Thursday, December 26, 2019

Another Reason To Rid Humanity Of The Filthy Rich


See the source image

Though many leaders in corporate America have gone out of their way to distance themselves from US president Donald Trump, a new working paper shows that public company CEOs still heavily favor Republicans.
Researchers at Harvard Law School and Tel Aviv University found that CEOs of the 1,500 largest US public companies donate “disproportionately more” to the Republican party and its candidates, with the median CEO directing 75% of his or her political contributions to Republicans. They also found that Republican-leaning CEOs lead companies with almost twice the asset value of companies led by Democratic-leaning executives.
The study looked at campaign contributions by more than 3,800 CEOs of S&P 1500 companies between 2000 and 2017. To be classified as “Republican” or “Democratic,” at least two-thirds of the executive’s donations had to go to either party; otherwise they were classified as “neutral.” Overall, roughly 57% of the CEOs were classified as Republicans, and about 19% as Democrats.
The researchers also looked at how CEO political preferences differ by geography, based on the location of the company headquarters. In the Northeast and in the West, Republican CEOs outnumber Democratic CEOs by less than 2-to-1, while Republican CEOs are about seven times as numerous as Democratic CEOs in both the Midwest and South. 
Indeed, the Republican tilt was evident in all regions and sectors. The industries with the strongest Republican preference were the energy, manufacturing, and chemical sectors. Both male and female CEOs were more likely to be classified as Republicans, although the preference was stronger among the men than the women.
While public companies are not required to disclose their corporate political spending, the researchers found that Republican CEOs were less likely to make the political spending of their companies transparent to investors. They also found that having a female CEO was associated with increased transparency. By industry, the most transparency could be found at companies in the energy, health, and utility sectors (which are heavily regulated areas, and the pressure for transparency may be greater).
Are CEOs influenced by their own political preferences when deciding whether and how to spend corporate funds on politics? The lack of full disclosure makes it harder to say.
In 2016, Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan told The Wall Street Journal that job descriptions for corporate leaders “now include driving what we think is right. It’s not exactly political activism, but it is actions beyond business.”
But, another study from 2018, which examined public statements in national media, on Twitter, and in corporate transcripts, concluded that CEO activism is a “fairly limited practice” and “dominated by a few vocal outliers.” Indeed, CEO activism is a double-edged sword—in a public role, where you need to build loyalty with with employees, customers, and investors, political stances that can attract some can easily alienate others.

Trump's Business Skills

Donald Trump: living proof that anyone can make it in America, thanks to the miracle of corporate bankruptcy laws.

16 Reasons Not To Vote For Trump

And so many more...

Crazy Trump Stuff

Image result for Donald Trump Crazy Face GIF


Joe Scarborough Suggests Trump Do Something New: ‘Read the Constitution’













The Bible is literature for the resistance, not a teacher of acquiescence to the state
Rachel Held Evans
14 Juli 2018
The Washington Post
Imagine this.
The world’s greatest superpower is under the control of a fragile and insecure narcissist known for objectifying women, bragging about his wealth and turning every personal slight into a full-blown national crisis. His ineptitude would be comical were it not for the xenophobic advisers who hold court in his administration, threatening the lives of religious and ethnic minorities with unjust laws.
Sound familiar?
I am talking about King Xerxes of Persia.
In the Bible, this king eventually gets outsmarted by a Jewish orphan named Esther, her cousin Mordecai and a group of shrewd resisters.
There are many such resistance stories in the Bible. While Attorney General Jeff Sessions and White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders would have us believe that scripture teaches dutiful acquiescence to the state, the Bible in actuality brims with protest songs and prison letters, subversive poetry and politically charged visions, satirical roasts of the powerful and storied celebrations of dissidents.
Even Romans 13, which Sessions clumsily cited to support the Trump administration’s cruel border policies, was written by the apostle Paul, a man eventually executed by the state for following a known subversive named Jesus.
It is easy for modern-day readers to forget that scripture as we know it emerged from communities of religious minorities living under the heels of powerful nation-states. For the authors of Hebrew scripture, it was the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek and Persian empires. For the authors of the New Testament, it was, of course, the massive Roman Empire. The writers of the Bible likened these empires to great mutant beasts with sharp fangs, powerful claws and multiple heads. Much of biblical literature is consumed with resisting them, both as exterior forces that opposed the ways of God and interior pulls that tempt good people with assimilation.
And so the Bible honors women such as Shiphrah and Puah, the Hebrew midwives who defied the Pharaoh’s orders by safely delivering the sons of Hebrew slaves, and Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who essentially “took a knee” by refusing to show the required patriotism at one of King Nebuchadnezzar’s state parades. The Bible includes songs of anger directed at powerful leaders who “pour out arrogant words” and “slay the widow and the foreigner” and poems that protest “those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless and deprive the foreigners among you of justice.”
Religious leaders who align with the oppressive policies of the empire are subjected to especially harsh critiques in scripture. God declares through the prophet Amos: “I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me. . . . But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!”
Pronouncements like these are often made through prophets. Jeremiah, for example, wore an ox yoke around his neck to symbolize Israel’s impending oppression under the Babylonian Empire. Ezekiel memorialized the fall of Jerusalem by building a model of the city and lying down next to it for more than a year.
America’s own prophets have a long tradition of employing the Bible’s resistance literature to advocate for justice. Black abolitionists invoked the words of Moses to the Pharaoh – “Let my people go!”- to demand their liberation. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was especially adept at citing the biblical prophets in his rhetoric, his “I Have a Dream” speech drawing from Isaiah (“Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain”), Psalms (“Weeping may stay for the night, but rejoicing comes in the morning”) and Amos.
More recently, when Bree Newsome scaled the flagpole at the South Carolina State House to remove the Confederate flag, she recited Psalm 27 as she was handcuffed by police: “The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear?” Last week, many of the protest signs at the marches against President Trump’s family separation policy featured quotes from the Bible demanding care for immigrants and refugees.
Even those Christians who support the administration, or who say they want to stay out of politics, tend to inadvertently use the language of resistance as part of their religious parlance. In its biblical context, doing or saying something “in the name of Jesus” speaks in defiant contrast to edicts carried out “in the name of Caesar” or “in the name of the king” or “by the authority of the president.” Declaring “Jesus is Lord” implies by default that the present rulers are not as sovereign as they seem. Even calling Jesus the Son of God originally stood in specific contrast to the leaders of Rome, who demanded they be known by that very title. Jesus was not executed on a Roman cross for nothing, after all.
To put one’s hope in Jesus, then, is to believe despite all the evidence to the contrary that Jesus’ way of peace, justice, mercy and compassion will ultimately prevail over the empire’s ways of violence, exploitation, oppression and fear. Christians believe the resurrection of Jesus gives shape to these wild hopes. Even death at the hand of Rome could not keep him down.
America is no ancient Babylon or Rome, I know that. But it is not a place where justice rolls like a river from sea to shining sea. There is just no denying the very things condemned by the biblical prophets – gross income inequality, mistreatment of immigrants and refugees, the oppression of the poor and vulnerable, and the worship of money and violence – remain potent, prevalent sins in our culture. These sins are embedded in nearly every system of our society, from education to law enforcement to entertainment to religion. We are all culpable, all responsible for working for change.
The word apocalypse means “unveiling” or “disclosing.” An apocalyptic event or vision, therefore, reveals things as they really are. My friend Jonathan Martin, a third-generation Pentecostal preacher, described the election of President Trump as an apocalyptic event – not in the sense that it brought on the end of the world, but in the sense that it uncovered, or revealed, divides and contours in the American social landscape many of us did not want to face.
Now, as Americans of faith struggle to find the language with which to protest, the models of resistance to imitate and the comfort for pressing on when times get tough, I suggest turning to the Bible. Just this morning, I prayed for the children separated from their parents at the border, as I read these words of Psalms: “You, Lord, hear the desire of the afflicted; you encourage them, and you listen to their cry, defending the fatherless and the oppressed, so that mere earthly mortals will never again strike terror.”
What I love about the Bible is that the story is not over. There are still prophets in our midst. There are still dragons and beasts. It might not look like it, but the resistance is winning. The light is breaking through.
Evans is the best-selling author of four books, most recently “Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again.”

Christian Post Journalist Resigns Over Planned Editorial Praising Trump

A longtime editor of the Christian Post resigned after learning the publication plans to write an editorial praising President Donald Trump and blasting another Christian publication for condemning him.
Napp Nazworth had worked for the Christian Post since 2011 and sat on the editorial board as politics editor when he quit Monday. He departed over a planned editorial expressing a firm pro-Trump stance.
Conservative Evangelicals: Yesterday and Today | James McGrath
“I never got the gist they were gung-ho Trumpian types,” Nazworth told The Washington Post of his former colleagues. “Everything has escalated with the Christianity Today editorial.”
Mark Galli, editor-in-chief of Christianity Today, published an editorial last Thursday telling his readers that the impeachment hearings “illuminated the president’s moral deficiencies for all to see.” 
“The facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents,” Galli wrote. “That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.”
Galli defended his editorial on Sunday following a wave of backlash and praise for the piece. The publication also gained thousands of new subscribers following the editorial.
“My argument is not to judge him as a person in the eyes of God — that’s not my job — but to judge his public moral character and to ask, has he gone so far that the evangelical constituency that we represent, can we in good conscience do the trade-off anymore?” he told CBS host Margaret Brennan.
Nazworth said the Christian Post editorial, which hasn’t been published yet, will praise the president while bashing Christianity Today.
“I said, if you post this, you’re saying, you’re now on team Trump,” he told The Washington Post.  
This article originally appeared on HuffPost.

Wednesday, December 25, 2019

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski Puts the Boots To Moscow Mitch

See the source image
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, said she was disturbed to hear Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell say there would be "total coordination" between the White House and the Senate over the upcoming presidential impeachment trial.
“And in fairness, when I heard that I was disturbed,” Murkowski told KTUU Tuesday before saying there should be distance between the White House and the Senate in how the trial is conducted.
“To me it means that we have to take that step back from being hand in glove with the defense, and so I heard what leader McConnell had said, I happened to think that that has further confused the process.”
In a recent interview with Fox News' Russian propagandist Sean Hannity, Moscow Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, described his planning with the White House.
"We'll be working through this process, hopefully in a fairly short period of time in total coordination with the White House counsel's office and the people who are representing the president as well as the Senate," McConnell said.
Murkowski was critical of the impeachment process conducted in the House of Representatives, describing it as rushed.
Murkowski says the Senate is now being asked to cure deficiencies in evidence to be presented at the trial, particularly when it comes to whether key witnesses should be brought forward to testify, including White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton.
“How we will deal with witnesses remains to be seen,” Murkowski said before saying the House should have gone to the courts if witnesses refused to appear before Congress.
Murkowski also spoke of her desire for a “full and fair process,” potentially using the impeachment hearings of President Clinton as a template.
Murkowski remained undecided about how she would vote when the trial takes place. “For me to prejudge and say there’s nothing there or on the other hand, he should be impeached yesterday, that’s wrong, in my view, that’s wrong."

Tuesday, December 24, 2019

Fresh Evidence in Hand, Schumer Demands More Emails and Documents

Sen. Chuck Schumer said Monday that newly released emails showing that military aid to Ukraine was suspended 90 minutes after President Donald Trump demanded “a favor” from Ukraine’s president were “explosive.” They strengthened, he said, Democratic demands for far more internal administration documents before Trump’s impeachment trial.

The emails, made public over the weekend, included one from a White House budget office aide, Michael Duffey, telling Pentagon officials to keep quiet “given the sensitive nature of the request.”
The timing of the email — just an hour and a half after Trump raised investigations of his Democratic rivals with President Volodymyr Zelenskiy of Ukraine — added an element to Democrats’ contentions that they say become clearer with every new release of evidence: Trump abused the power of his office to solicit Ukraine to help him win reelection in 2020.
“What happened over the weekend has only bolstered the case that documents should be produced and witnesses testify,” Schumer of New York, the Senate Democratic leader, said at a news conference, referring to the emails released to the Center for Public Integrity.
Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, showed no sign that he would comply with Schumer’s request. Still, Schumer clearly believed that the new emails gave Democrats momentum to present evidence in the trial that the House did not have when it charged Trump with high crimes and misdemeanors.
In a letter to his Senate colleagues, Schumer laid out a long list of records that Democrats would like to see, including internal emails and documents from the White House, the State Department and the Office of Management and Budget relating to the president’s effort to press Ukraine’s leader to investigate Trump’s political rivals.
In the House on Monday, Democrats indicated that a broader investigation into Trump was not over. The House’s counsel, Douglas Letter, raised the prospect of a second impeachment if new evidence emerged that Trump had tried to obstruct justice. His argument was contained in an appeals court filing as part of the Democrats’ effort to press the case that they still needed the testimony of Donald McGahn, the former White House counsel.
“If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the articles approved by the House,” Letter wrote, the House Judiciary Committee “will proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment.”
The actions in the House and the Senate may deepen the partisan impasse over Trump’s trial. If Schumer saw his document request as increasing pressure on McConnell to negotiate over the format of the proceedings, the majority leader appeared unswayed.
“Do you think Chuck Schumer is impartial?” McConnell asked during an appearance Monday morning on “Fox & Friends.” He went on: “So let’s quit the charade. This is a political exercise.”
With lawmakers at home in their districts for a two-week holiday recess, Trump’s trial is in limbo. The House voted almost entirely along party lines last week to impeach Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in connection with the Ukraine matter.
For a trial to begin, the House must transmit the charges contained in the articles of impeachment to the Senate. But with McConnell coordinating trial planning with the White House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is withholding the articles, she has said, until she gets some assurance that the proceedings will be fair.
In his “Fox & Friends” appearance, McConnell called Pelosi’s decision to withhold the articles “absurd.” He predicted that she would ultimately back down. “I can’t imagine what purpose is served by her holding on to the papers, so sooner or later I’m assuming she will send them over,” he said.
McConnell is also unlikely to agree to Schumer’s demand for documents. He has already rejected Schumer’s request for testimony from four White House officials: John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser; Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff; Robert Blair, Mulvaney’s senior adviser; and Duffey, the official with the Office of Management and Budget.
Democrats argue that McConnell, who has said he is “taking my cues” from the White House, is effectively letting Trump plan his own trial and violating the oath that all senators take to be impartial jurors during an impeachment trial. In his letter demanding new documents, Schumer took a shot at McConnell.
“To oppose the admission of this evidence would be to turn a willfully blind eye to the facts, and would clearly be at odds with the obligation of senators to ‘do impartial justice’ according to the oath we will all take in the impeachment trial,” he wrote.
Bolstering his case was the new evidence that emerged over the weekend. In Trump’s July 25 call with Zelenskiy, after the Ukrainian leader mentioned that Ukraine was ready to buy anti-tank missiles to use in a war against a Russian-backed insurgency, Trump said, “I would like you to do us a favor, though,” according to a reconstructed transcript released by the White House.
He then pressed Zelenskiy to open an investigation based on a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections and another based on unsubstantiated claims of corrupt acts by former Vice President Joe Biden, a Democratic presidential candidate.
That call took place from 9:03 a.m. to 9:33 a.m. At 11:04 a.m., Duffey emailed Defense Department officials telling them of the aid, “Please hold off on any additional DoD obligations of these funds, pending direction from that process.” Obligation refers to the process of a government agency designating how funds will be spent.
In addition, he wrote, “Given the sensitive nature of the request, I appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute the direction.”
Administration officials have said the timing was coincidental. Other administration officials testified before Congress that the hold on the aid was announced at a meeting on July 18, a week before the call.
But Schumer did not accept that. His letter demanding still more releases built on one that he sent to McConnell on Dec. 15, in which he asked the Senate to subpoena an unspecified list of documents, along with the four witnesses. That letter did not specify which records Schumer wanted.
The new letter was specific. His request for the White House includes “email communications, messages, memoranda and other records” related to the July 25 call, as well as White House records related to the whistleblower complaint that spurred the House impeachment inquiry.
From the State Department, he asked for “detailed notes, emails, text and WhatsApp messages, memoranda to file, and diplomatic cables pertinent to the investigation that State Department witnesses told the House are being withheld.” The Office of Management and Budget, he wrote, “is also in possession of highly relevant documents and communications related to this case.”
Democrats including Schumer said Sunday that the emails made it all the more urgent that Duffey and the other witnesses testify.
“If the president is so innocent and claims he’s innocent, why would he not allow, just like Richard Nixon did, the people that were closest to him to testify?” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat who is seeking the presidential nomination, said Sunday on the CBS program “Face the Nation.”
The trial can proceed in one of two ways: Schumer and McConnell can reach agreement on a resolution governing the format, or McConnell can proceed on his own if he can get 51 senators to agree to a resolution.
When President Bill Clinton was tried in 1999, the Senate passed two resolutions. The first, adopted unanimously, governed the basic format of the opening of the trial, including how long each side was given to present its case. The second, which passed along party lines, governed witnesses; there were three, all of whom gave depositions rather than testify in person. McConnell and other Republicans want Democrats to adopt the Clinton format.
“My belief is that once we’re sworn in, that 51 of us could adopt the rules from last time that would still apply,” Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., told reporters Monday in the Capitol.
“The speaker is a powerful position,” Blunt added. “But it’s not so powerful that the speaker can decide not to follow through on something like this.”
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Democracies Worldwide Should Execute Trump Trolls and Putin Trolls

 Trump trolls and Putin trolls are committing espionage and therefore they can be treated as spies and executed under the law. When the spre...