TO COMMENT CLICK HERE
welcome to reality trivia
reality is the state of things as they actually exist
jULY 28, 2021
Real News Today
*54 PERCENT OF BLACK AMERICANS SAY THEY HAVE EXPERIENCED UNFAIR TREATMENT: GALLUP
(Race Matters)
*IN THE RACE AGAINST NINA TURNER, GOP DONORS FUND SHONTEL BROWN
(Sellouts)
(for previous day's articles see "what's inside" below)
comment/tweet of the day
Senate Banking Chair Asks CFPB How It Plans to Address Risks of Chime and Other Banking Apps
Citing a ProPublica report on the high numbers of complaints about involuntary Chime account closures and other problems, Sherrod Brown asked the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to lay out a plan for overseeing neobanks.
by Carson Kessler - pro publica
July 27, 11 a.m. EDT
The chair of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee is calling for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to evaluate the risks associated with apps that provide banking services, citing ProPublica’s article on Chime, the most widely downloaded of those apps.
In a letter sent today, Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, wrote to the CFPB’s acting director, Dave Uejio, stating that “Chime’s abrupt, involuntary closures of its customers’ accounts” call for further “insight into the risks posed by nonbanks to consumers as well as the measures the Bureau is taking to address the risks by nonbank fintech companies and their affiliated banks.”
The letter asserted that “Chime’s account closures may increase the number of people in this country who do not have access to the financial services” they need. Being shut out of a banking app, the letter noted, “can cause lasting damage” to a person’s financial condition.
Earlier this month, ProPublica reported that Chime, which provides checking and savings accounts via an app — but isn’t actually a bank — has racked up an unusually large number of consumer complaints about locked accounts, inaccessible funds and slow resolution time. At the time of that article’s publication, Chime customers had filed 920 complaints with the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since April 15, 2020. Customers had also filed 4,439 complaints against Chime at the Better Business Bureau, compared to 3,281 for Wells Fargo, a bank with six times as many customers.
With an estimated 12 million customers, Chime is the largest in its highly competitive subcategory of financial technology, or fintech, companies that serve low- to moderate-income individuals underserved by traditional financial institutions. Many of the account closures occurred as the company was experiencing a dramatic surge in new accounts. Chime was vying to land new accounts from customers who were receiving government stimulus checks, while simultaneously trying to vet millions of new accounts for suspicious payments. Customers with legitimate government funds were sometimes caught in the middle and left unable to pay bills or at risk of eviction.
In the article, Chime acknowledged some mistaken account closures, but otherwise defended what it said were aggressive efforts to combat an “extraordinary” rise in deposits made using fraudulently obtained payments for unemployment insurance and other forms of government assistance. The company has resolved most CFPB complaints privately and responded on the BBB website that it “takes these issues seriously.”
Brown’s letter noted that an involuntary account closure can then make it harder to open another account: “This all but ensures that the most financially vulnerable of America are denied basic financial services.” Brown also requested “guidance on any gaps in the regulatory framework that may require Congressional action.”
Chime has previously attracted the attention of state regulators. In late 2019, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation concluded that Chime had violated state law by describing itself as a bank on its website and elsewhere. DFPI and Chime agreed to an administrative settlement in late March. Chime neither admitted to nor denied the findings but agreed to take a detailed series of actions on its website and in promotional materials to make clear that it is not a bank. (A similar agreement was also reached with regulators in Illinois.)
Chime’s homepage still reads “Banking That Has Your Back” in bold, black lettering. Scroll down and below the “Apply Now” button, in much smaller type, the site reads: “Chime is a financial technology company, not a bank.” The company previously told ProPublica that it is complying with the terms of its settlement with the state of California.
In a letter sent today, Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, wrote to the CFPB’s acting director, Dave Uejio, stating that “Chime’s abrupt, involuntary closures of its customers’ accounts” call for further “insight into the risks posed by nonbanks to consumers as well as the measures the Bureau is taking to address the risks by nonbank fintech companies and their affiliated banks.”
The letter asserted that “Chime’s account closures may increase the number of people in this country who do not have access to the financial services” they need. Being shut out of a banking app, the letter noted, “can cause lasting damage” to a person’s financial condition.
Earlier this month, ProPublica reported that Chime, which provides checking and savings accounts via an app — but isn’t actually a bank — has racked up an unusually large number of consumer complaints about locked accounts, inaccessible funds and slow resolution time. At the time of that article’s publication, Chime customers had filed 920 complaints with the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since April 15, 2020. Customers had also filed 4,439 complaints against Chime at the Better Business Bureau, compared to 3,281 for Wells Fargo, a bank with six times as many customers.
With an estimated 12 million customers, Chime is the largest in its highly competitive subcategory of financial technology, or fintech, companies that serve low- to moderate-income individuals underserved by traditional financial institutions. Many of the account closures occurred as the company was experiencing a dramatic surge in new accounts. Chime was vying to land new accounts from customers who were receiving government stimulus checks, while simultaneously trying to vet millions of new accounts for suspicious payments. Customers with legitimate government funds were sometimes caught in the middle and left unable to pay bills or at risk of eviction.
In the article, Chime acknowledged some mistaken account closures, but otherwise defended what it said were aggressive efforts to combat an “extraordinary” rise in deposits made using fraudulently obtained payments for unemployment insurance and other forms of government assistance. The company has resolved most CFPB complaints privately and responded on the BBB website that it “takes these issues seriously.”
Brown’s letter noted that an involuntary account closure can then make it harder to open another account: “This all but ensures that the most financially vulnerable of America are denied basic financial services.” Brown also requested “guidance on any gaps in the regulatory framework that may require Congressional action.”
Chime has previously attracted the attention of state regulators. In late 2019, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation concluded that Chime had violated state law by describing itself as a bank on its website and elsewhere. DFPI and Chime agreed to an administrative settlement in late March. Chime neither admitted to nor denied the findings but agreed to take a detailed series of actions on its website and in promotional materials to make clear that it is not a bank. (A similar agreement was also reached with regulators in Illinois.)
Chime’s homepage still reads “Banking That Has Your Back” in bold, black lettering. Scroll down and below the “Apply Now” button, in much smaller type, the site reads: “Chime is a financial technology company, not a bank.” The company previously told ProPublica that it is complying with the terms of its settlement with the state of California.
Josh Hawley’s “Love America Act” Is All About Protecting Racism
Thom Hartmann - hartmannreport.com
7/27/2021
Former-slave-state Missouri Senator Josh Hawley doesn’t want America’s white children to be exposed to the simple reality that slavery was not only legal at the founding of our country but was, in several places, written into our Constitution.
And that the rest of America subsidized the slave-owners’ states and continues to subsidize them to this day.
Hawley, of course, is the guy who gave a fist-salute to the armed white supremacist traitors who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6th to assassinate Vice President Pence and Speaker Pelosi. He hopes to ride his white supremacy shtick to the White House.
Doubling down on the GOP notion that America is a nation exclusively of, by and for white people, Hawley has now proposed a law he calls “The Love America Act of 2021.” The bill is only 3 ½ pages long. There’s a bit of legalese to make it into legislation, defining what “school” means, etc., but this is what it says:
“RESTRICTION ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR TEACHING THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS ARE PRODUCTS OF WHITE SUPREMACY OR RACISM — …[N]o Federal funds shall be provided to an educational agency or school that teaches that the Pledge of Allegiance, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States is a product of white supremacy or racism.”
That’s it. That’s the gist of the entire bill.
In other words, public schools that teach the actual history of our Constitution lose all their federal funds — our tax dollars — and essentially go out of business. It’s really just that simple: white supremacist Republicans like Hawley don’t want your kids to know the true history of America.
Black children, they say, are old and tough enough to experience racism but white children are just waaay too young and fragile to learn about it.
Hawley’s protests notwithstanding, racism and white supremacy were very much a part of our founding documents. Consider “Father of the Constitution” (and slaveholder) James Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787.
It was the third week of August and the issue of America taxing “property” (a code word for slaves) got tied to the debate about how many representatives each state should have in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The five slave states wanted all their enslaved people counted toward representation — even though they couldn’t vote or enjoy any of the rights of citizenship — but didn’t want to pay any “property tax” on them. The eight “free” states vehemently objected both to counting enslaved people to increase the slave states’ representation in Congress and to subsidizing them via tax law.
It produced one of the great speeches at the Constitutional Convention, which Madison dutifully transcribed.
Gouverneur Morris (“Gouverneur” was his first name, not his title) represented Pennsylvania, and single-handedly wrote the Preamble to the Constitution. He was 35 years old, a lawyer and a graduate of Kings College (what we now call Columbia University). And he was an ardent abolitionist.
“He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery,” Madison wrote, summarizing Morris’ speech. “It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the states where it prevailed.”
Warming to his topic, Morris began an extended rant about how destructive slavery was to the new nation they were birthing. It illustrates how wrong Hawley is in saying that racism and white supremacy had nothing to do with writing the Constitution.
“Compare the [slave]-free regions of the Middle States, where a rich and noble cultivation marks the prosperity and happiness of the people,” Morris said, “with the misery and poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Virginia, Maryland, and the other states having slaves. Travel through the whole continent, and you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance and disappearance of slavery.”
Morris said the enslavement of people was a curse on America that was visible to anybody who simply looked. The free north was prosperous; the south, where people were enslaved, was poor.
“The moment you leave the Eastern [slave] States,” he said, “and enter New York, the effects of the institution become visible. Passing through the Jerseys, and entering Pennsylvania, every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change. Proceed southwardly, and every step you take, through the great regions of slaves, presents a desert increasing with the increasing proportion of these wretched beings.”
But the white supremacist slaveholders representing the slave states in the Convention wanted more power in Congress and lower taxes in their own states, much like today’s Republicans. The key to that, they believed, was having some or all of their states’ enslaved Black people counted toward representation in Congress, even though they were in chains and unable to vote.
In an echo of this very argument last month the white supremacists of the Georgia legislature passed, and Governor Brian Kemp signed into law in front of a painting of a slave plantation, legislation that would give Georgia’s Republicans the ability to simply toss out the votes of people in largely Black districts with the excuse that they “suspect,” with or without evidence, that “fraud” happened.
Georgia has already begun to purge local voting officials in Black districts, replacing them with safe white Republicans who will make sure elections produce the “right” outcome.
It’s such a radical law that the CEO of the Stacey Abrams-founded New Georgia Project, Nsé Ufot, bluntly told Politico that unless the law is overturned by ending the filibuster and passing the For The People Act, “we’re fucked.”
As if we’re torn in half through some weird time machine, Madison continued with his transcription of Gouverneur Morris’ speech.
“Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation?” Morris demanded of his colleagues. “Are they men? Then make them citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why, then, is no other property included [in determining representation}? The houses in this city (Philadelphia) are worth more than all the wretched slaves who cover the rice swamps of South Carolina.”
And then Morris nailed down precisely how and why racism and white supremacy were written into the Constitution with the so-called “3/5ths compromise” (among other places) that gave southern states more members in the House of Representatives than their white population would justify.
“The admission of slaves into the representation, when fairly explained, comes to this,—that the [white] inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina, who go to the coast of Africa, and, in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity, tears away his fellow-creatures from their dearest connections and damns them to the most cruel bondage, shall have more votes… than the citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey, who views, with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice.”
It was all about using racism and white supremacy to increase the power of white people in the South, and then force the rest of the country to subsidize them.
Keep in mind that Democrats in the U.S. Senate today represent 41 million more people than do the Senate’s Republicans. And, echoing 1787, Georgia and 17 other Republican-controlled mostly-former-slave-states have now put into law the power for them to deny the vote to Black people or simply refuse to count their votes.
But back to 1787:
Morris paused to gather his thoughts, and then, Madison noted, continued, this time calling out the Southern oligarchs who flaunted their riches made possible by slave labor while asking the northern states to pay for their defense and otherwise subsidize them with northern tax dollars.
“He would add,” Madison wrote, “that domestic slavery is the most prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution. The vassalage of the poor has ever been the favorite offspring of aristocracy.”
Morris was probably shouting at this point; such language is rarely found in our founding documents and may help explain why Madison kept his “notes” secret until his death nearly 50 years later. Morris pointed out how the south was essentially demanding that the north subsidize them financially, something that continues to this day.
“And what is the proposed compensation to the Northern States,” Morris demanded, “for a sacrifice of every principle of right, of every impulse of humanity? … The … tea used by a northern freeman will pay more tax than the whole consumption of the miserable slave….”
Morris lost the argument and the southern slave states got extra representation in Congress along with no federal taxation of their “property.” But the GOP sure doesn’t want you or your kids to know that.
If Hawley’s bill were to become law, any public school that taught Morris’ anti-slavery speech would lose all federal funding. This is how white supremacy works today and, indeed, has worked in this nation since our founding.
Their strategy is straightforward: Control history (from Texas editing Martin Luther King out of its textbooks to generations of statues of Confederate generals), suppress the political power of Black people while subsidizing Red states, and do it all with a thin patina of legalese.
Northern states generally make it easy for all people to vote while former slave states do everything they can to suppress the Black vote (along with the votes of young people and older Social Security voters).
Former slave states like Hawley’s Missouri represent the overwhelming majority of states to have passed voter suppression legislation. And they’re still hustling tax dollars from the rest of us, just as Morris complained about in 1787.
Northern states get back a fraction of every dollar they send to Washington, DC while former slave states get as much as $2 for every tax dollar they send the federal government.
As the AP noted in 2017:
“Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar the state sent to Washington in 2015, according to the Rockefeller study. West Virginia received $2.07, Kentucky got $1.90 and South Carolina got $1.71.
“Meanwhile, New Jersey received 74 cents in federal spending for tax every dollar the state sent to Washington. New York received 81 cents, Connecticut received 82 cents and Massachusetts received 83 cents.”
White supremacy, racism and the rest of America subsidizing Red states weren’t just realities in 1787: they’re alive and well today.
Hawley and his white supremacist buddies in the GOP want to keep it that way, and their hateful “Love America Act” is just the latest disgusting part of their strategy. We’ve been tolerating and subsidizing these losers since 1787 and it’s time to stop.
And that the rest of America subsidized the slave-owners’ states and continues to subsidize them to this day.
Hawley, of course, is the guy who gave a fist-salute to the armed white supremacist traitors who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6th to assassinate Vice President Pence and Speaker Pelosi. He hopes to ride his white supremacy shtick to the White House.
Doubling down on the GOP notion that America is a nation exclusively of, by and for white people, Hawley has now proposed a law he calls “The Love America Act of 2021.” The bill is only 3 ½ pages long. There’s a bit of legalese to make it into legislation, defining what “school” means, etc., but this is what it says:
“RESTRICTION ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR TEACHING THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS ARE PRODUCTS OF WHITE SUPREMACY OR RACISM — …[N]o Federal funds shall be provided to an educational agency or school that teaches that the Pledge of Allegiance, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States is a product of white supremacy or racism.”
That’s it. That’s the gist of the entire bill.
In other words, public schools that teach the actual history of our Constitution lose all their federal funds — our tax dollars — and essentially go out of business. It’s really just that simple: white supremacist Republicans like Hawley don’t want your kids to know the true history of America.
Black children, they say, are old and tough enough to experience racism but white children are just waaay too young and fragile to learn about it.
Hawley’s protests notwithstanding, racism and white supremacy were very much a part of our founding documents. Consider “Father of the Constitution” (and slaveholder) James Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787.
It was the third week of August and the issue of America taxing “property” (a code word for slaves) got tied to the debate about how many representatives each state should have in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The five slave states wanted all their enslaved people counted toward representation — even though they couldn’t vote or enjoy any of the rights of citizenship — but didn’t want to pay any “property tax” on them. The eight “free” states vehemently objected both to counting enslaved people to increase the slave states’ representation in Congress and to subsidizing them via tax law.
It produced one of the great speeches at the Constitutional Convention, which Madison dutifully transcribed.
Gouverneur Morris (“Gouverneur” was his first name, not his title) represented Pennsylvania, and single-handedly wrote the Preamble to the Constitution. He was 35 years old, a lawyer and a graduate of Kings College (what we now call Columbia University). And he was an ardent abolitionist.
“He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery,” Madison wrote, summarizing Morris’ speech. “It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the states where it prevailed.”
Warming to his topic, Morris began an extended rant about how destructive slavery was to the new nation they were birthing. It illustrates how wrong Hawley is in saying that racism and white supremacy had nothing to do with writing the Constitution.
“Compare the [slave]-free regions of the Middle States, where a rich and noble cultivation marks the prosperity and happiness of the people,” Morris said, “with the misery and poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Virginia, Maryland, and the other states having slaves. Travel through the whole continent, and you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance and disappearance of slavery.”
Morris said the enslavement of people was a curse on America that was visible to anybody who simply looked. The free north was prosperous; the south, where people were enslaved, was poor.
“The moment you leave the Eastern [slave] States,” he said, “and enter New York, the effects of the institution become visible. Passing through the Jerseys, and entering Pennsylvania, every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change. Proceed southwardly, and every step you take, through the great regions of slaves, presents a desert increasing with the increasing proportion of these wretched beings.”
But the white supremacist slaveholders representing the slave states in the Convention wanted more power in Congress and lower taxes in their own states, much like today’s Republicans. The key to that, they believed, was having some or all of their states’ enslaved Black people counted toward representation in Congress, even though they were in chains and unable to vote.
In an echo of this very argument last month the white supremacists of the Georgia legislature passed, and Governor Brian Kemp signed into law in front of a painting of a slave plantation, legislation that would give Georgia’s Republicans the ability to simply toss out the votes of people in largely Black districts with the excuse that they “suspect,” with or without evidence, that “fraud” happened.
Georgia has already begun to purge local voting officials in Black districts, replacing them with safe white Republicans who will make sure elections produce the “right” outcome.
It’s such a radical law that the CEO of the Stacey Abrams-founded New Georgia Project, Nsé Ufot, bluntly told Politico that unless the law is overturned by ending the filibuster and passing the For The People Act, “we’re fucked.”
As if we’re torn in half through some weird time machine, Madison continued with his transcription of Gouverneur Morris’ speech.
“Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation?” Morris demanded of his colleagues. “Are they men? Then make them citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why, then, is no other property included [in determining representation}? The houses in this city (Philadelphia) are worth more than all the wretched slaves who cover the rice swamps of South Carolina.”
And then Morris nailed down precisely how and why racism and white supremacy were written into the Constitution with the so-called “3/5ths compromise” (among other places) that gave southern states more members in the House of Representatives than their white population would justify.
“The admission of slaves into the representation, when fairly explained, comes to this,—that the [white] inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina, who go to the coast of Africa, and, in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity, tears away his fellow-creatures from their dearest connections and damns them to the most cruel bondage, shall have more votes… than the citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey, who views, with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice.”
It was all about using racism and white supremacy to increase the power of white people in the South, and then force the rest of the country to subsidize them.
Keep in mind that Democrats in the U.S. Senate today represent 41 million more people than do the Senate’s Republicans. And, echoing 1787, Georgia and 17 other Republican-controlled mostly-former-slave-states have now put into law the power for them to deny the vote to Black people or simply refuse to count their votes.
But back to 1787:
Morris paused to gather his thoughts, and then, Madison noted, continued, this time calling out the Southern oligarchs who flaunted their riches made possible by slave labor while asking the northern states to pay for their defense and otherwise subsidize them with northern tax dollars.
“He would add,” Madison wrote, “that domestic slavery is the most prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution. The vassalage of the poor has ever been the favorite offspring of aristocracy.”
Morris was probably shouting at this point; such language is rarely found in our founding documents and may help explain why Madison kept his “notes” secret until his death nearly 50 years later. Morris pointed out how the south was essentially demanding that the north subsidize them financially, something that continues to this day.
“And what is the proposed compensation to the Northern States,” Morris demanded, “for a sacrifice of every principle of right, of every impulse of humanity? … The … tea used by a northern freeman will pay more tax than the whole consumption of the miserable slave….”
Morris lost the argument and the southern slave states got extra representation in Congress along with no federal taxation of their “property.” But the GOP sure doesn’t want you or your kids to know that.
If Hawley’s bill were to become law, any public school that taught Morris’ anti-slavery speech would lose all federal funding. This is how white supremacy works today and, indeed, has worked in this nation since our founding.
Their strategy is straightforward: Control history (from Texas editing Martin Luther King out of its textbooks to generations of statues of Confederate generals), suppress the political power of Black people while subsidizing Red states, and do it all with a thin patina of legalese.
Northern states generally make it easy for all people to vote while former slave states do everything they can to suppress the Black vote (along with the votes of young people and older Social Security voters).
Former slave states like Hawley’s Missouri represent the overwhelming majority of states to have passed voter suppression legislation. And they’re still hustling tax dollars from the rest of us, just as Morris complained about in 1787.
Northern states get back a fraction of every dollar they send to Washington, DC while former slave states get as much as $2 for every tax dollar they send the federal government.
As the AP noted in 2017:
“Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar the state sent to Washington in 2015, according to the Rockefeller study. West Virginia received $2.07, Kentucky got $1.90 and South Carolina got $1.71.
“Meanwhile, New Jersey received 74 cents in federal spending for tax every dollar the state sent to Washington. New York received 81 cents, Connecticut received 82 cents and Massachusetts received 83 cents.”
White supremacy, racism and the rest of America subsidizing Red states weren’t just realities in 1787: they’re alive and well today.
Hawley and his white supremacist buddies in the GOP want to keep it that way, and their hateful “Love America Act” is just the latest disgusting part of their strategy. We’ve been tolerating and subsidizing these losers since 1787 and it’s time to stop.
funding sedition, racists, and greed for profit!!!
Corporate PACs once again funding GOP’s “Sedition Caucus” as hearings on Capitol riot begin
Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Koch Industries and Elon Musk's Space X lead corporate donors to GOP Big Lie apologists
By IGOR DERYSH - salon
PUBLISHED JULY 27, 2021 12:10PM (EDT)
Republican members of Congress who supported Donald Trump's Big Lie and voted against certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election have received more than $1.5 million in campaign contributions from corporate PACs since the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to Federal Election Commission records.
Many corporate PACs vowed to pause their contributions after 147 Republicans voted to block the certification just hours after a mob of Trump supporters attacked Capitol police and overran the halls of Congress to interrupt the vote. Several police officers involved in the response testified on Tuesday before the first hearing of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.
But while corporate donations largely dried up in the months immediately following the attack, they have rapidly picked up over the summer as campaigns seek to accumulate funds for next year's midterm elections. Some companies have funneled money to Republican committees that help fund individual campaigns — thereby remaining at arm's length from specific members — the latest round of campaign finance disclosures show that some corporate giants have resumed direct contributions to members of the GOP's "sedition caucus."
The aerospace giant Boeing said after Jan. 6 that it would pause all political contributions and "evaluate future contributions to ensure that we support those who not only support our company, but also uphold our country's most fundamental principles." Duke Energy, one of the largest utilities in the country, also paused all federal contributions to evaluate candidates' "values and actions to ensure they align to our values and goals."
But both companies have resumed political donations in recent weeks and have steered tens of thousands to Republican members who voted against certifying the results. The Boeing Company PAC in June donated $39,500 to 19 Republicans who joined the effort, according to FEC records compiled by the progressive watchdog group Accountable.US. The Duke Energy Corporation PAC has contributed $41,500 to 11 such Republican members since May.
Defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics have also steered tens of thousands to Republican election objectors, as have prominent corporations like Koch Industries and Elon Musk's Space X.
"The violent assault on the Capitol and attempt to reject the results of a free and fair election will forever be etched in the public conscience, but many corporations were disturbingly quick to forgive and forget," Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US, said in a statement to Salon. "If these corporations truly value democracy, how can they possibly justify massive donations to the Sedition Caucus from their affiliated PACs?"
No PAC donated more money to members of the "sedition caucus" than the American Crystal Sugar Company PAC, a big campaign contributor that vowed not to punish candidates it supports over a "single vote." The PAC contributed $140,000 to Republican objectors in the second quarter, according to FEC records. The Western Sugar Cooperative PAC, another large beet sugar producer, kicked in $43,000.
Though defense contractor donations quickly evaporated in the aftermath of the Capitol riot, some of the biggest companies in the defense sector have since restarted investing in members who tried to block certification. The General Dynamics Corporation PAC has contributed $81,000 to dozens of Republican objectors and the Lockheed Martin Corporation Employees PAC gave another $78,500 since April. The L3Harris Technologies PAC, representing another major defense contractor, gave $72,000.
Koch Industries, the eponymous energy and manufacturing giant founded by the Koch family, also had a busy quarter, contributing $45,500 to Republican objectors even after the Koch network vowed that lawmakers' actions in the riot would "weigh heavy" on its financial decisions.
The Space Exploration Technologies Corp. PAC, the PAC for Musk's spacecraft startup Space X, resumed donations in May, giving $41,000 to Republican objectors.
"Supporting those who perpetuate the Big Lie and encourage insurrection," Herrig said, "sends a disturbing message to their customers, shareholders and employees that they value holding political influence above all else, democracy be damned."
While many companies have avoided giving directly to the 147 Republicans who tried to block election certification, business trade groups have continued to funnel money to the group. CULAC, the PAC of the Credit Union National Association, has given $68,000. The National Association of Realtors PAC gave $56,500. Others include the National Federation of Independent Business PAC ($49,500), the National Cattlemen's Beef Association PAC ($49,000), the Associated Builders and Contractors PAC ($48,500), the National Electrical Contractors Association PAC ($48,500), the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors PAC ($45,500), the National Sports Footing Foundation ($42,500), the National Automobile Dealers Association PAC ($37,500), and the National Association of Convenience Stores PAC ($36,500).
Many companies that have avoided donating directly to individual members of the "sedition caucus" have steered money toward leadership PACs, which have spread the wealth around. The Majority Committee PAC, which is affiliated with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has donated $120,000 to the individual campaigns of 12 Republican objectors. The New PAC, which is affiliated with Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., an enthusiastic Trump supporter, has contributed more than $91,000. The House Conservatives Fund, the political arm of the conservative Republican Study Committee, has donated $66,000. The CMR PAC, which is affiliated with Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., gave $63,500. Take Back the House 22, a joint fundraising committee for several members of Congress, has donated more than $51,000, including over $13,000 to Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo. The Value in Electing Women PAC, which supports female Republicans, donated $45,000.
Accountable.US called on companies that have donated money to Republicans who tried to block the certification of legitimate election results, without any evidence of fraud or irregularities, to reconsider their decisions.
"The leaders, companies and trade groups associated with these PACs," the group's report said, "should have to answer for their support of lawmakers whose votes that fueled the violence and sedition we saw on January 6."
Many corporate PACs vowed to pause their contributions after 147 Republicans voted to block the certification just hours after a mob of Trump supporters attacked Capitol police and overran the halls of Congress to interrupt the vote. Several police officers involved in the response testified on Tuesday before the first hearing of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.
But while corporate donations largely dried up in the months immediately following the attack, they have rapidly picked up over the summer as campaigns seek to accumulate funds for next year's midterm elections. Some companies have funneled money to Republican committees that help fund individual campaigns — thereby remaining at arm's length from specific members — the latest round of campaign finance disclosures show that some corporate giants have resumed direct contributions to members of the GOP's "sedition caucus."
The aerospace giant Boeing said after Jan. 6 that it would pause all political contributions and "evaluate future contributions to ensure that we support those who not only support our company, but also uphold our country's most fundamental principles." Duke Energy, one of the largest utilities in the country, also paused all federal contributions to evaluate candidates' "values and actions to ensure they align to our values and goals."
But both companies have resumed political donations in recent weeks and have steered tens of thousands to Republican members who voted against certifying the results. The Boeing Company PAC in June donated $39,500 to 19 Republicans who joined the effort, according to FEC records compiled by the progressive watchdog group Accountable.US. The Duke Energy Corporation PAC has contributed $41,500 to 11 such Republican members since May.
Defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics have also steered tens of thousands to Republican election objectors, as have prominent corporations like Koch Industries and Elon Musk's Space X.
"The violent assault on the Capitol and attempt to reject the results of a free and fair election will forever be etched in the public conscience, but many corporations were disturbingly quick to forgive and forget," Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US, said in a statement to Salon. "If these corporations truly value democracy, how can they possibly justify massive donations to the Sedition Caucus from their affiliated PACs?"
No PAC donated more money to members of the "sedition caucus" than the American Crystal Sugar Company PAC, a big campaign contributor that vowed not to punish candidates it supports over a "single vote." The PAC contributed $140,000 to Republican objectors in the second quarter, according to FEC records. The Western Sugar Cooperative PAC, another large beet sugar producer, kicked in $43,000.
Though defense contractor donations quickly evaporated in the aftermath of the Capitol riot, some of the biggest companies in the defense sector have since restarted investing in members who tried to block certification. The General Dynamics Corporation PAC has contributed $81,000 to dozens of Republican objectors and the Lockheed Martin Corporation Employees PAC gave another $78,500 since April. The L3Harris Technologies PAC, representing another major defense contractor, gave $72,000.
Koch Industries, the eponymous energy and manufacturing giant founded by the Koch family, also had a busy quarter, contributing $45,500 to Republican objectors even after the Koch network vowed that lawmakers' actions in the riot would "weigh heavy" on its financial decisions.
The Space Exploration Technologies Corp. PAC, the PAC for Musk's spacecraft startup Space X, resumed donations in May, giving $41,000 to Republican objectors.
"Supporting those who perpetuate the Big Lie and encourage insurrection," Herrig said, "sends a disturbing message to their customers, shareholders and employees that they value holding political influence above all else, democracy be damned."
While many companies have avoided giving directly to the 147 Republicans who tried to block election certification, business trade groups have continued to funnel money to the group. CULAC, the PAC of the Credit Union National Association, has given $68,000. The National Association of Realtors PAC gave $56,500. Others include the National Federation of Independent Business PAC ($49,500), the National Cattlemen's Beef Association PAC ($49,000), the Associated Builders and Contractors PAC ($48,500), the National Electrical Contractors Association PAC ($48,500), the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors PAC ($45,500), the National Sports Footing Foundation ($42,500), the National Automobile Dealers Association PAC ($37,500), and the National Association of Convenience Stores PAC ($36,500).
Many companies that have avoided donating directly to individual members of the "sedition caucus" have steered money toward leadership PACs, which have spread the wealth around. The Majority Committee PAC, which is affiliated with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has donated $120,000 to the individual campaigns of 12 Republican objectors. The New PAC, which is affiliated with Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., an enthusiastic Trump supporter, has contributed more than $91,000. The House Conservatives Fund, the political arm of the conservative Republican Study Committee, has donated $66,000. The CMR PAC, which is affiliated with Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., gave $63,500. Take Back the House 22, a joint fundraising committee for several members of Congress, has donated more than $51,000, including over $13,000 to Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo. The Value in Electing Women PAC, which supports female Republicans, donated $45,000.
Accountable.US called on companies that have donated money to Republicans who tried to block the certification of legitimate election results, without any evidence of fraud or irregularities, to reconsider their decisions.
"The leaders, companies and trade groups associated with these PACs," the group's report said, "should have to answer for their support of lawmakers whose votes that fueled the violence and sedition we saw on January 6."
Report: Real Estate Groups Paid GOP Lawmakers Huge Sums to Reinstate Evictions
BY Sharon Zhang, Truthout
PUBLISHED July 27, 2021
As the national eviction moratorium, originally created for the pandemic, is set to end on July 31, a new report finds that the real estate industry has been lobbying for federal regulators to end the policy for months.
The report by Accountable.US, which calls itself a government corruption watchdog group, finds that Senators Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania), who both raised objections to the eviction moratorium as early as December of last year, have pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars each from real estate groups. Crapo has taken nearly $281,000 and Toomey $183,000.
Real estate groups have filed lawsuits in courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, trying to get the eviction moratorium struck down. Meanwhile, the influential National Association of Realtors has lobbied across Washington to get the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) moratorium ended.
This aggressive lobbying comes despite the fact that top corporate rental companies have reported stable or good performance in the first quarter of 2021, the report finds, with many of them reporting “solid” finances. The finding suggests that, despite the heavy lobbying, the ability to evict tenants isn’t necessary for these companies to profit.
“Even during a pandemic and severe economic downturn, the real estate industry still managed to post strong profits as families in every corner of the country battled homelessness,” said Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US, in a statement.
“To make matters worse, while many landlords continued to thrive, they fought tooth and nail to prematurely end the CDC’s eviction moratorium and kick millions of Americans out of their homes amid a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic,” Herrig continued, saying that it’s crucial for lawmakers to pass housing aid.
President Joe Biden had extended the eviction moratorium last month but pledged that it would be the last month that the moratorium would be in place. Advocates praised the temporary extension, but have warned that it won’t be enough to stymie an eviction wave as the country still battles the COVID pandemic.
Democrats had sent a letter to Biden asking him to extend the moratorium before the announcement, saying, “By extending the moratorium and incorporating these critical improvements to protect vulnerable renters, we can work to curtail the eviction crisis disproportionately impacting our communities of color.”
The Biden administration has estimated that the eviction moratorium has prevented 1.55 million evictions, though that figure could be higher as over 8 million people have reported falling behind on rent during the pandemic, according to the Census Bureau.
In a hearing held by the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus Crisis on landlord abuses and evictions, Jim Baker, the director of the Private Equity Stakeholder Project, pointed out that many landlords have been filing to evict their tenants despite the ban. “Since last September, some of the world’s largest asset managers that manage trillions of dollars have filed to evict residents,” Baker said.
“While many renters have faced dramatic hardships during the pandemic, many corporate landlords have done extremely well and are growing and buying more houses,” said Baker. Despite that, many corporate landlords bankrolled by large finance firms have filed thousands of eviction actions, he said.
Indeed, the eviction moratorium was put in place to shield the country as millions lost their jobs and were at threat of experiencing homelessness and becoming even more susceptible to the virus if the moratorium wasn’t in place. A recent report by Pew found that the pandemic caused twice as many renters to fall behind on rent payments than usual.
Advocates say that now is a terrible time to lift the moratorium as states are rushing to distribute millions in rental assistance that has yet to go out to renters. The pandemic is still ongoing, and many of the people most at risk of being evicted are also most susceptible to dying due to the virus.
The report by Accountable.US, which calls itself a government corruption watchdog group, finds that Senators Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania), who both raised objections to the eviction moratorium as early as December of last year, have pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars each from real estate groups. Crapo has taken nearly $281,000 and Toomey $183,000.
Real estate groups have filed lawsuits in courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, trying to get the eviction moratorium struck down. Meanwhile, the influential National Association of Realtors has lobbied across Washington to get the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) moratorium ended.
This aggressive lobbying comes despite the fact that top corporate rental companies have reported stable or good performance in the first quarter of 2021, the report finds, with many of them reporting “solid” finances. The finding suggests that, despite the heavy lobbying, the ability to evict tenants isn’t necessary for these companies to profit.
“Even during a pandemic and severe economic downturn, the real estate industry still managed to post strong profits as families in every corner of the country battled homelessness,” said Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US, in a statement.
“To make matters worse, while many landlords continued to thrive, they fought tooth and nail to prematurely end the CDC’s eviction moratorium and kick millions of Americans out of their homes amid a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic,” Herrig continued, saying that it’s crucial for lawmakers to pass housing aid.
President Joe Biden had extended the eviction moratorium last month but pledged that it would be the last month that the moratorium would be in place. Advocates praised the temporary extension, but have warned that it won’t be enough to stymie an eviction wave as the country still battles the COVID pandemic.
Democrats had sent a letter to Biden asking him to extend the moratorium before the announcement, saying, “By extending the moratorium and incorporating these critical improvements to protect vulnerable renters, we can work to curtail the eviction crisis disproportionately impacting our communities of color.”
The Biden administration has estimated that the eviction moratorium has prevented 1.55 million evictions, though that figure could be higher as over 8 million people have reported falling behind on rent during the pandemic, according to the Census Bureau.
In a hearing held by the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus Crisis on landlord abuses and evictions, Jim Baker, the director of the Private Equity Stakeholder Project, pointed out that many landlords have been filing to evict their tenants despite the ban. “Since last September, some of the world’s largest asset managers that manage trillions of dollars have filed to evict residents,” Baker said.
“While many renters have faced dramatic hardships during the pandemic, many corporate landlords have done extremely well and are growing and buying more houses,” said Baker. Despite that, many corporate landlords bankrolled by large finance firms have filed thousands of eviction actions, he said.
Indeed, the eviction moratorium was put in place to shield the country as millions lost their jobs and were at threat of experiencing homelessness and becoming even more susceptible to the virus if the moratorium wasn’t in place. A recent report by Pew found that the pandemic caused twice as many renters to fall behind on rent payments than usual.
Advocates say that now is a terrible time to lift the moratorium as states are rushing to distribute millions in rental assistance that has yet to go out to renters. The pandemic is still ongoing, and many of the people most at risk of being evicted are also most susceptible to dying due to the virus.
another role model for stupidity
'Absolute gutter trash': Elise Stefanik buried for last-minute attempt to blame Nancy Pelosi for Capitol riot
'Boot-licking chump' George P Bush roasted after Trump humiliatingly backs his opponent
'Groveling before white supremacists': GOP senate candidate, J.D. Vance, slammed for 'going fully anti-Semitic'
Newsmax Jackass Roots For 'Woke' Team USA To Lose
If they're on your cable lineup, you should call your provider and ask why.
GOP-linked company’s COVID tests failed — so health chief suggested using them on ‘college kids’: Tennessee whistleblower
Travis Gettys - RAW STORY
July 28, 2021
After an unproven company with Republican Party ties won a no-bid contract with Tennessee to produce COVID-19 tests, a whistleblower says the state health commissioner suggested using them on "healthier" people such as "college kids" after they proved unreliable.
Dr. Michelle Fiscus, who was fired this month as the state's top immunization official in a dispute over vaccinating teens, said she was shocked by the $26.5 million deal -- and even further shocked by health commissioner Lisa Piercey's reaction when the tests turned up false negative results as health officials had warned, reported WTVF-TV.
"I think everyone was pretty shocked when they found out that the contract was all but sealed," Fiscus told the TV station.
An Atlanta-based GOP political consultant contacted Republican Gov. Bill Lee's chief of staff, who then put him in touch with Piercey, who quickly signed off on the deal with Nomi Health despite what Fiscus describes as some obvious red flags.
"Unproven company dropping equipment off at the lab that the lab didn't vet," Fiscus said. "I think just a lack of understanding about what a lab of that quality has to go through to prove that the testing that it's doing is reliable."
Utah businessman Mark Newman pivoted his company, Nomi Health, into the test-making business early in the pandemic, but Fiscus said the point person for the deal stumbled during one of the first presentations before Tennessee's testing experts.
"He eventually said, 'Well, you know, we've only been doing this about four weeks,'" Fiscus said. "'I'm actually a Ring doorbell guy.'"
Fiscus alerted Piercey that the deal should be called off immediately because "it's a disaster."
"The optics of doing this are going to be horrible when we start testing minority populations with substandard testing," Fiscus said in a text to the health commissioner. "We have got to stop this."
Fiscus and others warned the tests were likely to produce false negatives, and she said they could not be used for HUD housing residents or other minority populations, but she was alarmed by Piercey's response.
"I wouldn't suggest that you use it in those populations," Piercey said by phone, according to Fiscus. "Use it in a healthier population, like college kids."
Fiscus said she was "appalled" and considered resigning over the situation, although the contract was eventually terminated -- with a $6 million taxpayer buyout to Nomi -- after the state's health laboratory confirmed the tests were too unreliable for use.
"She was going to put everything out to make sure that this contract went through and was successful -- and it didn't matter that the test was garbage, that the PPE was garbage," Fiscus said. "It was a $26 million contract -- none of that mattered. None of that mattered."
Dr. Michelle Fiscus, who was fired this month as the state's top immunization official in a dispute over vaccinating teens, said she was shocked by the $26.5 million deal -- and even further shocked by health commissioner Lisa Piercey's reaction when the tests turned up false negative results as health officials had warned, reported WTVF-TV.
"I think everyone was pretty shocked when they found out that the contract was all but sealed," Fiscus told the TV station.
An Atlanta-based GOP political consultant contacted Republican Gov. Bill Lee's chief of staff, who then put him in touch with Piercey, who quickly signed off on the deal with Nomi Health despite what Fiscus describes as some obvious red flags.
"Unproven company dropping equipment off at the lab that the lab didn't vet," Fiscus said. "I think just a lack of understanding about what a lab of that quality has to go through to prove that the testing that it's doing is reliable."
Utah businessman Mark Newman pivoted his company, Nomi Health, into the test-making business early in the pandemic, but Fiscus said the point person for the deal stumbled during one of the first presentations before Tennessee's testing experts.
"He eventually said, 'Well, you know, we've only been doing this about four weeks,'" Fiscus said. "'I'm actually a Ring doorbell guy.'"
Fiscus alerted Piercey that the deal should be called off immediately because "it's a disaster."
"The optics of doing this are going to be horrible when we start testing minority populations with substandard testing," Fiscus said in a text to the health commissioner. "We have got to stop this."
Fiscus and others warned the tests were likely to produce false negatives, and she said they could not be used for HUD housing residents or other minority populations, but she was alarmed by Piercey's response.
"I wouldn't suggest that you use it in those populations," Piercey said by phone, according to Fiscus. "Use it in a healthier population, like college kids."
Fiscus said she was "appalled" and considered resigning over the situation, although the contract was eventually terminated -- with a $6 million taxpayer buyout to Nomi -- after the state's health laboratory confirmed the tests were too unreliable for use.
"She was going to put everything out to make sure that this contract went through and was successful -- and it didn't matter that the test was garbage, that the PPE was garbage," Fiscus said. "It was a $26 million contract -- none of that mattered. None of that mattered."
from under a rock
THE DAILY TRASH REPORT
proof that stupidity is not accidental
Profanity-screaming anti-masker tells high school student she doesn’t care her family members died of COVID-19
Central Bucks School District in Bucks County, Pennsylvania declining to mandate masks for kids ages 12 and below, a group of concerned students, parents, and health professionals gathered to protest and demand better COVID-19 safety measures in line with CDC recommendations — only to be met with anti-mask counter-protesters screaming "lies, "child abuse," and "my kids can't breathe."
RNC scamming their own donors with shady solicitations: 'These are predatory tactics'
Travis Gettys - RAW STORY
July 28, 2021
The Republican National Committee is preying on its own donors with dubious and duplicitous fundraising schemes.
The RNC sent out text messages and email this week to GOP supporters that made a fundraising request appear to be a "final notice" on an unpaid bill and urged them activate their "lifetime membership," while others falsely suggested contributions would support Donald Trump's lawsuit against social media companies, reported The Daily Beast.
"Taken all together, these are the kinds of predatory tactics you only see in the scammiest models," said Jordan Libowitz, communications director for government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
The new messages resemble shady schemes Republicans used in the last election cycle, including a late December email Donald Trump pushed out as he fought to overturn his loss, and raked in a half billion dollars between mid-October and the end of November.
"Since donors tend to be older and maybe less fluent with the internet, or can't see the fine print on their phone, these kinds of tricks seem intended to wring as much money out of a supporter as possible, regardless of that person's intent," Libowitz said.
The RNC set up a pre-selected option to make donations recur on a monthly basis, which is reportedly under investigation in at least four states, and donors who manage to navigate the tricky opt-out process are then smacked with a frantic pop-up graphic.
"WAIT!" the full-page graphic reads. "The Radical Left is so happy that you unchecked that box. Don't give them what they want!"
Democratic solicitations connected to President Joe Biden use similar tactics, including non-existent deadlines and guilt tactics, although they're generally less aggressive and less frequent, and request much smaller gifts and do not pre-select the recurring donation option.
The RNC sent out text messages and email this week to GOP supporters that made a fundraising request appear to be a "final notice" on an unpaid bill and urged them activate their "lifetime membership," while others falsely suggested contributions would support Donald Trump's lawsuit against social media companies, reported The Daily Beast.
"Taken all together, these are the kinds of predatory tactics you only see in the scammiest models," said Jordan Libowitz, communications director for government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
The new messages resemble shady schemes Republicans used in the last election cycle, including a late December email Donald Trump pushed out as he fought to overturn his loss, and raked in a half billion dollars between mid-October and the end of November.
"Since donors tend to be older and maybe less fluent with the internet, or can't see the fine print on their phone, these kinds of tricks seem intended to wring as much money out of a supporter as possible, regardless of that person's intent," Libowitz said.
The RNC set up a pre-selected option to make donations recur on a monthly basis, which is reportedly under investigation in at least four states, and donors who manage to navigate the tricky opt-out process are then smacked with a frantic pop-up graphic.
"WAIT!" the full-page graphic reads. "The Radical Left is so happy that you unchecked that box. Don't give them what they want!"
Democratic solicitations connected to President Joe Biden use similar tactics, including non-existent deadlines and guilt tactics, although they're generally less aggressive and less frequent, and request much smaller gifts and do not pre-select the recurring donation option.
Bites from Real News
*7/28/2021*
*REVEALED: Supreme Court's 'shadow docket' favored religion and Donald Trump
A Reuters analysis of emergency applications over the past 12 months offers a glimpse into the full range of parties seeking urgent relief from the top U.S. judicial body through the shadow docket.
*The Right Wing Wants Misinformation and Manufactured Ignorance, Not Democracy In the ongoing flight from political and social responsibility, manufactured ignorance is the new face of submission.
by Henry A. Giroux, Truthout
*MOST POPULAR Fish fraud is rampant — and Subway's tuna scandal is just the tip of the iceberg
MATTHEW ROZSA
*SHE BLEW THE WHISTLE ON MILITARY SEXUAL ASSAULT, THEN CAME UNDER INVESTIGATION
Amy Braley-Franck, who has a hearing this week on her two-year suspension, says more needs to be done for victims
*Indigenous peoples Across the continent indigenous people demand a reckoning with brutal colonial history
From Canada to Colombia, protests erupt against legacies of violence, exploitation and cultural erasure
*No, the rich aren't like the rest of us: Michael Mechanic on the secret worlds of wealth
Author Michael Mechanic explains that the super-rich aren't happy — and their greed is poisoning our society
CHAUNCEY DEVEGA
*How Unemployment Insurance Fraud Exploded During the Pandemic
Bots filing bogus applications in bulk, teams of fraudsters in foreign countries making phony claims, online forums peddling how-to advice on identity theft: Inside the infrastructure of perhaps the largest fraud wave in history.
Costa Rican Gymnast Luciana Alvarado Puts On for the Culture With Black Lives Matter Tribute at Tokyo Olympics
The 18-year-old Costa Rican made sure her first trip to the Olympics would include a powerful statement.
ByJay Connor - the root
7/27/2021
Much has been said about the International Olympic Committee’s decision to ban athletes from kneeling or protesting during the Tokyo Olympics. But despite Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter explicitly stating that “no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas,” Costa Rican gymnast Luciana Alvarado still found a way to deliver a powerful statement to the entire world.
NBC News reports that after completing her floor routine, Alvarado, the first gymnast from Costa Rica to qualify for the Olympics, took a knee, put her left hand behind her back, and raised her right fist into the air.
NBC Olympics lauded the demonstration as “the first of its kind on an international stage in elite gymnastics,” and while the 18-year-old’s 12.166 score wasn’t enough to push her forward to the finals, she took tremendous pride in using her platform to “highlight the importance of equal rights on a global stage and champion treating all with respect and dignity,” as she told the Associated Press.
“We’re all the same,” she said. “We’re all beautiful and amazing.”
For those wondering if Alvarado’s Black Lives Matter tribute will incite the wrath of the IOC, it’s unlikely since she was clever enough to incorporate her powerful gesture into her routine. And considering the wave of anti-Black rulings handed down by Olympic governing bodies prior to the Olympics, as well as the lengths that many feel that the Olympics have gone to make Black athletes feel unwelcome in Tokyo, this is exactly the type of energy we need more of.
“I think it was a beautiful sentiment because it just isn’t our fight here,” Black News Channel anchor Shannon LaNier said. “This is a global issue that we’re facing. I hope more people understand that and see the need for that unification and support.”
NBC News reports that after completing her floor routine, Alvarado, the first gymnast from Costa Rica to qualify for the Olympics, took a knee, put her left hand behind her back, and raised her right fist into the air.
NBC Olympics lauded the demonstration as “the first of its kind on an international stage in elite gymnastics,” and while the 18-year-old’s 12.166 score wasn’t enough to push her forward to the finals, she took tremendous pride in using her platform to “highlight the importance of equal rights on a global stage and champion treating all with respect and dignity,” as she told the Associated Press.
“We’re all the same,” she said. “We’re all beautiful and amazing.”
For those wondering if Alvarado’s Black Lives Matter tribute will incite the wrath of the IOC, it’s unlikely since she was clever enough to incorporate her powerful gesture into her routine. And considering the wave of anti-Black rulings handed down by Olympic governing bodies prior to the Olympics, as well as the lengths that many feel that the Olympics have gone to make Black athletes feel unwelcome in Tokyo, this is exactly the type of energy we need more of.
“I think it was a beautiful sentiment because it just isn’t our fight here,” Black News Channel anchor Shannon LaNier said. “This is a global issue that we’re facing. I hope more people understand that and see the need for that unification and support.”
At Least Two Dead, Dozens Inured in Houston Chemical Plant Leak
DANGEROUS FUMES
Barbie Latza Nadeau - Correspondent-At-Large
Published Jul. 28, 2021 8:32AM ET
DAILY BEAST CHEAT SHEET
Two people are confirmed dead and dozens injuries after an acetic acid leak at the LyondellBasell chemical plant in suburban Houston early Wednesday morning. At least six of the injured were taken to area hospitals with burns related to breathing or coming into contact with the chemical. LyondellBasell officials told local media that the acid is used in food-grade vinegar and is considered dangerous if swallowed or inhaled. It is unclear how the leak happened.
England to Open Quarantine-Free Travel to Vaccinated Americans
BON VOYAGE
Tom Sykes - Royalist Correspondent
Updated Jul. 28, 2021 9:00AM ET
DAILY BEAST CHEAT SHEET
Pack your bags for that trip to London: England will begin to allow fully vaccinated travelers from the United States to visit the country without having to quarantine on arrival. The move, which will allow trans-Atlantic visits for the first time since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, has been the subject of apparent briefings to British newspapers and was alluded to by Prime Minister Boris Johnson in an interview with LBC radio that aired Wednesday before the announcement. Johnson said: “We want people to be able to come from the U.S. freely in a way that they normally do.” The changes to travel rules, which would also see England extend quarantine-free travel to most vaccinated European arrivals, could be implemented as soon as next week. Currently, only arrivals from a small number of countries on a “green list” are able to avoid home quarantine. Johnson also urged Britons to get vaccinated, saying that getting jabbed would make accessing “travel” and “mass events” easier. Shares in British Airways’ parent group IAG jumped 4 percent on the speculation.
Alaska 17-Year-Old Stuns Herself, the World With 100m Breaststroke Gold
HOMETOWN HERO
Blake Montgomery - Reporter/Editor
Updated Jul. 27, 2021 12:35AM ET
DAILY BEAST CHEAT SHEET
Lydia Jacoby, the first Alaskan to ever compete in Olympic swimming, won a stunning victory in the 100-meter breaststroke Monday night in Tokyo, beating the world record holder and clinching a gold medal at just 17. Jacoby herself appeared shocked at her victory in the moments following the race. The teenager edged out heavily favored competitors Tatiana Schoenmaker of South Africa and fellow American Lilly King in the final stretch of the race. King holds the world record in the event and won the gold at the 2016 Rio de Janiero Olympics. Video from Seward, Alaska, where Jacoby lives, showed a gymnasium full of supporters getting hype for the hometown hero as she took gold.
*What's Inside*
*ANSWERING THE DUMB RESPONSES TO "WHY WE'RE SO FUCKING ANGRY AT THE UNVACCINATED" BY THE RUDE PUNDIT(AMERIKKKANS)
*BIDEN HAS TO PLAY HARDBALL WITH INTERNET PLATFORMS
(WORTHLESS MEDIA)
*POVERTY WAGES AND TAX DODGING FUNDED BEZOS’S RIDICULOUS SPACE TRIP
(CORPORATE CRIMINALS)
*WE FOUND THE TEXTBOOKS OF SENATORS WHO OPPOSE THE 1619 PROJECT AND SUDDENLY EVERYTHING MAKES SENSE(EDUCATION)
*FOX NEWS EDITS VP HARRIS WORDS TO JUSTIFY ANTI-VAXXERS
(WORTHLESS MEDIA)
*DRASTIC MEASURES NEEDED TO CURB PLASTIC POLLUTION IN OCEANS BY 2050
(ENVIRONMENT)
*THE DEMOCRAT BLOCKING PROGRESSIVE CHANGE IS BEHOLDEN TO BIG OIL. SURPRISED?
(SELLOUTS)
*PATRIOT WILL GET VACCINATED IF THE SUNLIGHT HE’S SHOOTING UP HIS ASS DOESN’T WORK FIRST
(FUNNIES)
*HISTORIAN: REPUBLICAN CULTURE WAR FIGHT DRIVEN BY NEED TO HIDE A BASIC FACT ABOUT AMERICAN HISTORY(HISTORY)
*A SUPREME COURT RULING THAT'S RIGHT OUT OF THE 19TH CENTURY
(SLAVERY 21ST CENTURY)
*GOP VOTERS ARE BEING FLEECED AND EVEN KILLED BY THE CONSERVATIVE GRIFT 'MACHINE': COLUMNIST(SUCKERS)
*MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS CAN'T AFFORD RENT ANYWHERE IN AMERICA
(AMERICA)
*OIL AND GAS HEIR FUNDING SUPER PAC ATTACKING NINA TURNER
(PROGRESSIVES)
*COMPLETE FAILURE — THE MEDIA'S CRITICAL RACE THEORY DEBACLE GETS WORSE
REGURGITATING THE GOP(WORTHLESS MEDIA)
*CEOS MADE 299 TIMES THE SALARY OF WHAT THE MEDIAN EMPLOYEE RECEIVED: ANALYSIS
(SLAVERY 21ST CENTURY)
*late news of interest*
The Filibuster: What Jefferson, Madison and others thought about majority rule
By DIGITAL FIRST MEDIA and RYAN TEAGUE BECKWITH | Mercury News
PUBLISHED: January 2, 2013 at 5:59 a.m. | UPDATED: August 12, 2016
Both the argument against the filibuster and the ways it may be changed hinge on interpretations of majority rule. Here are six historical precedents.
The Senate will vote on changes to the filibuster Thursday. Both the argument against the filibuster and the ways it may be changed hinge on interpretations of majority rule.
Opponents of the filibuster argue that in its current incarnation, it essentially requires 60 votes for anything to get done, which they consider undemocratic. They also argue that the rules of the Senate can be changed by a simple majority.
Supporters of the filibuster argue that it protects the rights of the minority in the Senate. They also argue that Senate rules can only be changed by a two-thirds majority, or 67 votes.
Below are six historical precedents for and against majority rule in Congress which may come up.
The U.S. Constitution
What is it: The document ratified by the states in 1789 which set up the rules for the federal government.
What it says: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member. … The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”
What it means: The Constitution never states that the Senate must be run by simple majority and says each chamber may write its own rules. But it also refers to senators being “equally divided,” which could not happen with a supermajority.Federalist Paper No. 22
Kingsacademy
What is it: A 1787 tract on the Constitution by Alexander Hamilton, a member of the Constitutional Convention.
What it says: “If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated.”
What it means: Hamilton argues that the requirement for a supermajority allows a minority to delay legislation improperly and force unpopular compromises.Federalist Paper No. 58
Lakeforest
What is it: A 1788 tract discussing the size of the House written by James Madison, the document’s main drafter.
What it says: “In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.”
What it means: Madison argues that any procedure that requires a supermajority actually empowers the minority, since it only takes 41 percent of lawmakers to stop a bill, and he says this is undemocratic.Manual of Parliamentary Practice
Wikimedia
What is it: An 1801 manual on parliamentary procedure in the Senate written by Thomas Jefferson.
What it says: “No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. … The voice of the majority decides. For the lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, elections, &c. where not otherwise expressly provided.”
What it means: First, Jefferson argues that no senator can speak for longer than necessary. Later, he argues that simple majority rule (lex majoris partis) is the basic guiding principle for legislative votes.United States v. Ballin
Csmonitor
What is it: A unanimous 1892 Supreme Court decision on the rules of the House.
What it says: “The other branch of the question is whether, a quorum being present, the bill received a sufficient number of votes; and here the general rule of all parliamentary bodies is that, when a quorum is present, the act of a majority of the quorum is the act of the body. This has been the rule for all time, except so far as in any given case the terms of the organic act under which the body is assembled have prescribed specific limitations. As, for instance, in those states where the constitution provides that a majority of all the members elected to either house shall be necessary for the passage of any bill. No such limitation is found in the federal constitution, and therefore the general law of such bodies obtains.”
What it means: The court ruled that since the Constitution does not mention any special requirements, the presumption is that it only takes a simple majority to pass any regular legislation.Gordon v. Lance
Thenation
What is it: A 7-2 Supreme Court decision in 1971 on a West Virginia law requiring 60 percent approval on some referenda.
What it says: “Certainly any departure from strict majority rule gives disproportionate power to the minority. But there is nothing in the language of the Constitution, our history, or our cases that requires that a majority always prevail on every issue.”
What it means: Since the Framers of the Constitution did not specify that majority rule is required in the Senate, then it is not necessarily unconstitutional.
The Senate will vote on changes to the filibuster Thursday. Both the argument against the filibuster and the ways it may be changed hinge on interpretations of majority rule.
Opponents of the filibuster argue that in its current incarnation, it essentially requires 60 votes for anything to get done, which they consider undemocratic. They also argue that the rules of the Senate can be changed by a simple majority.
Supporters of the filibuster argue that it protects the rights of the minority in the Senate. They also argue that Senate rules can only be changed by a two-thirds majority, or 67 votes.
Below are six historical precedents for and against majority rule in Congress which may come up.
The U.S. Constitution
What is it: The document ratified by the states in 1789 which set up the rules for the federal government.
What it says: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member. … The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”
What it means: The Constitution never states that the Senate must be run by simple majority and says each chamber may write its own rules. But it also refers to senators being “equally divided,” which could not happen with a supermajority.Federalist Paper No. 22
Kingsacademy
What is it: A 1787 tract on the Constitution by Alexander Hamilton, a member of the Constitutional Convention.
What it says: “If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated.”
What it means: Hamilton argues that the requirement for a supermajority allows a minority to delay legislation improperly and force unpopular compromises.Federalist Paper No. 58
Lakeforest
What is it: A 1788 tract discussing the size of the House written by James Madison, the document’s main drafter.
What it says: “In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.”
What it means: Madison argues that any procedure that requires a supermajority actually empowers the minority, since it only takes 41 percent of lawmakers to stop a bill, and he says this is undemocratic.Manual of Parliamentary Practice
Wikimedia
What is it: An 1801 manual on parliamentary procedure in the Senate written by Thomas Jefferson.
What it says: “No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. … The voice of the majority decides. For the lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, elections, &c. where not otherwise expressly provided.”
What it means: First, Jefferson argues that no senator can speak for longer than necessary. Later, he argues that simple majority rule (lex majoris partis) is the basic guiding principle for legislative votes.United States v. Ballin
Csmonitor
What is it: A unanimous 1892 Supreme Court decision on the rules of the House.
What it says: “The other branch of the question is whether, a quorum being present, the bill received a sufficient number of votes; and here the general rule of all parliamentary bodies is that, when a quorum is present, the act of a majority of the quorum is the act of the body. This has been the rule for all time, except so far as in any given case the terms of the organic act under which the body is assembled have prescribed specific limitations. As, for instance, in those states where the constitution provides that a majority of all the members elected to either house shall be necessary for the passage of any bill. No such limitation is found in the federal constitution, and therefore the general law of such bodies obtains.”
What it means: The court ruled that since the Constitution does not mention any special requirements, the presumption is that it only takes a simple majority to pass any regular legislation.Gordon v. Lance
Thenation
What is it: A 7-2 Supreme Court decision in 1971 on a West Virginia law requiring 60 percent approval on some referenda.
What it says: “Certainly any departure from strict majority rule gives disproportionate power to the minority. But there is nothing in the language of the Constitution, our history, or our cases that requires that a majority always prevail on every issue.”
What it means: Since the Framers of the Constitution did not specify that majority rule is required in the Senate, then it is not necessarily unconstitutional.
