRE was chosen and instead simply defended the agency: \u201cThere are four other contractors that perform similar work for the Corporation.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n According to Tom Fitton<\/a>, President of Judicial Watch<\/a>, a non-profit organization dedicated to monitoring Washington ethics, Feinstein\u2019s explanation isn\u2019t adequate. He says that neither the FDIC nor MILCON connections pass muster under the U.S. Senate Ethics Rules<\/a> or the U.S. Criminal Code<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cIn these cases, she was voting on bills that ultimately benefited her husband\u2019s companies . . . she knew, everyone knew what would come out of those bills, and at the least she should have known where that money could have gone, and that simply doesn\u2019t stand scrutiny.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n When asked about Feinstein and her husband benefitting from all of these contracts as well as the FDIC legislation, Weiss simply responded, \u201cAll items referred to above are Richard Blum\u2019s separate property relating to his business . . . Senator Feinstein is not involved with and does not discuss any of her husband\u2019s business decisions.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Blicksilver mirrored Weiss\u2019 response, saying that, \u201cBlum Capital Partners<\/a> has a strict confidentiality policy which Mr. Blum and other members of the firm adhere to.\u00a0As such, he does not discuss the Firm\u2019s investments with the Senator.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Not only does it pay to be a Senator, it pays to be married to one.<\/p>\n This is only one example of the swamp in Washington that needs to be cleared out.<\/p>\n \n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Although the information about to be shared deals with only one person, the story is not unique. I am posting this example because it was very easily researched. More diligent research could probably find at least fifty more examples of … Continue reading
\nThe US has entered into a contract with a real estate firm to sell 56 buildings that currently house U.S. Post Offices. All 56 were built, operated, and paid for by tax-paying American citizens. Now enjoy reading the rest: The government has decided it no longer needs these buildings, most of which are located on prime land in towns and cities across the country.<\/strong><\/p>\n