Hillary for president?

And why would the Democratic Party want to do that? Because the re-election
of President Obama is becoming more problematic. The latest Rasmussen
Reports polls show the dramatic decline of the presidential approval index,
the difference between those who "strongly approve" of Mr. Obama's
performance and those who "strongly disapprove." It began at plus 25% when
the new president was sworn in, and has steadily declined to minus 13%.

It isn't just the president whose poll numbers are falling fast. According
to recent Harris polling, Vice President Biden viewed favorably by 26% of
the public and unfavorably by 45%. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi does even
worse, 20% positive to 49% negative. A June Nevada poll gave Sen. Harry
Reid, the majority leader, 33% approval and 52% disapproval.

But the greatest contrast and most interesting statistic is Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton's ratings: 45% favorable and only 35% unfavorable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

Best Regards

Tom.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 01:25:00 -0700, "azotic"
wrote:



Hillary for president?

And why would the Democratic Party want to do that? Because the re-election
of President Obama is becoming more problematic. The latest Rasmussen
Reports polls show the dramatic decline of the presidential approval index,
the difference between those who "strongly approve" of Mr. Obama's
performance and those who "strongly disapprove." It began at plus 25% when
the new president was sworn in, and has steadily declined to minus 13%.
snip
==========
IMNSHO the foundational problem is that the U.S. government
has become increasingly non-operational and irrelevant. For
example, they are unable to prevent the invasion of the
country by millions of unarmed men, women and children.
Thus no matter who is elected, things will not get any
better, and are quite likely to get worse.

It should be crystal that the gigantic banks and financial
firms are one of the major problems in that these continue
to play the vampire by sucking the life blood [capital] out
of the economic system, and by continuous injection of
highly toxic and addictive products such as CDS and CDO
derivatives. There already exists highly effective statutes
to prosecute such activities. These are the RICO or
"Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization"
provisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rackete...anizations_Act
snip
Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that
has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8
state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with
racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be
fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per
racketeering count. In addition, ==the racketeer must
forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest== in any business
gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO
also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of
such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the
individual can collect ==treble damages.==

When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO,
he or she has the option of seeking ==a pre-trial
restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a
defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially
forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to
put up a performance bond.== This provision was placed in
the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell
corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction
and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to
seize in the event of a guilty verdict.
snip
Under the law, racketeering activity means:

* Any violation of state statutes against gambling,
murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery,
dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled
substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled
Substances Act);
* Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft,
embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction
of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money
laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and several other
offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
* Embezzlement of union funds;
* Bankruptcy fraud or securities fraud;
* Drug trafficking; long-term and elaborate drug
networks can also be prosecuted using the Continuing
Criminal Enterprise Statute;
* Money laundering and related offenses;
* Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally
entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
* Acts of terrorism.
{emphasis added}
snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rackete...ght_be_applied

Of prime importance is the provisions in this statute that
allows for "piercing the corporate veil" and the recovery of
assets from the responsible individuals as well as the
"corporation," which may well have been looted as part of a
"bust out scam."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercin...corporate_veil
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/bus...rate_veil.html

Thus under RICO Hank Greenberg [AIG], Lloyd Blankfein
[Goldman Sachs], John Thane [Merrill Lynch] and many others
could have most, if not all, of their personal assets
stripped.

Under the SEC and current DoJ, while a few fines have been
levied, these are all against the corporation and thus
punish the shareholders, who had minimal to no control over
the actions of their [previous] directors and officers,
which retain their grossly excessive and very likely illegal
compensation.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100716/...us_sec_goldman
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100716...20100716220030
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10266...cord-fine.html

Just remember -- if elections changed anything they would be
illegal...


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

F. George McDuffee wrote:

Just remember -- if elections changed anything they would be illegal...


LOL!

BEST quote of the day!

Thanks, George.


--

Richard Lamb

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 01:25:00 -0700, azotic wrote:

Hillary for president?

And why would the Democratic Party want to do that?

Because they're criminally insane?

Thanks,
Rich