The Reason Why Romney Picked Paul Ryan For VP

Robert Costa - As Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin has risen in the vice-presidential sweepstakes, a few political observers have joked that the athletic 42-year-old congressman, with his jet-black hair and square jaw, looks like one of Romney’s five sons. But according to Romney confidants, Ryan’s appeal to the former Massachusetts governor is more professional than filial. 

“He is the kind of smart, young guy that Mitt likes and Mitt would have probably hired at Bain,” says Mike Murphy, a former Romney adviser. “He shares the intellectual talent and positive outlook of the guys who Mitt mentored for decades.”
Back when he was running Bain Capital, Romney was known for following a management method called the “Bain Way.” In their book, The Real Romney, Michael Kranish and Scott Helman describe it as “intensely analytical and data driven.” It required a “healthy ego,” the authors write, “to go into a business and tell an owner how to run his own firm better.”
It also required a specific type of talent. Bain Capital operated as a small shop, and Romney took care to hire ambitious and serious business-school graduates — fresh-thinking young men he could develop, not just seasoned Wall Street hands.
In the late 1970s, “I was asked to help recruit bright, recently graduated MBAs to join the firm,” Romney recalls in his book, No Apology. “We were a cutting-edge company, we paid high salaries, and we usually landed the cream of the crop.”
Edward Conard, a partner at Bain Capital from 1993 to 1997 and the author of Unintended Consequences, tells NRO that Romney’s effectiveness was sharpened by his relationships with the rising-star consultants he recruited, so he is not surprised to see Romney form a bond with the analytical Ryan. Romney may not have been an overly warm figure in the office, he says, but he was clearly drawn to uber-competent thinkers.  “I saw it firsthand,” Conard says. “Romney challenged us to challenge each other, and he was never afraid to ask tough questions, or answer them. He surrounded himself with the sharpest, most talented guys and ran the place like a consulting firm, where employees were expected to create value, to do their homework, and present proposals rooted in facts. In Ryan, you see that kind of politician; he’s not slinging bull.”
Inside Romney’s Boston headquarters, aspects of the Bain Way have seeped into the campaign effort. Spencer Zwick, a 32-year-old private-equity investor, who was dubbed Romney’s “sixth son” by Politico, runs Romney’s finance team. Bob White, a mid-fifties former Bain Capital partner, is one of Romney’s closest advisers, and a frequent presence at Romney’s side.
“Bob White is an important adviser, and he has known the governor since the early days at Bain,” says Ron Kaufman, a Romney strategist and former White House political director. “While they’re not the entire campaign, people like Spencer and Bob come out of the business world, know the governor very well, and have perspectives and skills that are valued.”

How Low Will President Obama Go on Next Campaign Ad?

Earlier this week, citizens took to Twitter to express their outrage at the deplorable Obama SuperPAC’s  ”Romney killed my wife” ad. They decided to come up with #OctoberObamaAds; if Team Obama is sinking so sewer-level low now, then what could it possibly come up with in October?
Now, with the apparent collusion between Team Obama and the SuperPAC exposed, it looks like more slime won’t even wait until October. So, what will be the #NextDemocratCampaignAd? Will it include a game-changing bombshell like Mitt Romney is actually the one who discovered The Black Eyed Peas? Oh, the horror!

President Obama And NDAA "Liberty Lost"

Additional research and investigation into the controversial National Defense Authorization Act found something very interesting is not apparently being reported by the U.S. media.  Readers will recall that controversy that surrounded the liberty-threatening NDAA legislation, passed with bipartisan support in the House and Senate and signed into law by Barack Hussein Obama last New Year’s Eve.
That law essentially gave the government the right to arrest and detain, without due process, American citizens on significantly vague and broad charges ostensibly related to terrorism. The legislation opened a “Pandora’s box” of unpleasant possibilities that undermine our Constitutional rights and threaten our liberties unlike any other time in our national history.
Supporters of the NDAA, along with the media, were quick to point to a “signing statement” penned by Obama expressing his concern over the liberty restricting rights of the law, as if that somehow made the language of the new law suddenly conform to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Obviously, it did no such thing, but people were apparently comforted by this eight-page cross-my-heart promise that Obama and his redesigned national security apparatus would never use it for “bad.” Obama said he was uncomfortable with the particular language of section 1021 (and related portions) that called for arrests and indefinite detentions of U.S. citizens under the broad brush of terrorism.
Despite what you’ve been told, it is obvious that Obama and his cohorts are not uncomfortable with those provisions, and are quietly fighting to make sure the controversial provisions remain.

A legal challenge goes unreported

It appears that the fight against tyranny and oppression creates some interesting alliances on both sides. On January 13, 2012, a group of plaintiffs that include socialist and anarchist Noam Chomsky, political activist Daniel Ellsberg, the U.S. Day of Rage, and others filed a suit in the United States District Court, in and for the Southern District of New York, challenging the Constitutionality of the controversial sections of the NDAA. They asked the court for “preliminary and permanent injunctive relief with respect to one section, (indeed one page) of that voluminous legislation: Section 1021” (of the NDAA). The case was heard by Manhattan federal court Judge Katherine Forrest.
The defendants of this case were names as Barack Obama (individually and as a representative of the United States), Leon Panetta, John McCain, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor.
Despite any sentiments that might be evoked by the identity, social and political views of the plaintiffs, even the most conservative among us would be hard pressed to argue with the merits of their lawsuit. The NDAA shreds the Constitution, and these plaintiffs took legal action to stop it. Those are simply the unbiased facts of the matter, all which apparently are of little interest to the Obama-pandering corporate media. But wait, it gets better.
After an expedited discovery process, an evidentiary hearing was held on March 30, 2012. The federal judge in this matter and all of the plaintiffs showed up in person at that hearing except one, who provided testimony by sworn declaration pursuant to previous authority granted by the court. No one from the government offered any testimony, provided any documentation, or made the slightest noise at the hearing.
I’ll spare any further writings about the legal minutia of the process, except to say that the government attempted to argue, in post-hearing memoranda, that section 1021 of the NDAA is an extension of the Authorization for use of Military Force (AUMF).

Federal Court ruling: NDAA Section 1021 plaintiff’s motion GRANTED

On May 16, 2012, federal court Judge Katherine Forrest granted the plaintiff’s motion for relief in a 68-page ruling, meaning a win for the plaintiffs and a legal set-back for the U.S. government. She writes that “preliminarily enjoining an act of Congress must be done with caution,” and refreshingly adds that “it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights.”

Blackout: Obama, U.S. Government is appealing

Recall that Obama stated his opposition to Section 1021 of the NDAA in his signing statement, or the very portion of the legislation that was at issue in this legal suit. Why, then, has Obama, through his legal department, filed an appeal with this federal court to overturn the ruling?
It would seem that by enjoining Section 1021 of the NDAA, a U.S. citizens rights to due process would be protected, which again addresses the exact issue to which Obama dedicated eight-(8) pages of a “signing statement.” Based on the government’s actions, it would appear that Obama and his appointees have no reservations about section 1021 of the NDAA, and that the signing statement is, as former President Richard Nixon might have said, “inoperative.”
Equally disconcerting is that the U.S. media appears to be unwilling to report on this “inoperative” statement or the apparent bi-polar actions of this “administration.” The American people deserve better from our leaders as well as our media. Shame on both.