Today's Top Stories - May 24, 2013

by John P. Kuchta Jr.
VNS
The US has entered into a contract with a real estate firm to sell 56 buildings that currently house U.S. Post Offices.

The government has decided it no longer needs these buildings, many of which are located on prime land in towns and cities across the country.

The sale of these properties will fetch billions of dollars and a handsome 6% commission to the company handling the sales. That company belongs to a man named Richard Blum. Who is Richard Blum you ask?

Why the husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein, that's who. What a bunch of crooks we have running this country!

Senator Feinstein and her husband, Richard Blum, stand to make a fortune. His firm, C.R.I., is the sole real estate company offering these properties for sale. Of course, C.R.I. will be making a 6% commission on the sale of each and every one of these postal properties.

All of these properties that are being sold are all fully paid for. They were purchased with U.S. taxpayers dollars, and they are owned free and clear by the U.S.P.S. The only cost to keep them 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 property taxes on these subject properties. Would you sell your house just because you couldn't afford to pay the electric bill?

Well, the Post Office is.

How does a powerful U.S. Senator from San Francisco manage to get away with such a sweet deal?

A powerful United States Senator's husband is standing by, all ready to make millions from a U.S. taxpayer funded enterprise.

No one in the mainstream media is even raising an eyebrow over his 6% commission on the sale of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of quasi-public assets.

Pass this info on before it's pulled from the internet.

Check this out on Snopes ... TRUE!

Editor:

Atheists claim religious expression deserves no part in politics or government.

Political theorists attest that "public reason" (ambiguous for a reason) should be the only basis for laws and actions. The California Supreme Court strikes down Proposition 8, the democratic vote that overturned same-sex marriage, saying it was motivated by "religious convictions".

It is evident that these beliefs seek to discredit faith-based beliefs and reasoning.

So when religious reasoning is declared invalid, what reasoning remains?

The truth is we all face crucial decisions that have little basis in laws or rules.

These are choices to be guided by a reasoning we trust – our conscience, our beliefs. Everyone relies on it, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, agnostic, atheist, etc.

But those who malign religious reasoning are disadvantaged when it comes to the vote count. How do they get around that inconvenience of democracy? Label it religious ideology and restrict it in favor of their own. That's what the California Supreme Court did against a popular majority's public reason.

In fact, no one with true faith can distance it from their decision-making process in private or public life. Religious expression merely recognizes that conscience, our sense of right and wrong choices, ultimately comes from God.

Those who do not accept this can no more justify the source of their conscience, or claim it doesn't exist. Their position is still motivated by it, and no one can make a decision on moral, cultural, or social conventions without it.

Ultimately, debates against religious expression are deluded and/or hypocritical, lacking the honesty of those who acknowledge their conviction.

The leader who says he won't "force his beliefs" on others will invariably make decisions in agreement with his beliefs. This is never more evident than when a majority of people from varied walks of life and persuasions vote for change, and it is decreed invalid by a judge's belief that their reasoning simply doesn't count.

The worst thing we can do is relinquish our rights to someone else's determination that they alone possess logical reasoning, especially lawyers, judges, and the elite.

That itself begs the question, "How can so few have a monopoly on reason?" ...only when we forget that freedom of speech and expression through the voice of a majority protects us from such corrupt reasoning.

The scandal is that the assault is not really about Separation of Church and State, but separating people from our rights, culture, and democracy itself.

Ira White - Portsmouth

Editor:  

I'm sure if Scott Rigell ends up with an pro-gun target on his back, he'll be cooked.  

I knew Scott before he ran for the office and liked him.  Believed him to be a solid conservative and supporter of gun rights.  But after finding out that he was a financial supporter of Obama, my faith began to get shaky.  

Hoping aboard Air Force One and sitting on Obama's lap was bad enough but to vote the bastard's gun agenda, I can't forgive him.

He tries to excuse his actions as being insignificant, the donation to Obama was to keep Hillary from winning, taking away my rights to to make a private buy or gun sale without reporting it to the government?  Rigell has to be nuts.  We legal and law-abiding gun owners shouldn't be the target of his anti-gun wrath - the criminals should be.  

Make it illegal for criminals to buy, sell, trade, possess, or use a gun in the commission of a crime:  Oh, that's already the law?  Well enforce it.  Don't make such useless acts and policies apply to me and add more expense for bureaucrats:  I don't break any of the laws. 

I can't wrap my head around this guy anymore.  I will certainly not vote for or work for him again.  

Sign me,

Fed Up with two-faced, lying politicians - Virginia Beach