By Rich Kozlovich
First, I've little respect for Elon Musk who I consider to be a massively self serving con artist, feeding at the government's subsidy trough on electric cars, and even promoting global warming, and has a personal life that's not exactly awe inspiring. He's been married three times, obviously he's not very good at marriage, who named his child with his third wife, X Æ A-Xii. Who in the world would name their child X Æ A-Xii, and why?
Here's the answer:
On Tuesday, Grimes herself stepped in to explain how they settled on the moniker: “X,” Grimes tweeted,
stands for “the unknown variable.” Æ, meanwhile, is her “elven spelling
of Ai (love &/or Artificial intelligence.)” Moving right along,
A-12 equals the “precursor to SR-17 (our favorite aircraft). No weapons,
no defenses, just speed. Great in battle, but nonviolent.” And then, of
course, “A=Archangel,” Grimes’s favorite song.
Now, who could find fault with that kind of thinking?
Well, I think it's nuts, I think he's a strange man, and I think his wife is every bit as strange. Not exactly my cup of tea when it comes to confidence and trust. However, even a blind monkey can find a coconut on occasion, and it appears he's stumbled onto a big coconut. I just can't figure out what is his angle, but time and truth are on the same side.
Supposedly he's frustrated with Twitter's arrogant manipulation of the narrative, preventing any views they don't like, and calling those views they don't like a violation of their community standards, of which LinkedIn is also guilty. So, until time exposes truth, let's go with this as a "good" thing???
He's now invested $2.89 billion for a 9.2 percent stake in Twitter with
73.5 million shares in the company. This makes him the largest shareholder in the
company. That's a small fraction of his estimated $265 billion dollar fortune. It's currently estimated value of Twitter is a little over $31 billion. So it's clear he can raise the capital to buy it outright, and has offered to do so. That triggered a massive atomic blast of media's hypocrisy.
They're outraged that "an independent-thinking billionaire like Elon Musk could ever get control
of a media outlet". Amazing, since not one of them were outraged at leftist billionaires like "Michael Bloomberg, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and
the Google billionaires running media outlets:
- CEO Jeff Bezos reinvented The Washington Post, the 140-year-old newspaper he bought for $250 million.
- CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times, ABC, NBC, and CBS
continually collude on what to report and how to report. They all
suppressed the true story about Hunter Biden's laptop because they were
campaigning for his dad.
- They intentionally interfered in the election.
- They all intentionally spread the lies about Russian collusion as they colluded with the Democrats.
- They all suppress anyone who dared disagree with Dr. Anthony Fauci and the CDC.
But, that was different, because they subscribed to every leftist narrative of lies and corruption, fake news, misinformation there was, in what can only be considered treasonous and destructive to the very fabric of American society. But now, all of a sudden, it's Elon Musk buying Twitter that would destroy the nation. Remarkable!
Monica Showalter is one of my favorite writers, and she posted this very complicated piece,
Has Elon Musk stumbled into some scandalous truths about Twitter? Peruse it for yourself, and make your own judgements. It's clear there's a time and truth factor in all that's going on here. I never understood how Twitter made money, and now I understand even less.
Finally, Twitter Board Approves ‘Poison Pill’ After Musk’s $43 Billion Offer to Buy Company, which I find interesting since this is clearly not in the best interests of their investors. Remember, it was estimated the company was worth $31 billion, and he's offering the investors 43 billion. That's a lot more than their market value, and a very real plus for their stockholders.
While this "poison pill" scheme has been in practice in the past this opens the Board of Directors up to massive liability issues. The company isn't owned by the Board of Directors, it's owned by the stockholders. The BOD is required by law to act in the best interests of the stockholders, and this would be “breaching their fiduciary duty”, since it would be clear they're actions would be meant to maintain their control of Twitter irrespective of the stockholders best financial interests. That could cost them big time.
It turns out this could really cost them because it's now known the Twitter
Board of Directors Own Almost No Shares of Stock in Company. Elon Musk
Notes their economic interests are simply not aligned with shareholders. "Chris Bakke then noted how little of the actual stock is owned by the
company’s Board of Directors. Sans Twitter Founder Jack Dorsey, the
combined ownership of the entire board equates to 77 shares of stock,
worth around $3,200 bucks."
This isn't the first party Musk has attended. Musk claims he has a “Plan B,” "if Twitter tried to cut off his effort. According to reports,
Musk is now securing partners to go in with him on the buy. So if he is
limited in the percentages he can buy, he can try to circumvent that
limitation by having partners buy up to the maximum as well."
But, as the reporter in the movie, Charlie Wilson's War said: We'll see.
