The Pulse on Politics!

Order in the Court! KEEP YOUR COOL! Spring Fashion for the Legal Executive....

Don't get hot under your collar!

Loyal adherents to the professional dress code shudder at the arrival of warmer weather. Spring — especially that first 65-degree day — is the time when normally well-dressed lawyers are tempted to throw off their woolen suits and play hooky, at least where their wardrobes are concerned.

Even a fleeting disregard for professional attire can take a toll. While every spring fling inevitably comes to an end, the images of inappropriately clad attorneys are forever burned into the brains of their clients, colleagues and supervising partners. You probably want to avoid that, so here are some guidelines to keep your frolic with spring fashion in check.

1. Skip the super casual. Unless you’re actively on vacation, nix the sportswear, the lounge-wear and the beachwear. I don’t care how nicely you iron your short-sleeved flowered shirt and attempt to tuck it into your slacks — it doesn't belong in the office. Same goes for the golf shirt, the sundress and the ball cap. No amount of pressing, belting or accessorizing mitigates the harm done by these three clothing categories. Simply avoid them altogether.

2. No one wants to see your armpits, feet or thighs. No matter how business-appropriate your sheath dress may seem, your exposed armpits are not professional. Same goes for your blinged-out but barely there sandals, and I shouldn't even have to mention the dreaded flip-flops. An easy solution for armpits is to layer with a lightweight shrug or a summer cardigan. Or, look for items with a sweet little cap sleeve instead. As for your tootsies, some types of spring footwear provide more coverage than others, so look for shoes that have modest cut-outs or peep toes,

or thick straps that camouflage your inner sole. Please don’t force your co-workers to directly confront your running calluses. The thigh thing is easy: no too-short dresses, short skirts or shorts. Never, ever.

3. Avoid the squeeze and the slop. The debate rages over which is worse — an attorney squeezed like a sausage into too-tight clothing or an attorney swimming like a sad sack in baggy, draggy clothing. Spring is the perfect season to look crisp and sharp. Seize the opportunity for a major wardrobe rebirth and make sure each item fits you well, with nary a squeeze or slop in sight.

4. Get poppy with color. As long as you’re adhering to the guidelines above, go wild with springtime color! Anchor a poppy blast of fun with a neutral and it’s hard to go wrong. Pair turquoise with tan. Bright green loves gray. Hot pink is perfect with camel tones. Electric blue wows with black. Get your warm-weather glow with metallics. Shimmer in a rose-gold jacket. Shine on with those silver ties. As long as you keep your wattage grounded and don’t overload with multiple wacky colors at the same time, there’s nothing off limits.

Oh yeah, not that many of you care in 2014....but I HATE JEANS, There is no such argument to support casual Fridays and no size of a "Dream Team" could ever convince me that Denim is cooler than a pair of slacks! I've never seen even the thinnest denim blow whilst there was a breeze! However; even the thickest wool pants tend to give way to a passing breeze.  

The Legal Brief Show on KLAVAM1230
Host: M. Joseph Miller II

M. Joseph Miller II has been in the legal field (Criminal, Civil, Tax, CLE, Family & Corporate) for almost 20 years. Miller is also the host of The Legal Brief Talk show on KLAV1230AM "The Talk of Las Vegas", sits on various boards as the Director of Legal Affairs as adviser to the Presidents and CEO's of various profit and non-profit companies. Miller's holding in fashion include Julia Sera Boutiques, English Elite Couture, and Elan Society Talent & Model management. He believes a sense of humor and the ability to frame events positively, combined with solid professional skills, leads directly to career and business success. His experience working and training others in challenging careers has given him the skills to manage the toughest customers, speak and present persuasively, and shine under stressful circumstances.

In Search of a Second Act: The Challenges and Advantages of Senior Entrepreneurship

Testimony Before the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging & the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

Contrary to popular perception, entrepreneurship is not exclusive to the young and hip.

With that message, Kauffman Foundation Vice President of Research and Policy, Dane Stangler, provided testimony to the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging & the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship on how policymakers can foster senior entrepreneurship and why it is important to the U.S. economy.

_____________________________________________________________

Testimony of Dane Stangler
Vice President, Research and Policy
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

Before the
U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging & the Senate Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship

In Search of a Second Act: The Challenges and Advantages of Senior 
Entrepreneurship 
February 12, 2014

Chairman Nelson, Chair Landrieu, Ranking Member Collins, Ranking Member Risch, and members of the Aging and Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committees, thank you for the opportunity to present data gathered by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation on senior entrepreneurship.

Founded by late entrepreneur and philanthropist Ewing Marion Kauffman, the Kauffman Foundation is a private, nonpartisan foundation based in Kansas City, Missouri that aims to foster economic independence by advancing educational achievement and entrepreneurial success.

At the Kauffman Foundation, we believe in the power of entrepreneurship to not only change individual lives, but to also create economic opportunities for many others in society. 

With the goal of creating new knowledge about entrepreneurship, the Kauffman Foundation conducts and supports research that informs policymakers and the public about pro-entrepreneurship policies at all levels of government.  

Our research contributes to a more in-depth understanding of what drives innovation and economic growth in an entrepreneurial world.

Contrary to popular perception, entrepreneurship is not exclusive to the young and hip. Entrepreneurs of all ages start businesses and create economic opportunity for themselves and others.

Last year, for example, businesses started by those ages 55 to 64 accounted for nearly one-quarter of all new businesses started.

That share has risen from 14 percent in 1996, according to the Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity, which captures business owners in their first month of significant business activity.

In the context of America's aging population, an increasing share of entrepreneurship among this population is perhaps not surprising.

What might be more startling to many observers is that Americans in the 55-64 age group start new businesses at a higher rate than those in their twenties and thirties.  

This has been true, by the way, in every single year from 1996 to 2013.

While senior entrepreneurs make up a sizeable portion of all entrepreneurs and tend to start businesses at a rate comparable to or higher than younger entrepreneurs, there are possibly some reasons to temper our enthusiasm about this phenomenon.

First, we are unsure of the types of businesses being founded by older entrepreneurs or their hiring practices — more cynical observers say that this group only starts consulting companies or use self-employment for supplemental income.

This is undoubtedly true for some share of older entrepreneurs. 

Yet other evidence indicates that we find founders of technology companies in their fifties and sixties as well: one study found more tech founders over age 50 than under age 30.4

Of more concern perhaps is the lingering effect of the Great Recession and the decimation of retirement plans and housing wealth.

To the extent this damage fell on Americans over age 55, self-employment may be seen as a way to recover nest egg losses.

Finally, with concern about Americans over age 55 permanently leaving the labor force after the recession, it is possible that older entrepreneurship rates could be suppressed.

Nevertheless, there are more reasons for optimism than pessimism about entrepreneurship among older Americans.  

First, senior entrepreneurs are likely to have greater experience than younger entrepreneurs.

That experience, whether professionally or personally, can prove valuable when starting a new business.

Secondly, perhaps paradoxically, senior entrepreneurs may have fewer concerns about setting up a business.

In their paper on entrepreneurs over the age of 50 in the United Kingdom, Ron Botham and Andrew Graves found that older entrepreneurs were "less likely to worry about risks, experience, or family life than younger founders."

Third, despite the effects of the recession, senior entrepreneurs may be more financially secure than younger entrepreneurs and may have an alternative source of income — either from retirement savings, a pension, or Social Security.

This added financial security can make the financial risks of starting a business less salient.

Finally, we might expect a higher preponderance of serial entrepreneurs among those in their fifties and sixties, which could mean greater success rates.

A 2012 Kauffman Foundation and LegalZoom survey of 1,400 business owners who incorporated their business through LegalZoom in 2012 found two-thirds of respondents over age 60 had previously started a company and ten percent of these entrepreneurs had started 5 prior companies.

Research suggests that there are several ways policymakers could support this very important phenomenon of older entrepreneurship.

Lower barriers to entry in general, for example, would make business creation easier. Licensing barriers in several sectors — which exist mostly at the state and local level — also suppress business creation.

The complexity — though not necessarily the level — of taxes can also act as a barrier to entrepreneurship.

These, of course, apply to entrepreneurs of all ages.

For senior entrepreneurship, flexible labor markets are especially important.

The idea of spending forty years at one job and retiring with a gold watch is quickly fading in the United States.

Even when Americans retire at age 65, they can expect to live healthily for another two or three decades.

Moving easily between self-employment, wage-and-salary employment, and entrepreneurship requires flexible labor markets.

This may be especially important for senior entrepreneurship as research has shown that senior entrepreneurs are much more likely to start a business if moving from a job.

In addition, fostering more senior entrepreneurship as the American population ages will require careful attention to specific sectors in order to foster innovation.

n particular, we will likely need more financial innovation to support continuously changing forms of entrepreneurship.

Finally, policymakers can foster senior entrepreneurship by encouraging intergenerational networks where entrepreneurs of different ages can interact and learn.

The Kauffman Foundation started a new entrepreneurial support program called 1 Million Cups in Kansas City that has spread to more than two dozen cities across the United States.

Each week, the 1 Million Cups program offers local entrepreneurs an opportunity to present their startups to a diverse audience of mentors, advisors, and entrepreneurs.

Presenters prepare a short educational presentation and engage in 20 minutes of feedback and questioning after they present.

Entrepreneurs gain insight into possible ways they can improve their businesses, gather realtime feedback, connect with a community that truly cares about their progress, and walk away feeling like they have advanced their business.

These community gatherings provide opportunities for individuals of all ages to connect around entrepreneurship.

In conclusion, older Americans are active entrepreneurs whose new businesses provide self-employment and employment opportunities to others.

As the American population ages, we should expect a greater share of entrepreneurs to be seniors.

Policymakers can support these "third age" or "encore" entrepreneurs by pursuing policies that lower barriers to entrepreneurial entry, maintain flexible labor markets, and encourage intergenerational interaction.

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify.

-Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

(Originally published in 02/12/2014 by: Kauffman.org) 

This publication has not been edited from its original publication, 

has been re-posted in its entirety and is not the work of M & A Legal Management, 

M. Joseph Miller II or any affiliate companies or individuals. NOTICE: Artwork not part of

original article by Kauffman.org.

Happy Birthday Martini Jay!

Tuesdays 7-8 pm LIVE

The Republican Lawyer: In NYC, Liberals Want to Let Illegal Aliens Vote

New York City is affectionately known to all as the Big Apple, but the new administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio is demonstrating that the Big Apple may be rotten to its core.  

The latest outrage from the ultraliberal de Blasio administration and his comrades on the city council would open the door for massive voter fraud in New York City elections.  Under a plan being pushed by de Blasio and the council, noncitizens, including illegal immigrants, would be given city-issued identification cards.  

De Blasio and his allies claim that this is nothing more than an effort to bring illegal immigrants "out of the shadows," but GOP State Senator Greg Ball, the chairman of the Senate's Veterans, Homeland Security, and Military Affairs Committee, uncovered something more sinister in this proposal.  According to Ball, this would open the door to noncitizens, including illegal aliens, to vote illegally in New York State Elections.  New York voters must provide their driver's license number of Social Security numbers when registering to vote.  If they don't, they must provide some other proof of identity when voting for the first time.  De Blasio's ID cards would give noncitizens the proof they need to cast ballots.

And while we're on the subject of the bizarre state of affairs in Gotham, let's not forget the aftermath of the NYC Department of Investigations' (NYCDOI) report on the New York City Board of Elections(NYCBOE).  If you don't remember, the NYCDOI (at the request of the Bloomberg Administration) produced a report on the management of the NYCBOE as well as the conduct of elections in New York City.  The report found, among other things, that it was relatively easy for people posing as dead voters and former city residents to vote.

You'd expect that the commissioners and staff of the NYCBOE would be embarrassed and apologetic after such a scathing report, right?  

Wrong.  

Instead of apologizing for their conduct and working on a plan to correct it, the commissioners of the NYCBOE accused DOI investigators of breaking New York State Election Law and requested that prosecutors bring charges against the investigators that uncovered the opportunities for fraud in NYC elections.

Sadly, there may be no hope for the Big Apple.  We can only hope that other officials around America see what's happening there and work to make sure this kind of insanity doesn't come to their hometown.

Creating A Great Company Culture

Written by Kate Stoner 
on January 22, 2014.

Company culture is the term used to describe the values and practices of a company and its employees.  Although each company has unique qualities, in general, company culture is about creating a positive and productive work environment for its employees. Hiring people who compliment your company’s culture, having a strong and well-known mission statement and set of company values, emphasizing that your employees are a team, not just a group of individuals, and acknowledging that good ideas can come from every employee are a few key elements that make for a great company culture.

Hiring people who are compatible with your existing company culture is the best and easiest way to maintain and reinforce your company culture. A high performing employee with a personality or attitude that does’t fit with your company culture can actually be detrimental to the work environment, which can adversely affect the business or company.

Having a strong and well-known mission statement and set of company values is very important for company culture. When employees know the company mission statement and exemplify the company’s values, they are able to be a positive representation of the company. Also, if employees share the same values and beliefs, they become more passionate and dedicated to the goals and the well-being of the company.

Companies who consider their employees a “team” often have a much stronger sense of company culture. The word team unites individuals and creates a sense of comradery. Employees who are part of a team are much more willing to help and collaborate with each other because they feel that they will all benefit, whether directly or indirectly, from accomplishing their goals.

Acknowledging that good ideas can come from anybody in the company is one of the most important things a company and its leaders can do to maintain a positive company culture. Employees want to feel valued, respected, and have a voice that has a meaningful impact on their company. Companies that eliminate a sense of hierarchy and give their employees the freedom to make a positive impact on the company have more loyal employees and are inevitably more successful as a company.

A strong and positive company culture benefits the company just as much as its employees. A successful company culture it sustains and perpetuates employee enthusiasm, creating more happy, productive, effective, and loyal employees. This directly translates into a more profitable and successful company. Nourishing and investing in company culture is a win-win situation that will positively shape the future of your company. It’s a no brainer!

WHY MARTIN LUTHER KING WAS REPUBLICAN

Frances Rice, Chairman,
National Black Republican Association

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.

Critics of Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, who ran for President against Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.

Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater also ignore the fact that Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on Jan. 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only 35 words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King’s protest against the Vietnam War, Johnson referred to Dr. King as “that Nigger preacher.”

Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist “Dixiecrats” did not all migrate to the Republican Party. “Dixiecrats” declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks. Today, some of those “Dixiecrats” continue their political careers as Democrats, including Robert Byrd, who is well known for having been a “Keagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.

Another former “Dixiecrat” is former Democrat Sen. Ernest Hollings, who put up the Confederate flag over the state Capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Sen. Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been “a great senator for any moment,” including the Civil War. Yet Democrats denounced then-Senate GOP leader Trent Lott for his remarks about Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.). Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Byrd and Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.

The 30-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970s with President Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.

Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.

After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3 kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004, blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).

Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

In order to break the Democrats’ stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party’s economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

By: Ms. F. Rice,