Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Aborted Fetuses, Government Documents Show

I can't image Mitt's profiting from abortion while professing a pro-life stance will sit well with evangelicals.  It's a metaphorical punch to the throat, don't you think?  Mother Jones.  Excerpts:

Earlier this year, Mitt Romney nearly landed in a politically perilous controversy when the Huffington Post reported that in 1999 the GOP presidential candidate had been part of an investment group that invested $75 million in Stericycle, a medical-waste disposal firm that has been attacked by anti-abortion groups for disposing aborted fetuses collected from family planning clinics. Coming during the heat of the GOP primaries, as Romney tried to sell South Carolina Republicans on his pro-life bona fides, the revelation had the potential to damage the candidate's reputation among values voters already suspicious of his shifting position on abortion.


But Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney founded, tamped down the controversy. The company said Romney left the firm in February 1999 to run the troubled 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and likely had nothing to with the deal. The matter never became a campaign issue. But documents filed by Bain and Stericycle with the Securities and Exchange Commission—and obtained by Mother Jones—list Romney as an active participant in the investment. And this deal helped Stericycle, a company with a poor safety record, grow, while yielding tens of millions of dollars in profits for Romney and his partners. The documents—one of which was signed by Romney—also contradict the official account of Romney's exit from Bain.


The Stericycle deal—the abortion connection aside—is relevant because of questions regarding the timing of Romney's departure from the private equity firm he founded. Responding to a recent Washington Post story reporting that Bain-acquired companies outsourced jobs, the Romney campaign insisted that Romney exited Bain in February 1999, a month or more before Bain took over two of the companies named in the Post's article. The SEC documents undercut that defense, indicating that Romney still played a role in Bain investments until at least the end of 1999.

Here's what happened with Stericycle. In November 1999, Bain Capital and Madison Dearborn Partners, a Chicago-based private equity firm, filed with the SEC a Schedule 13D, which lists owners of publicly traded companies, noting that they had jointly purchased $75 million worth of shares in Stericycle, a fast-growing player in the medical-waste industry. (That April, Stericycle had announced plans to buy the medical-waste businesses of Browning Ferris Industries and Allied Waste Industries.) The SEC filing lists assorted Bain-related entities that were part of the deal, including Bain Capital (BCI), Bain Capital Partners VI (BCP VI), Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors (a Bermuda-based Bain affiliate), and Brookside Capital Investors (a Bain offshoot). And it notes that Romney was the "sole shareholder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of BCI, BCP VI Inc., Brookside Inc. and Sankaty Ltd."

The document also states that Romney "may be deemed to share voting and dispositive power with respect to" 2,116,588 shares of common stock in Stericycle "in his capacity as sole shareholder" of the Bain entities that invested in the company. That was about 11 percent of the outstanding shares of common stock. (The whole $75 million investment won Bain, Romney, and their partners 22.64 percent of the firm's stock—the largest bloc among the firm's owners.) The original copy of the filing was signed by Romney.

Another SEC document filed November 30, 1999, by Stericycle also names Romney as an individual who holds "voting and dispositive power" with respect to the stock owned by Bain. If Romney had fully retired from the private equity firm he founded, why would he be the only Bain executive named as the person in control of this large amount of Stericycle stock?

Stericycle was a lucrative investment for Romney and Bain. The company had entered the medical-waste business a decade earlier, when it took over a food irradiation plant in Arkansas and began zapping medical waste, rather than strawberries, with radiation. The company subsequently replaced irradiation with a technology that used low-frequency radio waves to sterilize medical waste—gowns, masks, gloves, and other medical equipment—before it was transported to an incinerator. By mid-1997, Stericycle was the second-largest medical-waste disposal business in the nation. Two years later, it was the largest. With 240,000 customers, its operations spanned the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. Fortune ranked it No. 10 on its list of the 100 fastest growing companies in the nation.
And:
But the document Romney signed related to the Stericycle deal did identify him as a participant in that particular deal and the person in charge of several Bain entities. (Did Bain and Romney file a document with the SEC that was not accurate?) Moreover, in 1999, Bain and Romney both described his departure from Bain not as a resignation and far from absolute. On February 12, 1999, the Boston Herald reported, "Romney said he will stay on as a part-timer with Bain, providing input on investment and key personnel decisions." And a Bain press release issued on July 19, 1999, noted that Romney was "currently on a part-time leave of absence"—and quoted Romney speaking for Bain Capital. In 2001 and 2002, Romney filed Massachusetts state disclosure forms noting he was the 100 percent owner of Bain Capital NY, Inc.—a Bain outfit that was incorporated in Delaware on April 13, 1999—two months after Romney's supposed retirement from the firm. A May 2001 filing with the SEC identified Romney as "a member of the Management Committee" of two Bain entities. And in 2007, the Washington Post reported that R. Bradford Malt, a Bain lawyer, said Romney took a "leave of absence" when he assumed the Olympics post and retained sole ownership of the firm for two more years.


All of this undermines Bain's contention that Romney, though he maintained an ownership interest in the firm and its funds, had nothing to do with the firm's activities after February 1999. The Stericycle deal may raise red flags for anti-abortion activists. But it also raises questions about the true timing of Romney's departure from Bain and casts doubt on claims by the company and the Romney campaign that he had nothing to do with Bain business after February 1999.

All this without the benefit of any more tax returns.  "Of course!" Said the investigative reporters. 
"Government records!"  Expect similar articles coming soon.  The political shit between the Immovable Object and Irresistible Force just got real.  Even if Romney makes it all the way to November is now irrelevant.  More reports like this will paint a pretty vivid picture of Romney's dealings.

And please don't forget the evangelicals.  Whether you like it or not, some (millions)of these people are single issue voters.  Nothing else matters.  I can say this for certain, as I'm surrounded by them.  I really can't see them reacting to this news as nothing short of betrayal.  How could they trust the man who told them what they wanted to hear, all the while counting profits in the millions?  Obama might be pro choice, but he didn't invest 75 million dollars into an abortion disposal service.  If this story has legs, it will kill Romney's chances with evangelicals and most social Conservatives.  Only the worst Obama haters could overlook this depravity and still cast their ballot for Romney.  This is a big deal to potentially a big group of people.

Go Ahead, Punk: Make My Gay!

Clint Eastwood: ‘I don’t give a f*ck’ if gays marry.  Awesome.  From Raw Story.  Excerpts:

Don't expect to see him marching in a Pride parade anytime soon, but gays may have found an unexpected ally in Oscar-winning director Clint Eastwood.
..
"These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage?" Eastwood opined. "I don't give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of."



"They go on and on with all this bullshit about 'sanctity' -- don't give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want."

It's nice to see some old-school Republicans still exist, and that a few feel compelled to speak up.  Eastwood's right:  We have bigger problems than who kisses who.  Please..  Get the fuck over it and concentrate on the many, many real problems our country faces! 

Remember:  We won't stop circling the drain until we fix America's Real problems, and deal with America's Real Enemies.  And they ain't the boys and girls who hang out at those bars in the bad parts of town.  Deal with it. 

Just for this, I'll rent Gran Torino, after all..

Time to end America’s two-party system?

From Rueters.  Excerpts: 

Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

Confidence in the U.S. Congress is at a historic low, more than half of Americans think that the Republican and Democratic parties are doing such a bad job that a third party is needed, and the word “dysfunction” has been common currency in the drawn-out debate over the national debt.

Does this mean the bells are tolling for the Republican-Democratic duopoly which has dominated American political life for more than 150 years?

The answer is yes for a budding political force that aims to get the millions of voters who are disaffected by the present system to bypass the traditional selection of presidential candidates through primary elections.

Instead, the new organization, Americans Elect, says it wants voters “to decide the issues that matter, find candidates to match your views and nominate the President and Vice President directly.”

Sounds great, right?  This kind of bums me out, though..

 

It’s a novel and extremely ambitious idea, backed by a 50-strong board of advisors that includes business executives, seasoned political operatives and senior former government officials, including ex-FBI director William Webster and former U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills. Also on the board: Doug Schoen, a pollster who worked for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The chairman of the group is Peter Ackerman, who heads the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and made a fortune in the 1980s working for Drexel Burnham Lambert, the junk-bond dealers. His son Elliot is chief operations officer. Both are confident that the Internet and social media are the right tools to change the way the system functions.

Business executives?  Senior Government Officials?  Junk Bond profiteers?  Nepotism? 

Hell, it already sounds like a political party.  Nice try, folks. 

Clarification Time..

I grew up in Southwestern Missouri. The area is predominantly Conservative and Republican, but there has also been an equally fervent, but much smaller group of Liberals and Democrats living here, too. Because of the code of civility that has always existed, fierce political opponents could be, and were friends, despite the polarity of their beliefs. Phrases like "He's crazy--votes Democrat, but a good guy, though," Or, "He votes like the other idiots, but he's a nice guy," ("Nice" being a genuine, not sarcastic statement..) could be said with a smile, either about a person, or directly to and in-person. Political affiliation was not a defining consideration when it came to civility or friendship or community unity. After all, who doesn't love a good political argument among friends?


But that time has passed, and now people in this area respond and behave politically like the rest of the country. A shame, really, as it just doesn't have to be this way. We are built to and can perform at a higher standard, yet we do not. And each encounter is a chance to aspire to a higher level of discourse.

A comment from a friend of mine is partially responsible for this post. His political posts are always pointedly conservative, but after one particular comment, I understood that he had a fuzzy understanding regarding what Liberalism is, as opposed to the perception of what people think Liberalism is. He linked Obama with "Ultra-Liberal," which, wherever you fall on the political map, is just not correct. Obama is a Corporate Democrat. He is not Ultra-Liberal (Or Liberal, for that matter)in any way shape or form. I think this is a common misconception, so for clarification's sake, I have compiled a list of platitudes, programs, and actions that could be credited to an Ultra-Liberal President, as well as Obama's decidedly un-Liberal actions

Here we go:

*As the saying goes; "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link," an Ultra-Liberal President would appreciate the paraphrase "A Society is only as strong as its weakest member," and work towards that goal.

*An Ultra-Liberal President understands the value of Education, so much so, Education is the base of the President's entire political thought. Someone like that would call for the design and implementation of the largest Educational overhaul in this nation's history. Key points: State funded schools at all levels would be opened to every citizen at all times, as much as any individual wants: At No Charge. A massive restructuring of how people participate in this new form of education, including Internet/skype courses, 24/7 operating hours for schools, some forms of homeschooling(even!), trading work for education(like SofO, School of the Ozarks), hands on training and internships, or a two year commitment for some kind of payback of work after the highest level education achieved. People pay for their education in real time, and the education they receive is really worth it. And the entire country benefits! Really; What's so wrong with planning for that national course?


You don't want to go to school? Fine. Don't. But the host of those educational programs will not be available to you for your non-participation. The cool thing? You change your mind(At any age!) and want to return to school? No problem. You can! The Ultimate Goal is a society where people are as educated as they want to be, and education is of major societal value. Can you imagine a future where we could eliminate illiteracy in less than, say twenty years? Can you imagine a future that, in 50 years, a Master's Degree has the same clout as a High Schooll Diploma does today? Of course an Ultra Liberal President sees this: It's part of their philosophy. Summed up? We can ALL be better. Education works toward that goal.


Factor in the latitude to dismantle the current massive financial disaster that is the Government Student Loan industry(which could go the way of the dinosaurs within ten years) saving untold Billions in taxpayer dollars, which is also fiscally responsible.


As this is a blogpost, the minutiae hasn't been fully fleshed out, but that's ok. There are some amazing minds that could continue to evolve these thoughts so much better than I can.. You can kind of see where this is headed, right? Continuing on..


*A reconfiguration and construction of our new national power grid system, including contributions from alternative energies, and continual and active maintenance/ security(including cyber security), fiber optic to other cutting edge technologies, and research and development in the advancement of all related technologies.

*An Ultra-Liberal President would never have as Secretary of the Treasury, the former head of the New York Federal Reserve, and a pro corporate and former corporate kingpin as his Chief of Staff (A man whose choice was approved by the Very Conservative United States Chamber of Commerce, by the way..). Never. These political contacts, the bankrupting policies, the business as usual in Big Business wouldn't be tolerated. Big Business doesn't like Liberals for a reason: The machinery of the elite never likes the people representing The People. They don't want to share Power, Control, or Influence. Politically, it's a natural opposition. A Liberal President would not operate with the ultra wealthy-friendly, (de)regulatory and tax policies of Obama, holding those policies over from George Bush, especially the Bush tax cuts for super rich people. This wouldn't even be a consideration.


*An Ultra-Liberal President would not follow the economic direction of a previous administration if that administration pursued policies that overwhelmingly favored the top 20 percent of society to the detriment of the remaining 80 percent. To believe otherwise is madness. These policies are not only financially and criminally skewed, but contributed to the collapse of 2008 and the collapse slated for later this year, but not much later at all.. Corporate Welfare in Finance is definitely not Liberal.

*An Ultra-Liberal President's Health Care Reform Program would fall well to the left of Richard Nixon , not to his right.

*An Ultra-Liberal President might hear in the course of a day, "Secretary of State (Willie) Nelson and Defense Secretary Kucinich are here to see you.."

No, I'm not really joking, either. Bush handed the UN over to Bolton, why wouldn't a real Liberal hand over control of the Military to someone committed to using its resources and soldiers only as a Last Resort?


*An Ultra-Liberal President would Definitely Not retain, much less double the troops in Afghanistan. What is Liberal about doubling the amount of troops the previous hawk- president-who-put-them-there had deployed? Surges? Not Liberal.

*An Ultra Liberal would definitely not follow interrogation and surveillance policies from a previous administration that, try as they might, couldn't quite justify said policies to anyone but themselves and their supporters. The Obama Administration most certainly did not change direction from these policies.. (I really like this one, as my links span the political spectrum. Nice..)

*Knowing full well that certain private contractor corporations operated illegally in both Iraq and Afghanistan, yet continuing to do business with the same corporations is not something an Ultra-Liberal would do, but Obama does.

*As oil again heads towards 100 dollars a barrel and gas towards 4 dollars a gallon, an Ultra-Liberal President would have implemented a price freeze at 45 dollars a gallon and a dollar fifty per gallon of gas. Why? An Ultra-Liberal President would realize that independent and corporate speculators influence commodity prices and a price freeze ceiling neuters their influence. If there is no disruption in supply, why should the world's richest corporations be allowed to get richer upon their whim? Yeah, corporate politicians might like that, but an Ultra-Liberal would call bullshit on that free market noise.. Have you noticed any mention of price freezes for the oil industry? And you won't either.


*BP? If Obama were a Environmentalist/Tree Huggin' Liberal, would he allow an operational arm of the government(The Coast Guard) to work closely with the offending corporation(BP/Halliburton/Transocean) to restrict media coverage and scientific testing of the Gulf of Mexico, opting instead to allow a known, hyper-toxic chemical like Corexit sprayed into the air and pumped into the water while downplaying potential impacts? We still don't know the full extent of this shamefulness, but it will be big.. And Bad.

Plus: A real Liberal President would have frozen or seized assets to the initial estimated damage(Meaning: This would have happened immediately), fired the top 30 percent of BP's Upper Management, and from that group, prosecuted the Top 10 percent. Portions of the corporations could be sold off to cover clean up costs and fines. As far as cleanup? Do you let the drunk driver clean up the 20 car pile up they caused? No. But you should charge him and jail him for it, though.. Also, just like someone fucking up large enough to get their driver's license permanently revoked, the Executive Administrative Staff can never hold another executive position again.

Oh yeah, there would have been total press access to this mega-disaster. We as a society really need to SEE the consequenses of our actions, or we just don't get it.


*Implementation of both technologically advanced infrastructure construction and a massive investment and advance in the Space Exploration Industry, including Detroit's transition from automotive manufacturing to infrastructure and space technology production, with supplemental contributions from existing alternative energies. Working with Detroit? The Military! Transition our direction away from war, and into Space. Now this idea, negatively expressed, is the Big Brother is watching you from space scenario familiar to most conspiracy theorists. Positively expressed, this idea is Star Trek.


*Marijuana legalization and taxation policies would be addressed under the auspices of an Ultra-Liberal President. Not only would marijuana be legal, but both the plant and related paraphernalia would be reclassified and taxed as a stand alone industry, funding both urban and rural community rehabilitation, Education, homeless housing, community agricultural programs, and operational nodes located close to each area, for not only clearer communication and operation, but efficiency between idea and implementation. Rather than buying bonds, Americans can smoke weed and contribute to the strength of the nation. (This is also why Ultra-Liberals are also the coolest of all political persuasions, as smoking weed could indeed be patriotic!)

*And finally, A true Liberal isn't afraid to work with a Conservative of equal integrity, and would be comfortable either as a Vice President or President...

*This is more than enough for now, as I could go on and on (as if I haven't) on what a true, Ultra-Liberal President would do, as opposed to what the right wing of American politics calls Ultra-Liberal. Again, to re-inforce just one point, Health Care Reform that is more conservative than the plan offered by Richard Fucking Nixon is NOT LIBERAL. No matter what is said or done, that's just the way it is. It's more of a testament to how the public's perception of Conservative/Liberal politics has moved towards the right, and how a misconception or an intentional misinformation, repeated enough times, has now become the "Truth."

Also, from this short list of real Progressive/Liberal behavior and actions, it becomes clear that, in modern times, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN ULTRA LIBERAL PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. A true Liberal President is as real as the Unicorn Farm just down the hill from my house. Non-existent. An imaginary construct. A convenient enemy, but not real, in any real sense.. Not that that would be a bad thing, but there never has been, and to think otherwise means the person or entities saying so either need to do more homework, discuss more, or stop deliberately misleading others with toxic rhetoric irrelevant to the discussion.