Autographed Letter Signed

A Mostly Center-Right Place For Those With Irritable Obama Syndrome and Diversity Fatigue

Realtor Signs: The Democrats Give Us “Lots” to be Thankful For April 21, 2009

Ah, I just love the Drudge Report. It is a conservative’s best friend. This morning I woke up to two interesting pieces of hate mail claiming that I was Hitler’s black love child. I fixed myself a cup of tea, opened my laptop and saw this gem of another “Obamacrat” again profiting from crisis.

Washington Times
EXCLUSIVE: Senator’s husband cashes in on crisis
Feinstein sought $25 billion for agency that awarded contract to spouse
By Chuck Neubauer | Tuesday, April 21, 2009

On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband’s real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.

Haven’t we heard this before? When are the Democrats going to learn that politics and real estate and spouses don’t mix? Can you say CONFLICT OF INTEREST??? Obama’s bought his home in Chicago through slumlord Tony Rezko’s wife. Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-MA) former partner was Fannie Mae executive Herb Moses. Frank referred to Moses as his spouse. If you recall, Herb Moses was the assistant director for product initiatives at Fannie Mae, Moses was a proponent of relaxed lending restrictions. Barney Frank followed suit through deregulation in 1991 on two- and three-family home mortgages. As you can see, this latest Feinstein scandal continues a troubling pattern among the Democrats.


Mrs. Feinstein’s intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn’t 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 – not direct federal dollars.

Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) – the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman – had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks

Again clearly, these people should understand the definition of a conflict of interest. According to Business


1. A situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person because of the possibility of a clash between the person’s self-interest and professional-interest or public-interest.

2. A situation where a party’s responsibility to a second-party limits its ability to discharge its responsibility to a third-party.

Feinstein and her husband are described as a “wealthy power couple”. Feinstein also has hopes of becoming California’s next governor.
Sounds like Feinstein’s home comes complete with an AstroTurf lawn.



Autographed Letter Signed,



15 Responses to “Realtor Signs: The Democrats Give Us “Lots” to be Thankful For”

  1. manbearpig68 Says:

    Great stuff!!! Feinstein fits right in with the other peddlers of hope and equality.. Listen to us, work for us, and we’ll take you to the promiseland, but behind everybody’s back, deals under the table every chance they get for more power and money for themselves.

  2. boldandbald Says:

    “the California Democrat isn’t a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC;”

    Unlike Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) who uses his influence to get sweetheart mortgage deals and to buy an Irish ‘cottage’ at a major discount.

    I have said it before and I will say it again, we need term limits on the legislative branch. I believe that would cut down significantly on the corruption. It seems to me that most of it comes from people that are longtime legislators, and it needs to be stopped. I believe that most of them probably came to Washington with good intentions and have become more corrupt over time. Bring in new blood and new ideas instead of the same old people with their hands deeper and deeper into our pockets. And this goes for both Democrat and Republican.

    • afrocity Says:

      BNB, I could not agree with you more. Take it from me.
      This goes for the local/municipal levels of government as well.
      I was upset to hear that Michael Bloomberg got term limits lifted for New York City mayors. Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley has been in office for 20 years.

      Joe Biden was senator for over 30 years!!!!

    • WMCB Says:

      I think term limits would do a lot to curb the lobbyist/legislator revolving door. Couple that with public campaign financing, and it would do even more.

      I agree with you that many (not all) politicians start out with good intentions. Then they run into the brick wall of “the system”, and have to decide whether they are going to play the game by the existing rules, and try to get something done, or hang onto their integrity and be marginalized and useless. We need to change the system to where that pressure is lessened, or we will never get legislators who feel free to represent us – only more legislators who spend most of their time and energy scrambling for reelection money and a place in the power structure pecking order.

      I don’t have all the answers for how to change the system. I’m open to discussing lots of ideas. But I think term limits and campaign finance reform would be a start.

      • boldandbald Says:

        Like you, I don’t claim to have all the answers, and I don’t mind the idea of campaign finance reform. I do have an issue, though, with the idea of public financing. I don’t believe that tax dollars should go to political campaigns, particularly because that means that I am supporting people whose opinions I greatly disagree with. I don’t know what the answer is, but I don’t like that one.

      • RalphB Says:

        But on the bright side, other people are also supporting people whose ideas you believe in and they don’t. it comes out a wash for the most part.

  3. afrocity Says:

    So BND do you agree with the way Obama raised money for his campaign? Or would you allow for some regulations? McCain was at a clear disadvantage. Paypal, it does wonders.

  4. WMCB Says:

    b&b, I can see the downside of public financing as well. But there has to be some way of getting the major influence in elections to be the voters, not who has the best ties to the biggest donors. Who then ends up being the real “constituency” for these legislators? At present, it doesn’t appear to be US.

    If nothing else, we at least need to HAVE that conversation as a country, and try to figure something out.

  5. boldandbald Says:

    There obviously needs to some sort of regulations, I just can’t claim to know enough about it to say just what. the biggest problem, of course, is that the people writing the legislation are the very people that benefit from it. As a result we end up with all kinds of loop holes that allow them to raise as much money as they want, pretty much however they want, even when it goes directly against what the bill claims to stop. Again, this would seem to be an issue that could be partly cleared up with term limits. If a politician is always thinking about his/her next campaign, then the legislation they write will be effected by that. If, on the other hand, they are going to have to get a real job soon, then maybe they will be more inclined to write truly effective legislation.

    As for Obama specifically, I think it was despicable the way he backed out of his statements that he would play according to the rules that McCain played by. McCain is to be commended for sticking to his guns and playing by the rules that he had written despite the obvious disadvantage. And that comes from someone who doesn’t like the bill that McCain wrote.

    • WMCB Says:

      I agree. Integrity means a LOT to me – whether I agree with all of a politician’s positions or not. I’ll for for a person of integrity with whom I disagree on some stuff before I’ll vote for a sleazebag who parrots everything I’m “for”. How you get there matters to me. The means matters, even if I mostly agree with what you want to accomplish.

      I sometimes ask people: “If a politician told you he/she would accomplish every law, every single policy dear to your conservative/liberal heart, but would do it by lying, cheating, stealing, and trampling on the constitution – would you be for or against? My answer is “against”. I think everyone, wherever they fall on the political spectrum, needs to regularly ask themselves that.

      Of course, I’d like to have both agreement and integrity, but we don’t always get that. 😉

      • boldandbald Says:

        As I posted on another discussion, we vote for people based on character and values before anything else. If those two things are where they should be then you can be confident that the person will do what is right for the country. I disagree with much of what John McCain stood for, but I was comfortable voting for him because I believe he is a man of character and values. I couldn’t say the same for Obama.

      • Janis Says:

        MY answer’s against, too — but for another reason. Because NO ONE will be a lying, hypocritical, astroturfing, crooked, corrupt SOB and thena ctually work for things like social justice, health insurance, same-sex marriage, choice, and all those nice things.

        Here’s a lesson those fools need to learn (and given the kool-aid hangovers popping up all over the place nowdays, it looks like it’s happening): When a guy tells you he’ll take you to the Moon and back and don’t worry, he’s had a vasectomy and those open sores don’t mean anything … and you think he’s lying … YOU’RE ALLOWED TO NOT BELIEVE HIM.

        If a politician who comes across as acrooked, underhanded empty suit tells you he’ll give you all you ever dreamed of … you are ALLOWED to say, “Bulshit buddy, dont’ lie to my damn face,” and walk away. Young people just do not get this: you are allowed to NOT BELIEVE someone. Just because somebody says something, if you think they are full of shit, you are permitted nay EXPETED IN LIFE to make your decisions on what yous trongly suspect is true rather than what some asshole tries to pull over on you.

  6. Valorie Says:

    Oh, say it ain’t so! Dishonest Democrats! Guaranteed we will not hear one peep on the mainstream media.

    • Janis Says:

      The mainstream media is on the side of the billionaires, always. It’s just that the billionaires have rebranded themselves, since they destroyed the Republican brand so badly over the past eight years.

Comments are closed.