The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Martha Stewart comes to mind.

Shares Fell Two Weeks Later

By Jonathan M. Katz

Associated Press
Wednesday, September 21, 2005; Page A03

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, sold all his stock in his family's hospital corporation about two weeks before it issued a disappointing earnings report and the price fell nearly 15 percent.

Frist held an undisclosed amount of stock in Hospital Corporation of America, based in Nashville, the nation's largest for-profit hospital chain. On June 13, he instructed the trustee managing the assets to sell his HCA shares and those of his wife and children, said Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Frist.

Frist's shares were sold by July 1 and those of his wife and children by July 8, Call said. The trustee decided when to sell the shares, and the Tennessee Republican had no control over the exact time they were sold, she said.

HCA shares peaked at midyear, climbing to $58.22 a share on June 22. After slipping slightly for two weeks, the price fell to $49.90 on July 13 after the company announced its quarterly earnings would not meet analysts' expectations. On Tuesday, the shares closed at $48.76.

The value of Frist's stock at the time of the sale was not disclosed. Earlier this year, he reported holding blind trusts valued at $7 million to $35 million.

Blind trusts are used to avoid conflicts of interest. Assets are turned over to a trustee who manages them without divulging any purchases or sales and reports only the total value and income earned to the owner.

To keep the trust blind, Frist was not allowed to know how much HCA stock he owned, Call said, but he was allowed to ask for all of it to be sold.

Frist, a surgeon first elected to the Senate in 1994, had been criticized for maintaining the holdings while dealing with legislation affecting the medical industry and managed care. Call said the Senate Select Committee on Ethics has found nothing wrong with Frist's holdings in the company in a blind trust.

To avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, Senator Frist went beyond what ethics requires and sold the stock, Call said. Asked why he had not done so before, she said, I don't know that he's been worried about it in the past.

An HCA spokesman said the company had no part in Frist's decision.

Frist's father, Thomas, founded the company, and his brother, Thomas Jr., is a director and leading stockholder. The family is worth $1.1 billion, according to Forbes magazine.

HCA -- formerly known as Columbia HCA Healthcare Corp. -- has been a top contributor to the senator's campaigns, donating $83,450 since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The sale of the shares was first reported by Congressional Quarterly.

Is Barack Obama a U.S. citizen?"

Of course he is, dummy..

"But how do you know?"

Well for starters, he posted his birth certificate on his website. Not to mention, the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born in Hawaii . Also, factcheck.org (a non-partisan and highly credible political fact checking website) investigated it heavily and validated, beyond doubt, that the birth certificate he posted was real. Did I mention that if there were an actual conspiracy surrounding this...it would have to be 47 years in the making? That's right, read it and weep: his birth announcement was posted in a Hawaii newspaper way back in 1961! But if you're really not sure, just remember there have been court cases challenging his citizenship, and every one of them was laughed off the docket.

"That's all pretty compelling. But I got this email that said...."

The email you got is just a crazy, internet-born rumor. It's nothing but a desperate attempt to discredit him. Trust me.

"Yeah, I'm sure you're right...."

Sound familiar? I've personally had a similar conversation several times, but mine ends differently.

"Well for starters, he posted his birth certificate on his website."

Really? Well humor me, because I think this is important enough for us to get our facts straight. So let's explore that. Hawaii doesn't issue "birth certificates". The state offers "Certificates of Live Birth" and "Certifications of Live Birth." What Barack Obama has posted on his website is a "Certification of Live Birth." So let's talk about the difference between the two documents. As you probably know, the document we commonly refer to as a "birth certificate" (more formally called a Certificate of Live Birth) is packed with detail. Detail like the hospital you were born in, the doctor who delivered you along with his/her signature, etc. It looks like a tax form with all the boxes and everything. The Certification of Live Birth is really just a snapshot of that. So which one is more credible? Which one does the state of Hawaii give the "last word" to? Based on information that existed long before this issue came up, let's take a look at one example of what the state of Hawaii has to say on it:

"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL." ( http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl ).

So if the state of Hawaii itself doesn't accept "Certifications of Live Birth" as a last leg of verification, it's safe to say there's a pretty solid distinction we too can make when comparing a Certificate to a Certification. What Barack Obama posted, was a Certification. What people want to see, is the Certificate. When you say he "posted his birth certificate" on his website, the truth (painful as it may be to hear) is that he posted a much different document that if accurately described, would be a "birth certification" - which is far less credible and far easier to alter.

"That's pretty lean. It's not really a big deal to me because I know it's just a rumor. But still, if you're going to insist there's a question here, I have to tell you....the state of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born in Hawaii . They have the 'Certificate' you're talking about, and they proved it was authentic. Are you saying they're in on this crazy conspiracy?"

I'm not saying they're involved in a conspiracy, or even that one exists. But I'm not sure you can honestly say you actually read that statement. Here, take a look:

Director of Health for the State of Hawaii , Chiyome Fukino: "There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate. State law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes �338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i."

Now you tell me, where in that statement does it say anything about where he was born? Public officials are very careful when they release these statements. They carve their words out precisely and check and double check to make sure what they release is accurate and viable. I have to be honest, it wasn't until this statement came out that I became more concerned by the citizenship question. If you actually read it, it's plain to see that as it relates to his birth, the statement really only "proves" 3 things: 1) Barack Obama was born, 2) proof of that birth exists on paper, and 3) their office is in receipt of that paper. An official statement with a lot of affirmatives about requirements and procedures means nothing if they can't find the words, "originating from Hawaii " or "was born in Honolulu " or "as documented in the Certification he has already released". Now maybe it was an accident that Dr. Fukino was able to authenticate virtually every scrap of it's existence - except the part everyone is asking about. However, pressed on this, there has been ample opportunity for her to revise or expand her statement, and she still to this day has not done so.

"Wait a minute, Hank. Didn't factcheck.org already investigate this whole thing. You're just grasping at straws. What do you know, that they don't?!"

I guess the first thing I'd tell you is that, on this particular subject, factcheck has already missed a lot of "facts", and even created a few of their own. You know that statement we just read from Hawaii 's Director of Health? Well this is what factcheck had to say about it: "Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu " ( http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html ). Did you see that in the statement? I didn't. If this site's only claim is to report facts in a non-partisan manner, how much credibility can we really give them when they start making up their own, very partisan and very inaccurate facts? They also failed to make the distinction between the Certificate and the Certification. And to be fair, factcheck.org is a product of the Annenberg Foundation. You may remember, Barack Obama worked for Annenberg as a spoke in their umbrella. If you look at the actual facts, this is a slight conflict of interest on factcheck.org's part - which might help to explain their not having met their own obligation of getting the facts right. An accident on their part? Maybe. But they too have had plenty of time to correct it, but chose instead to close the book on this one...fabricated facts and all.

"Look....if there was any truth to this, it would have meant that Barack's parents and a Hawaiian newspaper were in on it too. And they were in on it 47 years ago! There's a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper for crying out loud."

Okay now this is one of my favorites. So now rather than authenticating citizenship by way of formal, long-form, vault copies of actual Certificates of Live Birth - we are relying on birth announcements in newspapers? Let me ask you something: If you and your wife live in Ohio , but you gave birth while visiting Florida , is there a legal or logical premise that says you're bound to put that birth announcement in a Floridian newspaper? Or, would you likely send news of the birth back home, to your town-of-residence, where more friends and family would see the good news? If Barack Obama was born outside of the U.S. , there doesn't have to be a "conspiracy" for his family to have sent word of that birth back to their hometown newspaper.

"Hmm. Okay. Well newsflash Hank. This has already been challenged in court and the judges dismissed it as frivolous and ridiculous."

Actually, this has been heard in a handful of courts. The judges by-in-large dismissed the cases, you're right. But the majorative reason was not merit, but rather standing. "Standing", as an act of dismissal in the courts, is a technicality. The judges said that individual citizens did not have standing to ask that the Constitution be upheld. This raises a pretty clear question: If "We The People" don't have standing to ask that the contract we hold with our government be upheld (ie the Constitution), who does? There are several other cases still pending; at least 12 confirmed. One of those is actually active on the Supreme Court's docket, as we speak. Another has been brought in California by 2008 candidate for the Presidency, Alan Keyes...and several of California 's electors (members of the electoral college who will officially vote our President in on December 15, 2008).

I don't think too many grounded people could say, "I know the answer." For instance, I am not saying Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. I'm not saying he was born in Kenya . I'm not saying he renounced his U.S. citizenship when he moved to Indonesia and attended school there (a right reserved only to Indonesian citizens - in a country that didn't recognize any dual citizenship.) I'm not saying that due to his father's citizenship at a time when Kenya was still part of the British empire , Barack, as a son, was automatically and exclusively afforded British citizenship. I'm not saying the video footage of his Kenyan grandmother claiming to have been in the delivery room, in Kenya , when he was born, is necessarily "evidence." I'm also not saying he was born in Hawaii . What I'm saying is, none of us have these answers. I'm saying, there is an outstanding question here - that only Barack Obama can answer. And rather than answer it, having promised a new sense of transparency throughout his campaign, his course of action has been to spend time, money and the resources of at least 3 separate law firms....fighting to keep any and all documentation off the discovery table and out of the courtroom. It is a well known legal fact that if you have documentation/evidence that will help you - you are quick to produce it. If that documentation will hurt you, however, you fight to keep it out of court. Let's be fair. He was quick and happy to give documentation he claimed validated and authenticated his citizenship to a website - but is fighting to keep that same documentation out of the courts. If that document really does authenticate and validate everything, why not just hand it over? Why fight?

"Alright Hank. Well MY question is, if there was any validity to this, why isn't the media covering it?"

I have no idea.

As an Independent and initial Barack Obama supporter, I can safely say that contrary to what many think, asking these questions is not an attempt by Republicans to win a technicality-laden seat in the White House. Republicans lost. They were due the loss. Most know that. The seat will ultimately go to a Democrat. But if there is truth to Barack Obama not being able to formally prove his a) natural born, and/or b) properly maintained citizenship statuses - we as Americans must not gloss past it. If there is truth to it, this will represent the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people and our most coveted process of democracy. If there is truth to it, this will demonstrate a wanton and relentless pursuit for power which left President-Elect Obama trapsing all over our Constitution - in pursuit of a position that ironically and foremost swears him to uphold and protect that same document.

There is much unanswered here. I know it is very embarassing for the Democratic party to have allowed what might be such an incredibly elementary oversight to occur - but nothing good that Barack Obama might do in the next 4-8 years, will be able to repair the damage done by setting a precedent that affords anyone in our Country the room and right to trample the contract "We The People" hold with our government, let alone a person who is asking to be our next President.

"Everyone will riot if they kick him out." We can't be intimidated by that. The people of our country elected a black man for the Presidency. Nothing can change that. If it turns out his entire campaign and effort were based on fraud, that reality is still 100% independent of the color-blind lenses our nation took to the polls. So if we bow down to the potential for race riots - recognizing that we did in fact (perhaps ignorantly relating to his eligibility) initially vote for him, we are only fostering a new evolution of racism that is nurtured by intimidation and complicit with failing to incite accountability over a man, people and process - simply based on color.

Very few people know any of this is even occurring. Those who do are greatly divided. Some are sure Barack Obama has acted fraudulently, some are sure he hasn't. Neither group can be sure of anything though, until Barack Obama himself answers the question for us. We all show our "birth certificates" (Certificates of Live Birth) several times over the course of our lives. Why should someone running for the Presidency be an exeption to that expectation, or even a more fiercely vetted recipient of it? More questionably, how can we as a government, media and nation - allow someone running for the Presidency to be an exception to that expectation?

The behavior, mostly (to my personal dismay) for his part, has only fueled speculation. Why factcheck.org? Why not a governing body like the Federal Election Commission, Board of Elections or even the DNC? When a governing body did finally inject itself in to this matter, why were they only able to do so vaguely...leaving the real question entirely untouched and unanswered? Why spend more than $800K fighting this in court, at a time when our nation is in economic crisis and that money could be better spent in far more charitable ways; when it could ultimately and universally be resolved for the small $12.00 fee required by Hawaii for a copy of the actual Certificate of Live Birth? In the spirit of transparency, why refuse to release this basic document for inspection? In the spirit of unity, why leave so many Americans alienated and debating the matter - when all most of them want is affirmation so that people on both sides of the debate can move to more healthy and productive lines of communication?

It was opinionated that he had left this door open prior to the election, so that those who opposed him would be led down a blind and pointless alley. The general election is over though. And still, he offers nothing to end the speculation.

By the time I am done with the conversation I outlined above, those I am speaking with inevitably return to what I have typically found to be their first and last refutation....

"He must have been properly vetted. Right....?"

I don't know. And without support for that contention coming directly from the Federal Election Commission, the Board of Elections or (ideally) Barack Obama himself, neither does anyone else.

"This is ridiculous" doesn't count as a refutation. Simply, answer the question with the simple documentation that is being asked of you in double digit numbers of court rooms across the country, including the Supreme Court. It may go away. It may be dismissed again based on standing. But President-Elect Obama's refusal to quell what have become very real questions about this, will only serve to leave many good Americans who hope to vigorously support their President...with far too much doubt to be able to do so. Production of a Certificate of Live Birth is a very small price to pay for unity.

they would have already done it when the economic crisis hit. We already owe them tons of money. I think they would make out better collecting interest off us than spending their resources trying to "control" us, which would eventually lead to yet another war. What I think should be in the bill is help for those who need it immediately (the ones who have already lost jobs and extending state funds to make budgets) and infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure, green job advancement. This can't be outsourced, it generates revenue, it provides jobs, and its needed. The more people we put back to work or keep at work, the better chance we have of paying these bills off through taxable income.

I know it looks like an enormous amount of money to be going into debt for (and it is), but at this point I don't think we have any choice. If you want to talk national security, a depression would leave us much more vulnerable than being in debt. Being vulnerable is not an option at this point.

and how we can buy things so cheap at Walmart because the Chinese work for little money. If the things we bought at Walmart were actually made here in the USA by Americans.....it would be a lot more expensive because Americans demand higher paying jobs. That is the thing. We are kind of screwed both ways. Do we keep the job here in American and pay a heck of a lot more money for things we get cheap now or do we continue to keep China in business by sending our jobs over there. Kind of a double-edge sword when you think about it.

I personally think that we should bite the bullet and pay more for American made goods so we can keep jobs here in America. The more we want cheaper stuff, the more we will be buying stuff made in China and the less jobs we have in America.

...which has been the biggest foreign purchaser of our Treasury bonds and notes. Now, I see that they're also over here snapping up foreclosure properties. America is for sale.

I don't think most Americans realize that the nation would actually be declared bankrupt if normal accounting methods that are required of businesses were used by the government. Our total forward indebtedness (which is different from "the deficit") is something like $16 trillion dollars - a sum that is greater than the combined gross domestic product of the entire world. "Indebtedness" includes anticipated obligations under various welfare programs, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and our contractual obligations represented by Treasury bonds, notes and bills - which are nothing more or less than loans we have to repay. When you hear people talking about the Federal Reserve "selling" these instruments, they're not selling anything...they're borrowing! If you "purchase" a $1000 Treasury bill at par value, you give the government $1000 dollars, in exchange for which you will be paid a stated rate of interest and, then at some stated time in the future the government will pay you the face value of the bill ($1000). In other words, you have loaned the government $1000 for a certain period of time.

Foreign governments "buy" these instruments just like citizens do. To make a long story short, we (the government = taxpayers = you and I, my kids, my grandkids and any kids they have) owe the world about a $kajillion worth of these loans.

Don't believe it? Look at Bush toasting the commie leaders... all of our trade deals with them...Who has us by the balls financially.... A huge component of the creation of the North American Union is megaports on the Western coast to accommodate huge Chinese tankers.... Look at Paulson and his ties with commie China.... The lone Republican lawmaker who voted against Berancke's confirmation says that Bernacke has extensive ties to commie China so it is a conflict of interest...

The above is just a sampling. The bottom line is that we will wind up just like China, with slave labor, before it's all over with.

Hubby was telling me last night that China's economy is now tanking because ours is. Factory workers over there were showing up for work only to find their business had closed because of lack of orders from the U.S. India may be next. You never know. I don't see it happening with MT but like I said, you just don't know. Did you see their work days? 6 days a week and something like 12 or 14 hours a day?

I hear lip service from Nobama/Maobama about cutting taxes to bring our businesses back but don't see him acting on it. He's a one-termer. Carter got us in a heap of trouble which Reagan (I know union employees aren't fond of him) had to get us out of. All Nobama is doing is having construction/building jobs sprout up here and there. And where does the money come from to pay for his multi-trillion dollar spending? You got it - us. Those jobs will eventually fizzle out, our country will be poorer and those people will once again be unemployed..

Dems coined the phrase Voodoo Economics for Reagan's Trickle Down Economics. Whether or not you liked the man, he did a world of good for this country. He did cut capital gains taxes and cut taxes for the rich. Trickle down 101: You cut taxes for the rich, they can afford to hire more employees, more often than not, at better wages. Unemployment is down. People go out and spend more money because they are employed and can afford to. During Reagan's terms in office, he cut taxes immensely yet the government took in more money. People would much rather spend their money the way they want than have the government take it and spend it.

Folks, we work for our government. Our government should be working for us. We should not live in fear of the IRS. I attended a TEA party on April 15 and will attend more such events. We should have a government for the people, of the people and by the people. The protest was very peaceful and guess what? Not a bit of litter was left to be found when it ended, like the disgrace that was left after the inauguration in Washington, DC.

We are getting so far away from a constitutional government, it's not funny. Actually, my opinion is that we are currently a socialist government. You know the next step after socialism? Communism.

I read the most recent list of who they consider a terrorist. Hoarding food? Um, yep. Better buy it now in case a depression hits. Glad I have a breadmaker. Wouldn't want to have to spend $50 on a loaf of bread. Buying lots of ammo? Sure, but then again, we do competition shooting. Guns? Yeah, we have our share, but variety is the spice of life (Hubby bought me a Macarov but I didn't care for the way it operated (too hard to load the mag), especially after the slide came back and sliced my thumb open 5 times, bad lacerations - my fault, was handling it wrong, so I got a Glock). My husband is an Iraqi war vet. That makes us both domestic terrorists. Yet neither one of us even has the heart to even discipline our dogs. We're both very gentle people. Of course if someone broke into our home, we would defened ourselves.

I'm sorry for the rant but I just don't see Nobama caring much about outsourcing. I really really really hope I am wrong and what he is doing for our country is the right thing but I truly resent being labeled a domestic terrorist because I see us headed for a depression and am stocking up on food, and my husband happened to be in the military during the Gulf war.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Martha Stewart comes to mind.

Shares Fell Two Weeks Later