Senator Dianne Feinstein
In November 1992, a slow economy and public dissatisfaction with the status quo gave the Democrats the White House for the first time in 12 years. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton ran as a politically moderate "New Democrat" who was pro-business and pro-death penalty, focusing on the nation's economy ("It's the economy, stupid").
Clinton won 32 states, holding then-President Bush to 37.5 percent of the vote. While the Democrats regained the Oval Office and held Congress, the GOP picked up 10 seats in the House.
In 1994, Republicans, galvanized by Clinton administration missteps (including its ill-fated national health care proposal), [49 years if Democrat Congressional Corruption] ran on the "Contract With America," and took complete control of Congress for the first time since 1955.
Further, the GOP claimed 30 of the nation's 50 governorships, including eight of the 10 biggest electoral states, and drew even with the Democrats in many state legislatures.—Democratic Convention 2000, www.cnn.com
Dianne Feinstein is a Democrat and she is corrupt. She is as corrupt as Liberals believe Halliburton is.
As chairperson and ranking member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON) from 2001 through the end of 2005, Feinstein supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars a year for specific military construction projects. Two defense contractors whose interests were largely controlled by her husband, financier Richard C. Blum, benefited from decisions made by Feinstein as leader of this powerful subcommittee. Blum was a majority owner of both URS Corp. and Perini Corp.
In 2006 now Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi read the Republican play book and re-coined the phase a Culture of Corruption and used it back on the Republican majority which had only been in power for 12 years opposed to the previous 49 year Democrat corrupted monopoly in the Congress. Pelosi used the short memory of voters and incompetent Republican politicians to orchestrate a sweep of Congress transferring power and control of the Congress to the Democrat Party. A Party that promised a new and ethical direction.
This is not the first time a Democrat sitting on a powerful appropriations committee has used their sacred trust to enrich themselves. Congressman John Murtha was the ranking Democratic member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and for three years he was the House's top recipient of defense industry cash. Few in Washington are surprised that his lobbyist brother, Robert "Kit" Murtha, was until his retirement this summer an enormously successful "earmark specialist" for the Beltway firm KSA Consulting. In recent years, Kit Murtha brought in a mother lode of earmarks for at least 16 defense manufacturers with business before the Appropriations Committee.
As a member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions to her husband's firms. From 2001 to 2005, URS earned $792 million from military construction and environmental cleanup projects approved by MILCON; Perini earned $759 million from such MILCON projects.
In her annual Public Financial Disclosure Reports, Feinstein records a sizeable family income from large investments in Perini, which is based in Framingham, Mass., and in URS, headquartered in San Francisco. But she has not publicly acknowledged the conflict of interest between her job as a congressional appropriator and her husband's longtime control of Perini and URS--and that omission has called her ethical standards into question.
Since Senator Feinstein’s unethical behavior has been reported by Metro Active she has stepped down from MILCON.
Senator Feinstein has profited at the expense of U.S. soldiers in Iraq at a time when medical care for Iraq war veterans is inadequate. While leading MILCON, Feinstein had ample warning of the medical-care meltdown. But she was not proactive on veteran's affairs.
Feinstein abandoned MILCON as her ethical problems were surfacing in the media, and as it was becoming clear that her subcommittee left grievously wounded veterans to rot while her family was profiting from the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised voters a new direction if Democrats were elected to Congress. From Halliburton to Senator Feinstein’s URS Corp. and Perini Corp now that’s a new direction!
Yeah back to Democrat Corruption!
Oh, I should point out that you, however unwittingly, accused the Republican party of being corrupt.
ReplyDeleteQuoting you here:
"Nancy Pelosi promised a different direction we don't know that, that direction would be back-to-the-corruption!!!"
To suggest that Pelosi claimed the Democrats would move away from corruption, (one can only assume that Nancy was making a reference to Republican corruption.) but then reneged on that pledge by going – "back-to-the corruption!!!" – as you have suggested – well, are you not essentially admitting that Republicans are corrupt? Otherwise, where are they going back to?
I just wanted to take a second to point that out for you.
I find your website, along with your ideology hypocritical because it is simplistic and one sided – if you are going to devote a website to corrupt politicians, simply have the decency to include all corrupt politicians, not just the ones that you perceive as being on the other side. Failure to do so suggests or implies that it is not hypocrisy in and of itself that upsets and frustrates you, only Democratic hypocrisy.
And that, I'm afraid - makes you a hypocrite.
Jnic,
ReplyDeleteHypocrisy has always meant, doing the oppose of what one confesses.
When you look finally up the word you will realize that the term does not apply to me. No matter how you torture your explanation.
However turn the page in your dictionary and see the word “self-righteous,” there you will see your picture!
Finally, forgive me please allow me to explain a few things to you.
If you would have read this post, provided that you are capable of reading, you would have gain the understand that the reference, "back to the corruption" was referring to the corruption that Democrats have not ceased from and were practicing in the 49 years that they had control of both houses of Congress which was only interrupted by the brief 12 year period of Republican control.
Since you didn't understand that I find it hard to give credenance to anything your muddled mind thinks that it can fathom!
And as for the blog, it was initiated because of the censorship.
Your post proves that is needed because there are so many people like you who think that you are fair and impartial when you are not, (Now there’s the definition of hypocrisy!) a blog that points to the abject intellectual dishonestly of the left of which you caucus with, is really needed.
You just happen to be believing that you are are not Liberal that’s all! You are the Hypocrite!
I disagree with every single point you have attempted to make. I say attempted because you have failed to adequately explain why you are not a hypocrite. You are not interested in hypocrisy per se, you are simply interested in smearing those who do not support your Orwellian views – with a very broad brush I might add.
ReplyDeleteIf you cannot see the parrels between the current administration and Orwell’s writings you really and truly have no business associating yourself with them, his writings.
I am every bit as critical towards the Democratic Party as I am the Republicans – how can I not? Turning a blind eye towards ones own parties failings is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Tell me, whose administration could this quote be used to define? Clinton? Reagan? Carter? Bush Sr.? No, the answer – George Jr.
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others were cowards and hypocrites. They never had the courage to recognize their motives. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. How does one man assert his power over another? By making him suffer. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. In our world, there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement – a world of fear and treachery and torment. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever." – George Orwell
I am proud to call myself a liberal – liberals have stood on the front lines of many a struggle – so yes, I am a socially progressive liberal – and pretty dam proud of it. I am libertarian in the sense that I feel the government should not in any way infringe upon the rights of the individual. Legalize drugs – legalize gay marriage – remove church from state entirely – keep abortion legal – ban the death penalty - etc.
To suggest that liberalism reflects an Orwellian world view in any way is to not only misunderstand and abuse the writings of Orwell, it also reflects a complete and utter misunderstanding of liberalism as a philosophy – political or otherwise.
The inclusion of Ann Coulter as a link on your site tells me pretty much all I need to know about just how deranged you truly are….honest to Christ – do you really and truly believe what you say, or is your website a sly attempt at satire?
You probably won't understand this but I'll give it a shot.
ReplyDeleteThis is your definition of Hypocrisy:
Hypocrisy - insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have.
This is your Orwellian attempt to redefine Hypocrisy:
Your website is devoted to exposing liberal and or Democratic hypocrisy - yet, by ignoring the hypocrisy of your own party, you, however unwittingly expose your own. You are not concerned with your own sins so to speak, only those of others. You point out others flaws, yet ignore your own. Is that so hard to understand? Have I made myself clear???
Yes you've made yourself very clear! You don't have a dreaming idea of what you are talking about!
You first presented your self as neither Liberal nor Conservative but as a socially progressive Libertarian
So now the truth comes out you say!
I am proud to call myself a liberal – liberals have stood on the front lines of many a struggle – so yes, I am a socially progressive liberal – and pretty dam proud of it. I am libertarian in the sense that I feel the government should not in any way infringe upon the rights of the individual. Legalize drugs – legalize gay marriage – remove church from state entirely – keep abortion legal – ban the death penalty - etc.
You misrepresented yourself and you have established yourself as a confused ignorant liar who uses definitions that you really don't understand.
I really don't have time to tutor you. Like most Liberals you've been a complete waste of my time and you really need to take some courses in English Language and Logic and get back to me when you can debate an issue without making an ass out of yourself! ~Jeez!