Sunday, July 22, 2012

The 1st Amendment under fire from democrats

Interesting coincidence over the weekend. Ater watching hours of coverage about the "Movie Massacre" in Colorado, I started looking for something a little lighter. Ended up watching an interview on CNN, Piers Morgan talking to Supreme Court Justic Antonin Scalia, who's just published a book called Reading Law, with a co-author whose name escapes me. The co-author also participated in the interview.

Scalia takes a conservative view of the U.S. Constituion. He was appointed by Ronald Reagan, and seems healthy enough to remain at his post for a while yet.

I didn't see the whole interview, but at one point, Piers Morgan seemed to be trying to define how Scalia -- and other judges -- draw the line between their personal attitudes and their interpretations of the Constitution. Morgan seemed to regard "torture" as synonymous with "cruel and unusual punishment," the latter banned by the Constitution. Scalia noted that "torture" isn't necessarily "punishment." Punishment comes after conviction of a crime; tortue, maybe not.

Morgan asked Scalia if he'd made an decisions that disagreed with his personal views. One biggie was about the issue of burning the U.S. flag. Scalia said, "If I were king" flag-burners would go to jail. However, as a Supreme, he voted that flag-burning is a legitimate expression of political views, and therefore it's protected under the 1st Amendment.

So then today I'm watching I think it was "Fox Media Watch," which discusses bias in the media, among other media-related stuff. Someone brought up the issue of disclosure. That is, the democrats are getting all flustered and demanding about the Republicans disclosing exactly who is donating money to the Romney campaign. I should add, much of this has been disclosed already -- the big donors, anyway.

Among these big donors is Frank L. Vandersloot, founder of a company called Melaleuca Inc., which sells vitamins and cleaning products much the way Avon or Amway does -- through its sales agents setting up their own "pyramid" sales organizations. Vandersloot has donated $1 million or more to Romney, and even serves as an officer in a Romney superpac fundraising organization.

Oddly enough, over the last few months, Vandersloot has been fingered for an IRS audit, and the Labor Dept. is also looking into his employing three Mexicans every year for the last five years as hands at his ranch in Idaho.

Vandersloot has been investigated before. It's the pyramid-style sales organization of Melaleuca. Those kinds of things can make a lot of people unhappy. They may be pressured to join one or another sales reps' groups, they may find the product a lot more difficult to sell than they suspected. Who knows, they may have legitimate complaints about their dashed expectations.

At any rate, Vandersloot is in a position to be regarded as "low-hanging fruit" by an organization like the Chicago branch of the democratic party, which tends to use less than admirable tactics itself to get its own way. So they're attacking Vandersloot -- and using the might of the federal government to do it.

I suspect this is why the democrats want disclosure of Romney's donors -- so they can sic the IRS on them and God knows what other agencies and dirty tricks practitioners who don't give a damn about the United States or what it stands for. "Just give me my plum." Or, in this case, my $5 million for a shell corporation that will go bankrupt, at taxpayer expense. That's got "Chicago" written all over it.

Of course, as I recall, Bill Clinton tried something like this, too, but he was called out on it publicly and it seemed to stop.

Interesting contrast, though, between conservative Scalia defending the Constitution even when he doesn't agree with it, and the Comrade and his merry marxists burying a Republican donor under federal investigations in efforts to create a "chilling effect." That means scaring people out of supporting Romney.

We'll see if anything like ethics or a sense of honor stops the Comrade from pushing this any further. Actually, from what I've seen of him so far -- and from what I know about Chicago -- I doubt it.

Another reason to get rid of this guy. And the donkey he rode in on.

Save the Republic.

Friday, July 20, 2012

And where was Batman?

Kinda late, and just hearing the first reports of a maniac shooting spree at the midnight premiers of the movie, Dark Knight Rising, the latest in the Batman series. At this moment, reports are 10 to 12 people dead -- including a baby shot at point blank range -- and at least 20 wounded.

Apparently at Batman's first appearance in the film, two guys in body armor and gas masks stood up and start shooting. Witnesses say the weapons were "long" and military-style (that could be anything), sounded like they were automatic or semi-automatic. The perps also lobbed some tear gas into the crowd. The first shooter has been apprehended, and the cops are still searching the theater for the second shooter.

Pretty heavy duty weapons and outfitting, but apparently available to anyone who really wants them -- and I'm talking more about the body armor and gas masks than the weapons. Though I have no idea where one would buy tear gas.

The theater was packed -- totally sold out.

Many of the victims were teenagers and even younger children, because that age group made up most of the audience.

This is insane, and makes me wonder what the hell goes on in Colorado. Remember Columbine?

Nobody knows anything about it yet, in terms of motivation, if it had anything at all to do with Batman, or if the theater was attractive just because there was a crowd there.

So sorry for the families. For Aurora, Colorado, in general.

Well, it's about 40 minutes after the above, and seems there was only one shooter, armed with a rifle, handgun, and the tear gas. He triggered the tear gas before he started shootng -- randomly into the audience. Apparently he had no particular target. He told police he also has "incendiary devices" in his car -- in the lot outside the theater -- and in his home. Police are seaching.

New body counts, too -- 14 dead. 50 wounded and there may be more.

Where's Batman when you really need him? I worry about people who immerse themselves in fantasy.

Save the Republic.

Monday, July 16, 2012

Presidential meltdown

Pretty early in the campaign for the Comrade to be losing it. But I guess if all you've done for the past four years is live in a big housr (free of charge) with as many servants as you want, and play golf and basketball (and you can even call up pros and ask them to come and shoot a few with you), and then periodically take trips around the world in your own luxury jet, and bring your friends, and all your wife's friends, and even bring your dog in a second jet... well, maybe the Comrade's gotten just a little soft.

He was speaking in Virginia, I believe, over the weekend, when he apparently got "off the teleprompter" and started yelling about how business people don't build their own businesses. No, it was the government. Same for the Internet. The Internet has nothing to do with the private sector. It was all based on "government research." Whatever that means.

So my question is, where's my business? Why hasn't government given me a business?

With such a view, I can see why the Comrade promotes class warfare so vehemently. I mean, I never got a business from the government, but it seems like everyone else has. And, what? Does the government save the really big businesses, like GE or GM, for its special friends and supports.

Well, yeah.. looks that way, doesn't it?

To be honest, though, and serious, the blunder, or misspeak, or whatever you want to call it --unguarded moment?? -- sort of reveals either the Comrade's personal opinion -- that the federal government REALLY IS Santa Claus -- or it's a crude statement of the bullshit he wants us to believe.

But you know, I suspect wherever he goes, there's always somebody in the audience who's owned and run their own business. For the Comrade to tell them that goverment built their business is kind of a really sharp slap across the face. Not a way to win friends and influence people, is it?

Whateve happened the "silver-tongued devil?" With desperation knocking, he's completely falling apart. And the campaign hasn't even really started yet.

Save the Republic -- vote Romney.



Friday, July 13, 2012

Obama claims:Not enough lipstick on his pig

So, the Comrade was being interviewed the other day -- one of those one-on-one, heart-to-heart, intimate tete-a-tetes the networks schedule every so often to make smarmy politicians look like big, cuddly teddy bears -- and the reporter asked him something like, "What do you feel has been your greatest mistake in office?"

The Comrade says -- with a slightly furrowed brow, indicating his heartfelt concern -- that he deeply regrets he just didn't "tell enough stories" to the American public. See, we didn't buy the spin the way he wanted us to.

And he'll humbly admit, he's at fault. He should have found another way to spin it. Some "spoonful of sugar" that would have made the medicine -- and a load of other manure -- go down.

I think the Comrade has told us plenty of "stories." More than we can count. Contradictory stores. Ridiculous confabulations of utopian fantasy. Etc., etc. Sounds like he's telling another one right now.

See, it's not that we see through the fluff (or should that be Ploufe?), thoroughly understand the marxist policies he's promoting, and resoundingly reject them. It's not like that at all. He just didn't explain it right.

It's not like the minimum "free and accessible" health care policy we're compelled to buy under Obamacare is going to cost an average family of four $12,000 to $15,000 per year. And if you don't get it, $695 in penalties for each family member -- collected by the IRS. And even paying the penaly (or tax, if you prefer), you still don't get health insurance. You still have to fork over the $12,000. Or the IRS will come and put a lien on your paycheck and/or your home. And will probably eat your children (sorry, just a little spin there).

That doesn't bother anyone. That's not creating a truly frightening scenario for families that are already struggling to keep up with mortgage payments, the skyrocketing cost of fuel and food, and stuff like that. Those families who can't be sure, week-to-week, if they'll still have a job Monday, or if their industry isn't being regulated out of existence by the EPA.

No, see, if the Comrade had just explained it all a little better.....

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I worked in public relations and advertising for decades. You can do a lot with language and presentation to make something more attractive. But it you've got a crappy product nobody wants, you ain't gonna sell it. Nobody's buying.

Lipstick on this pig just hasn't worked. And it's not likely to. The Comrade has a record now. Can't vote "present" in the White House. Yup. It's all his fault.

We just don't want the very specious, useless and destructive socialist products he's peddling.

Save the Republic.

Time for the puzzle factory, Ms. Pelosi?

You know, I watched Romney's speech to the NAACP yesterday. The audience was attentive, he was interrupted at least a dozen times by applause, and then there was the one instant when he mentioned the dangers of "Obamacare," and a few in the crowd booed.

Guess what made the news?

On the whole, the NAACP was polite and receptive. Romney got a much better response from them than, say, Arlen Specter and Nanny Sibelius got at Specter's Town Hall meetings. And them were largely edurcatered honkies in that'ere Pennsylvanie.

And does anytone really expect Romney to carry the NAACP? The black voting population votes for dems at the rate of about 90% -- consistently since at least the days of Roosevelt. They voted something like 99% for Obama. I think the NAACP treated Romney very well -- gave him what was for the most part a fair hearing.

But it's the three or four seconds of booing that made the headlines.

And now Pazzo Pelosi has outdone herself trying to explain the whole situation. See, forget the fact that Romney is, after all, the "presumptive" Republican candidate for the US presidency and the NAACP thought it would serve their membership to hear him out.

No-o-o-o. According to Pazzo, Romney had the whole thing planned. He knew he was going to be booed. Can't you just picture him with his speech writers, sitting on the yacht, munching Cheetohs, trying to come up with just the right line to trigger the disapproval?

And, see, according to Pazzo, the booing is a desirable thing for Romney. Pazzo says that if the mostly black folks at the NAACP boo you, that will convince your following among southern conservatives that you truly are one of them.

I think Pazzo's racist. Clearly, she believes conservatives -- especially southern ones -- all wear KKK sheets under their overalls and Dago T's. She's prejudiced against caucasians.

Can't you see it? Good ol' Jim-Bob and Ray-Ray lolling on a hay bale back of the barn, picking their teeth with matchbook covers, and listening to that Uppity Rich Yankee Carpetbagger talking to them shameless insurrectionists over to the NAACP.

"Hey, Jim-Bob, you heard a boo yet?"

"I b'lieve I jus' did, Ray-Ray. Yup. They's a-booing ol' Mitt. So it 'pears to me, he mus' be one of us. I guess I'll jus' toss my vote to him come November, 'stead of exing in David Duke again."

Yeah. Just like a politically incorrect Li'l Abner movie.

So exactly how shall we portray all the naked, gay, Mexican-born, tree-hugging PETA members Pelosi represents? Don't have to, I guess, since they mostly don't speak English and are probably too stoned to care much.

Hey, Pazzo, come this way. Gently, gently. Don't stir her up. That's right, we'll just strap you in here safe and sound so you don't hurt yourself..... Yeah, and take a seat in the back of the wagon there.... Even the walls are nice and soft, just for you.

Save the Republic.

Monday, July 9, 2012

Harping on the same old string

The Comrade just gave a little speech somewhere. I only listened to the first minute or so before muting the TV -- can't stand the grating rasp of his voice anymore.

However, it seems the Comrade wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for one more year -- if he can tax the rich. Still riding that sorry and pointless hobby horse. What good will that do?

Had to laugh. Just before hitting the mute button, I heard him claim that "we've tried tax cut solutions."

I was sick and in the hospital for a week. I guess I missed the experimentation with tax cuts. But I recall the 1980s very clearly, the sharp, almost ecstatic economic upturn under Reagan, after the dire, depressing "malaise" years with Jimmy Carter ("Jeemy's a good man." Remember Rosalyn Carter, the last cheerleader, clinging to that simpering perception?)

But the Liar in Chief is just pathetic, isn't he? Hasn't got it yet -- you keep doing the same old thing, you keep getting the same results. And sure enough, unemployment only gets worse. The economy is slowing down again. Not a "double dip" recession, so long as an extended one -- becauase the Comrade's and Paul Krugman's and Robert Reich's policies simply don't friggin' work.

Look at Europe. Have they worked there?

Time to try something else. Like a new president and a functioning congress where Harry Reid sits quietly in the back, except to get up occasionally and regale us all with cowboy poetry.

Save the republic.



Friday, July 6, 2012

What Bain Capital really does -- grease the wheels

The White House continues to demonstrate its truly jaw-dropping ignorance of free enterprise and capitalist economics with its truly lame-brained and stupid attacks on Romney's Bain Capital and other venture capitalist firms.

The Comrade and his henchmen insist that Bain, and others like it, swoop down on unsuspecting companies, suck out all the capital and assets, and if the company remains in business, Bain then ships all the jobs overseas. Well, that's absolutely ridiculous.

What Bain actually does is offer a real boost to economic growth and stability, and if that's not possible in a given situation, they can redirect what's left of a failed venture into more productive and profitable channels. Here's what venture capitalists do:

Usually, these firms are made of up rich guys who accumulated a pile on Wall Street or in their own businesses. They very often are, legally, partnerships, or limited liability corportations with a very limited number of shareholders -- the investor-partners themselves. Partners may or may not be actively involved in the business. A lot of times, a guy will retire and take a few of his hard-earned millions, throw them in the pot of a vetnture capitalist firm, and leave it to the CEO and others there to look after.

What venture capital firms offer to potential clients is money and guidance. And venture capital firms are also known as "high-risk" investors -- so they're willing to bet a little more than most of the rest of us on companies and ideas that are usually a little too "iffy" to qualify for bank loans.

Suppose you inherited a family business. It was very successful at one time, but your dad/mom sort of sat back the last few years, you were sowing your wild oats and not interested, and your sibs pursued other careers. So now seeking some kind of stability, you agree to take over the business.

Your company has a lot of "good will" in it -- long-term and loyal customers, a reputation for fairness and quality products, and a stable or possibly growing market for your products. However, because your folks have let it slide the last few years, for you to make a success of it in 2012, you need to retool -- bring in computerized systems and retrain your workforce, possibly upgrade your building, market and advertise to break into broader markets, etc.

The thing is, over the last few years, while your parents were contemplating their retirement, a larger firm has been moving in on your traditional markets. This newer company not only has all the current, digital bells & whistles, but they're also developing newer, cheaper, more desireable products.

So there's lots of potential in your company -- in your employees' know-how and experience, customers who want to do business with you, etc. -- but you need lots of cash to bring it all up to speed and to be able to fend off an aggressive competitor.

So you go to the bank. The trouble is, your assets are outdated and your company over the last few years has looked pretty anemic in the marketplace. The bank pats you on the shoulder and wishes you the best, but, no, sorry, we need some solid collateral to back up any loans -- which your obsolescence doesn't support -- and/or you need some kind of market-leader position, which right now is in question.

So where do you go? Uncle Dave? He's also retiring and, after that unfortunate incident at Cousin Emily's wedding, he doen't regard you as someone he trusts to take care of his retirement savings.

Well, there's always venture capitalists. To get their attention, you generally have to really get yourself together, put together a long-term business plan, enumerate all your needs and project your earnings more or less realistically. (However, your enthusiasm would be welcome.) You have to detail exactly how you plan to succeed, and how much it will cost them to support you. If a venture capital firm gives you an appointment, it's for your presentation to them, explaining preceisely (and honestly) the status of your business and what you plan to do with it.

Venture capital firms look at your current results, which are probably rather disappointing, but they also give considerable weight to your potential, something often too ethereal for a bank to ponder. They'll want to see your facility, meet your employees, scrutinize your books. They will also probably examine your CFO (Chief Financial Offer) with a very cold and calulating eye -- Is this guy any good? What's her background and history? How long is he going to stay? Has she demonstrated good judgment and honesty regarding company funds?

If venture capitalists invest in your firm, they'll do it for equity. That is, they may give you that $5 million, but they'll want a seat on the board of directors and a percentage of your earnings -- they become a stakeholder. Often not a majority shareholder, but still and all, a stakeholder, with the right to advise, look at your books, and otherwise direct and manage your company.

Depending on the size of the investment and the needs of your company, these new investors -- the venture capitalists -- may bring in a whole raft of experts to assess and advise you. They may insist on a restructuring. They may demand that you sell off unprofitable assets, terminate or re-develop certain product lines. They may insist that you fire half your staff, pare down to the barebones and start over, pursuing another direction in the marketplace.

Of course, you can agree to this or not. Venture capitalists are not the federal -- or even state -- government. They can't force you to do anything. They can only agree or not to invest in your company. They put their cash and their business acumen on the line, and they require a profit on their investment. If your company fails, so do they. Venture capitalists are rish-takers, but they're often extremely smart and experienced, something that also can give them the appearance of ruthlessness. They're in it for the money. No apologies.

So they look at your company. Maybe you just want to sell it outright. Maybe the venture capitalists will agree to something like a buy-out, and then put their own managers in place. And maybe, if the outlook is grim and with little promise, the venture capitalists will sell your business to a larger, related corporation. Or they may decide it's time to liquidate, take their equity from the sold assets, AND THEN TAKE THAT CAPITAL AND INVEST IT IN A MORE PRODUCTIVE BUSINESS SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Not always a happy ending, but venture capitalists are most successful when you are.

Venture capitalists do what The Comrade, Geithner, and Bernanke have been trying and failing to do for the last four years. Venture capitalists look at the mess you've got and, nine out of ten times, they fix it. Or let it go -- rechanneling the assets and employees toward more profitable and productive efforts.

The difference here is, venture capitalists have considerable knowledge, experience, and a large pool of private funds to back them up. The Comrade, Geithner, and Bernanke have what? Experience rabble rousing, doling out reprimands for SEC violations (and missing Bernie Madoff, at that), and God knows what Bernanke does at the Fed. And they're playing with public funds -- tax dollars. And more often than not, they're making bad and stupid "feel-good" choices based on the fantasies of Al Gore and losing it all.

So let's hear it for the venture capitalists. Only very rich societies have them. They provide the grease that helps to turn the wheels of free enterprise. It's all about getting money and support where it's necessary, useful, and profitable.

On the other hand, when the government takes on this task, it's what Mussolini called "fascism." When government and business join foces and you no longer have much say at all in exactly what they do with your business or anyone else's -- or your money.

So tell me again about "vulture" capitalism.

Save the Republic.