Oops, Hillary Clinton sold some stock recently that could cause her problems during the campaign if she had continued to hold those shares. Wow, only in America is it a crime to own a particular stock when you are running for President but not to own that stock when you have merely declared your intentions to run for the nomination. Lets see what she owned in part:
NewsCorp (Fox News) Satan Himself
Biogen Big Pharmaceutical
Johnson & Johnson Big Pharmaceutical
Amgen Big Pharmaceutical
Pfizer Big Pharmaceutical
Glaxo Smith Kline Big Pharmaceutical
Wall Mart The Anti-Christ with Employee Abuses
These are creating millions in Capital Gains that will carry substantial Capital Gains Taxes that she has been able to avoid by not selling them previous to this [which is a complaint of many on the left which feel that “unrealized gains” (those only on paper not cash) should be taxes]. One thing from this is that now she will learn what the cost of Capital Gains Taxes are to her portfolio and hence their small share of contribution to economic growth in the country. Too bad she didn’t own some “Big Oil” since she has complained about them as much as she did in the 1990’s about the immoral profits of Big Pharmaceutical (just before she tapped into those profits after Bill left office).
At least she didn’t own any Halliburton. But if Cheney is still guilty because he previously owned Halliburton shares (which he sold to avoid similar conflict of interest charges) isn’t it equally fair to charge that she is still guilty of illicit Pharmaceutical gains ……. even up till just recently when she just sold her “conflict of interest” shares? You won’t hear as much about this from the “drive by media” and the left as you did about Cheney because it is a different ox being Gored. Maybe we should demand that she contribute those ill begotten gains on Big Pharmaceutical to children’s relief. STORY HERE
Published June 13, 2007
First of all, I am not personally endorsing Rudy, but he is a major candidate and has just made probably the most substantive and detailed proposal for the 2008 campaign by either party to date (I know that the Paul supporters will dispute this, so I will nod to that). Rudy announced yesterday, Tuesday 6/12/07, his broad outline of 12 promises to America that I expect he plans to shape his campaign around. I guess that these things if done would please some and displease others or some may be acceptable while others unacceptable. I will look forward to how he expands these concepts to clarify just what they mean. There are some that I am interested in, some that I need clarity on. Off hand pending further detail I like 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9. Although I don’t necessarily dislike 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 I’d like to know what he means by them. I don’t believe that Rudy will find many if any of these items exclusive to his campaign.
I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.
I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.
I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.
I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.
I will impose accountability on Washington.
I will lead America towards energy independence.
I will give Americans more control over and access to healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions.
I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
I will expand America’s involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world
What a good week for videos. This HERE at breitbart.tv is another must see where Al Gore is berating George HW Bush for failing to recognize the threat Saddam poses for the world with his support of terrorism, use of weapons of mass destruction and constant pursuit of nuclear weapons. In this September, 1992 speech Gore condemns President Bush for “blatant disregard for brutal terrorism, a dangerous blindness to the murderous ambitions of a despot.” This is another MUST SEE; however, some of your rabid Bush haters and Gore lovers might find this a bit tough to swallow.
Let me say that this does not prove anything about the current Bush administration whether he was right or wrong to enter Iraq. It does go to show that the current (and constant) complaints from the left are merely political posturing to extricate any complicity on their part. On the other hand it may well prove that even the young administration of George W. Bush had ample reason to believe that it was necessary to deal with Saddam given the then current realities of the United States being the target or Terrorism on a global basis.
This is just another example of the hypocrisy and disingenuous criticism from the left as they continue to call George W. Bush a liar concerning Iraq and Saddam. Need I remind you of Public Law 105-338 titled the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998″ supported by the Clinton/Gore administration in 1998 as well a multitude of other Democrats. Again, be sure to link back and post your comments or I suppose complaints concerning how this is not relevant. (I guess some may need a face saving path out)
Published June 6, 2007
Who Won, Fred Thompson of course? But you say he wasn’t there. Correct, that is why he won. There were a lot of guys there and still you had to look and say I wish I had more choices. Not that a number of them didn’t do well, it was just lacking something. Therefore I think Fred won because he is brought to focus by the question “is that all our choices.”
Also yesterday he launched his own “exploratory” website called I’m With Fred. It is basically a fundraising site, but we will probably know about his candidacy in July (i.e. 4th).
I read something recently that said that Fred Thompson would have the best performance in the Presidential Debates and that is really the “crunch” time, and I believe it is true. It would be Thompson that could deliver a sobering dose of common sense to Hillary, Obama or Edwards in the Debates. This guy may just have what it takes!
I am setting up this post as a location to transfer some off topic discussion that has ensued about Ron Paul as it relates to the war question which stemmed from the abortion question. I don’t have much to add here other than a link to the video that spawned this thread, posted by Jim here at the Helvidus, a Pachyderm site. I am transferring the posts on my blog and cross posting a couple off topic comments at the Helvidus blog to this location to be on topic.
Post Debate Fox Interview of Ron Paul: HERE
John Edwards like Joe Biden here has had a lot to say about the war on terror. Most recently it has been about how the War on Terror of George Bush is really a sham and designed for political purposes and NOT to make America safer (see below). So John Edwards can vote for and claim repeatedly that he will be behind the “War on Terror” until the end and suddenly he is another Democrat getting in the race for the nomination and everything he said before is of no account and that makes Bush the one that is playing politics. Sheesh!
“The core of this presidency has been a political doctrine that George Bush calls the ‘Global War on Terror.’ He has used this doctrine like a sledgehammer to justify the worst abuses and biggest mistakes of his administration… The war on terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It’s a bumper sticker, not a plan. It has damaged our alliances and weakened our standing in the world… The ‘war’ metaphor has also failed because it exaggerates the role of only one instrument of American power–the military… we must move beyond the idea of a war on terror.” …. John Edwards
Lets examine where John Edwards has been on this issue when other sympathies prevailed in the electorate.
- Voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq
- At DNC Convention in 2004 in acceptance speech for Vice Presidency: “We are a nation at war, global war on terror.”
- Democratic Platform in 2004 that Edwards ran for President on: Today, we face three great challenges above all others – first, to win the global war against terror; second, to stop the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; and third, to promote democracy and freedom around the world, starting with a peaceful and stable Iraq.
Now up to recently when the left blogosphere started panning the use of the words “war on terror” even the left portion of the Democratic party largely separated their view of the War in Iraq from that of the “War on Terror,” but Mr. Edwards now is stepping out with a disingenuous change of rhetoric to fit with the base of the Democratic party. Ok, so be it, but who is using the words “war on terror” for political purposes.
I would like to add that even when Edwards was trying to sound strong on the “war on terror” including the war in Iraq, we come to find from his campaign manager (Bob Shrum) of 2004 when Edwards was running for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency that both John and his wife were against casting his vote in the Senate for the War in Iraq, but his political consultants (in Shrum’s own words here paragraph 5) prevailed on Edwards that he needed to vote for the resolution, which of course he did and so I wonder how much more political you can get with this issue than to change your vote for the war resolution based on your own political needs.
And just one further point, I wonder how we have intercepted so many terrorist plots in the U.S. and world at large and have spared this country from additional attacks so far and for so long if the President is not trying to make America safe as Edwards claims (his words not mine). [hmm]
UPDATE: I wanted to update this post to include a link provided by a commenter “Total Transformation Test” of a video of John Edwards stating that he will support the “War on Terror” to the end. here
So, Senator Joe Biden (D-Del) calls for the use of troops in Darfur here and doing so without checking with Jimmy Carter relative to what Jimmy calls a “pre-emptive war” here meaning that the security of the United States is not directly threatened. This is the same Joe Biden that is against the troop surge in Iraq even though he spent most of the past few years complaining that we need more troops in Iraq here. There’s nothing like the administration saying that it was going to actually do something to cause a Democrat to change his mind about its’ advisability.
He thinks we should commit our military to Darfur yet we should pull out of Iraq even though he voted in favor of the “Authorization to Use Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.” When asked about his vote to go to war in Iraq he lied here (last paragraph) when he said “remember what the resolution said, Tim (Russert), it didn’t say ‘go to war.’ It said, ‘Mr. President, if you can show these things, then you can use force.”
How convenient for someone that wants to run away from his vote. The only problem is it doesn’t say that. His vote to go war was his vote on Public Law 107-243 and Section 3 is the relevant section which says that the President has 48 hours “AFTER” the starting the use of “FORCE” to report to Congress that he was unable to solve matters diplomatically, which the Bush administration complied with. Read it here yourself and then tell me that the authorization was CONDITIONAL therefore requiring the President to report to Congress before going to war. Everybody knew that Joe was an admitted plagiarist, but now we know he is a bold faced liar. Hmmmmmm……….
It seems to me he wants troops in Darfur (like many Democrats and Celebrities) and is using the same arguments that were valid for war in Iraq. Biden says that he supports it because of the killing of 200,000 people (which he calls Genocide). If that is grounds for sending troops (sorry Mr. Carter about prohibition of a Pre-Emptive War) then he should have been for troops going to Iraq on the same humanitarian grounds as this. Saddam had killed literally hundreds of thousands of people himself. Read here for details on the deaths under Saddam.
So here you have another “pretender” to the Presidency that has changed his tune on the war more often than a symphony orchestra getting ready to play a concert. It is amazing how declaring for the nomination for the Presidency can evoke such strange behavior. So now you have a call by the Democrats for use of Military Force in Darfur, and in so doing contradict all the complaints they have made against the Bush Administration for going to war in Iraq (which many Democrats voted for).