Thursday, December 10, 2020

Powerful/Dangerous Stacey Abrams. Diversity Over Sanity, How Far Does It Go? Is Biden Family and Democrats In Bed With China? SCOTUS" Hobson Choice.













Happy Channukah to my Jewish friends who get  and peruse these memos.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

These articles below should prove the world is nuts and America more so:

How exactly did she make it on this list?

Read More..



++++

Hi Fellow Patriot,


In America, we are no strangers to the subject of racism, especially not after this year. But now it seems that simply teaching our kids to be anti-racist is not enough. 


Instead, we must also teach them to loath whites and their supposed “privilege” over the rest of us. 


Check out how these California schools are already implementing curriculum to address such issues. 

Fighting for Freedom, 

Jenny Davis

+++

And:


A Nasdaq Chief’s Diversity Stunt

Americans tire of seeing institutions misused for personal aggrandizement.

By Holman W. Jenkins Jr.


It was always possible that Donald Trump’s relentlessly meretricious self-promotion would have the opposite of the effect on “norms” that the hand-wringers fretted about. But there is also evidence, we must admit, for the counter theory.

In corporate America at least, CEOs are still expected to present themselves as humble servants, not as main chancers. Then there’s the Nasdaq stock exchange’s decision to branch into social policy with its proposed requirement that listed companies meet Nasdaq CEO Adena Friedman’s goals for diversity on their boards.

Let’s count the absurdities. Shareholders of listed companies elect their boards and are already free if they choose (and some do) to promote diversity goals. Voters elect legislators at the state and federal level who, if they think the public favors it, can pass affirmative-action mandates.

Nobody elected Nasdaq, as even Ms. Friedman seems mutely to concede. Though noncompliant companies in theory could be kicked off the exchange, they won’t be, she says. They will be required to explain publicly why they aren’t complying. (Here’s hoping many will say it’s because their self-respecting board members refuse to honor Ms. Friedman’s demand that they “self-identify” by race, gender and sexual orientation.)

Only two years ago, on being named to the job, Ms. Friedman literally pounded a table to insist her overriding goal would be to reduce the bureaucratic disincentives that make a public listing so unattractive to young companies. One wonders which prospect of an open Senate seat changed her priorities. (Leaping to mind is 77-year-old Ben Cardin’s in Maryland, where Ms. Friedman lives and her family has long been socially prominent.)

Because your cynicism is not yet complete, did I mention that she wants the Securities and Exchange Commission not only to approve her rule but apply it to other exchanges and even private companies so Nasdaq won’t be uniquely inconvenienced by its boss’s foray into identity-politics brand-building?

Or that, even as Nasdaq has failed to reverse a decline in listings, she has been promoting a partnership with the diversity consulting firm Equilar and her own Nasdaq Center for Board Excellence to peddle the kind of diversity services companies might need under her new rule?

Maybe the public will end up buying Nasdaq’s diversity stunt but voters sometimes get their fill of cynicism. Witness the abortive rise of Richard Cordray, the Ohio politician whose meteoric career stopped soaring after he authored a series of unseemly racial shakedowns as the first head of the Obama Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Or recall the equally sad fate of Hubert Humphrey III after he associated the most illustrious name in Minnesota politics with the skeevy 1998 national tobacco settlement.

Nasdaq perhaps hasn’t joined the media in starting to notice that last month’s election can be read as a rejection of the Trumpism of the Democrats as much as it was the Trumpism of Mr. Trump.

Honor is the word we’re reaching for. After Mr. Trump, after Adam Schiff, after Mazie Hirono’s insane insistence that rape charges against any Republican are always true, after James Comey, the public is perhaps ready for something different.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with diversity. That’s why so many con men, fraudsters and cynical self-promoters are attracted to it. No sensible person doesn’t think America has been missing out on the untapped gifts of large sections of its population, in some cases because of bigotry and in some cases because of what somebody once called the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Other Wall Streeters, though, have funded charter schools and scholarships to help disadvantaged youngsters make their own way, in line with their own gifts and dreams, rather than as future candidates for tokenism and cronyism. Loading everyday life with even more identity-politics paranoia is the last thing America needs. Or turning its most accomplished business leaders into beneficiaries of social promotion. Or metastasizing more examples of elite favoritism for the public to be repulsed by. Never mind papering America with yet more rules of the sort that require a 271-page Nasdaq proposal to explain. Even California’s liberal electorate signaled last month that crude and invidious affirmative action should remain a thing of the past.

Nasdaq already has an important role in American life, providing liquidity for businesses and their shareholders. If Ms. Friedman can be persuaded to attend to her day job, perhaps it can even win back for small investors some of the opportunities that now go to superwealthy private-equity types. If the diversity rule was her play for the personal spotlight, though, she may not be as ready for prime time as she thinks she is.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It just gets worse for Hunter and the "BIg" man, soon to possibly be president, who, will be presiding under a Chinese hammer and cycle! Will the(m)ass media continue to avoid reporting on this because it is not news? If this is not news then what is news? 

BREAKING: Biden Under Federal Investigation
BOMBSHELL!
Keep Reading →
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


And more on Biden's son:

Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden under federal investigation for tax case

CNBC

President-elect Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden revealed Wednesday that he is under investigation by the top federal prosecutor in Delaware for his taxes. The probe was disclosed five days before Joe Biden is expected to be formally selected as the next president by the Electoral College. Hunter Biden said in...
And finally more:

Click to read the full story

And:

Is the Biden family in bed with China?  See It Here

 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Swalwell on receiving end and squirms like a worm.

NeverTrump Rep. Swalwell Claims Blockbuster Axios Chinese Spy Report Is Trump DisInfo


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is Alito the sole Justice likely to support Trump?


Read More

The SCOTUS faces an Hobson choice.

 

Perhaps the strongest case is the Texas. 

As I have written before, my deceased friend, Professor 

Henry Abraham was the expert on The History of The 

Supreme Court. His closest friend, on The Court, was 

Justice Scalia.  When Obamacare was before The Court I 

asked Henry how It would vote and he said Chief Justice Roberts would be the deciding vote to make it the law. 

was shocked and, challenged him, which was a stupid thing 

to do, and asked why.  He said because Roberts seeks 

comity and wants to shield The Court from politics.

 

I said won’t that make The Court subject to politics anyway 

and he replied probably. 

 

If The Court hears the argument about a fraudulent election 

and decides in favor of Trump there will be riots all over America.  If it fails to accept hearing the Trump petition 

and evidence then it will validate we are no longer a 

democracy willing to seek a fair hearing in order to avoid controversy .  If that be the case then segregation would 

still rule.

 

I believe The Court cannot avoid choosing to hear the Texas

 case which is based on sound legal reasoning.  How it rules

 is another matter and will depend on the soundness of the

evidence and the veracity of the argument  made by the 

plaintiff in accordance with the words of the constitution.

 

Stay tuned.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 

 

No comments: