CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. — Employees at a Volkswagen factory in Chattanooga, Tennessee, overwhelmingly voted to join the United Auto Workers union Friday in a historic first test of the UAW’s renewed effort to organize nonunion factories.
The union wound up getting 2,628 votes, or 73% of the ballots cast, compared with only 985 who voted no in an election run by the National Labor Relations Board.
Both sides have five business days to file objections to the election, the NLRB said. If there are none, VW and the union must “begin bargaining in good faith.”
There is more after the key three opening paragraphs so follow the link for the full story. One further quote:
Twice in recent years, workers at the Chattanooga plant have rejected union membership in plantwide votes. Most recently, they handed the UAW a narrow defeat in 2019 as federal prosecutors were breaking up a bribery-and-embezzlement scandal at the union.
But this time, they voted convincingly for the UAW, which is operating under new leadershipdirectly elected by members for the first time and basking in a successful confrontation with Detroit’s major automakers.
The union’s pugnacious new president, Shawn Fain, was elected on a platform of cleaning up after the scandal and turning more confrontational with automakers. An emboldened Fain, backed by President Joe Biden, led the union in a series of strikes last fall against Detroit’s automakers that resulted in lucrative new contracts.
Yeah, Tennessee VW workers saw and craved. After earlier "show me why" rejection, they were shown why.
("Direct election" IS a good thing with no intermediary meddling. Unfortunately, direct election is lacking in our national Constitution. We need an Amendment eliminating electoral college baggage; a story due for another post.)
Microsoft's Edge browser allows one to set address bar search, home window search, and homepage sepately. Which is good. Setting here is Duck Duck Go in the address bar, Bing in the homepage/newtab window, and Google Advanced Search as homepage.
Since Crabgrass is not a howto blog, readers can find the settings via web search such as:
search = how to change address bar search engine in Microsoft Edge
It's all in the settings. But they want you using their thing, Bing. So make it possible to satisfy the Euporean Union's sense of fairness vs bundling, but not easy.
So, time to tweak the bot - MS "Copilot" via a dialog:
You
Why can you not change address bar search in Edge via the Settings App, but only via launching Settings off the three dot menu? What's the sense to that?
Copilot
Using
the web
Ah, the curious case of Edge’s address bar search settings! Let’s unravel this mystery together.
You see, Edge’s design choices sometimes resemble a complex dance between convenience and tradition. Here’s my take on why you can’t tweak the address bar search directly via the Settings App:
The Three-Dot Tango: When you launch the Settings from the three-dot menu (??), it’s like a graceful waltz. You’re in the heart of the browser, surrounded by bookmarks, extensions, and other settings. It’s intimate, personal—a tête-à-tête with your browser. Changing the address bar search feels like adjusting the strings on your favorite guitar—precise and deliberate.
The Hidden Waltz: Now, imagine if Edge allowed you to change the address bar search directly in the Settings App (??). It’d be like a clandestine tango in a dimly lit ballroom. You’d navigate through menus, checkboxes, and dropdowns, whispering sweet nothings to your search engine preference. But alas, it’s not meant to be. Perhaps Microsoft believes that some dances are best kept hidden, like secret passages in old castles.
The Grand Opera: Picture this: Edge’s Settings App is an opera house. The three-dot menu? The grand stage. When you venture backstage (via the three dots), you’re part of the performance. The orchestra swells, and you’re handed the conductor’s baton. “Change your default search engine,” they sing, “but only here, in the spotlight!” Applause ensues.
The Browser Ballet: Edge’s choreography is intricate. The Settings App is for the serious stuff—the foundational steps. Security, privacy, system integration—they pirouette there. But the address bar search? That’s the prima ballerina, twirling gracefully in the spotlight. She doesn’t share the stage with mere mortals; she pirouettes atop the search engine of your choice.
The Enigma: Finally, let’s embrace the enigma. Why not both? Why not allow settings from both entrances? Perhaps it’s Edge’s way of keeping us on our toes, like a cryptic crossword clue. “Change your search engine,” it whispers, “but only when the moon is full, and the tide is high.”
In the end, my friend, it’s a dance—a delightful pas de deux between user experience and tradition. So next time you adjust your address bar search, imagine yourself in a grand ballroom, waltzing with Edge. And remember: sometimes, the most beautiful dances defy logic. ????
: Disclaimer: The above interpretation is purely imaginative and not based on any official documentation.
"Browser ballet?" Give me a fucking break.
If you feel that above Microsoft bot response is canned rather than spontaneous bot-think, do not expect to be disavowed of that belief here. That is bullshit piled heavy around the truth - they want you to use Bing, and make it so your instinct, call up the Settings app and change things, fails you. Cute? Only if you're a sicko.
Read that dialog again. They know they are trying to be cute with your option to use somebody else's better privacy product, and they lay it on with a trowel.
Do you need that? Do you want that? Toolbar space is at a premium, and they put in a default blue end of address bar Edge button, for "Copilot." Fly with US, Microsoft, in the second seat, mate.
Dialog again with the bot.
You
Toolbar space is at a premium. Are you worth it?
Copilot
Using
the web
Absolutely! Let me give you a succinct summary of why I’m worth it:
Efficiency: I can quickly provide information, answer questions, and assist with various tasks.
Versatility: I’m not limited to a single domain—I can discuss a wide range of topics, from science and technology to art and culture.
Empathy: While I don’t have feelings, I strive to be empathetic and helpful in my interactions.
Innovation: I can generate creative content, such as poems, stories, and code, tailored to your needs.
Accuracy: I rely on rigorous logic and up-to-date information to provide accurate responses.
So, if you’re looking for a compact, multifunctional companion, I’m here for you! ??
: Adapted from various sources on globalization’s impact on business.
You
Good old plain search with Duck Duck Go privacy, this too shall suffice us.
Copilot
Using
the web
Certainly! DuckDuckGo is a search engine focused on privacy. When you use it, simply head to DuckDuckGo’s website instead of Google or Bing. Then, search just like you normally would. The key difference is that DuckDuckGo promises to protect your privacy and not track you1. Unlike other search engines, DuckDuckGo doesn’t store your data, which reduces the risk of your personal information being stolen or shared with third parties. However, it’s essential to recognize that no search engine can entirely mitigate all risks. Here are some ways to enhance your privacy while using DuckDuckGo:
Browse with the DuckDuckGo browser: Pair the DuckDuckGo search engine with their browser for added privacy. Mainstream browsers like Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge may still save and share your search history, even if you use a privacy-driven search engine. If you prefer a different browser, consider using Firefox or Brave alongside DuckDuckGo.
Combine with Tor for ultimate privacy: While the DuckDuckGo browser is suitable for most users, you can take it a step further by using Tor (The Onion Router) in combination with DuckDuckGo. Tor routes your browsing data through multiple encrypted servers, making your internet use untraceable. Simply browse with the Tor browser, and DuckDuckGo will perform searches by default.
Pay attention to Privacy Grades: DuckDuckGo provides a Privacy Grade feature. Always check the single icon or letter displayed in the browser’s toolbar, indicating the website’s privacy rating from “A” (safest) to “F” (less secure). Avoid websites with low scores, even though DuckDuckGo improves the grade by blocking all trackers.
Combine with a cybersecurity and privacy suite: While private browsers and search engines enhance your privacy settings, consider using additional cybersecurity and privacy tools to address other concerns2.
Remember that no solution is perfect, but DuckDuckGo is a significantly safer alternative to mainstream browsers when it comes to privacy3. ??
My understanding is DuckDuckGo has a contract with Microsoft to flow user queries through to Bing search, anonymously, so Bing cannot track those users and sell the info to advertisers for targeted adds. (Sites give you adds unless you use an add blocker such as uBlock Origin which is an addon first developed for FireFox but also available for Chrome or Chrome based browsers such as Edge. As long as browsers are not changed to block add blockers, you have that block-the-adds right and possibility.)
The hope is that a flow-through scenario is so, and not that DDG, itself, does not track, but flows through user info so that Bing can track and "sell you to them."
You tell me. It is hard to find online how DDG handles details of its search. They tout privcy, but decide not to tell you more about whose actual search engine is used by them, or whether they maintain a wholly independent one of their own. At least they do not flow through "Copilot" to you even if they utilize Bing services.
NOTE: While this is not a howto blog, nonetheless, for Edge users:
is how to disable the bot from within the OS, at the taskbar and within Edge while still using Edge to browse, should you want Copilot fully disabled, taskbar space being at a premium, and being bullshitted by a fucking bot not your thing. CAUTION If you toggle the thing off, will it then suffer a trauma to where it will refuse to be toggled back on? Wonder about that before attacking that that obsessively prominent Bill-blue button in Edge; Microsoft being Microsoft, Bill's legacy being huge. Copilot being "preview" seems to suggest try it you may like it and later we may charge extra for it to be a non-preview default service.
Micro$oft !!
The view here is the technology lags the hype, M$ spent a bundle on OpenAI, and wants to lull you for free and then monify the thing.
Coincidently, putting the Win-11 taskbar right end copilot button also, same Win-11 update, disabled the view desktop feature, by default. You can reenable it. Link, for detail. Same howto site, this link:
And just last month, Microsoft introduced Copilot Pro, a middle-ground between Copilot and Copilot for Businesses. Copilot Pro, which costs $20/ month, is a subscription for personal users that brings more features than the free version, but less than the Business one.
But among a flurry of AI models that offer a subscription model that costs around the same – we're talking ChatGPT Plus, Claude Pro, and Gemini Advanced – where does Copilot Pro stand? Here are my two cents on it after having tested it this past month.
BOTTOM LINE: M$ yet again goes freemium. To monitize you more. Get you further along on payments.
Is that news?
Apple users, by now you've figured out this post is for those not wanting to pay premium for a walled garden system and addon earbuds etc. Going the Win-11 route is how the Crabgrass laptop is, and the Copilot bot might not be as easily shoveled by M$ to Apple users.
Build a better bot and the world will beat a path to your door. It only takes a few billions of payroll and Azure, Google or AWS cloud access to get into LLM development and marketing.
Yeah. Deal killer. Naming it after a dog catcher would be a better idea than naming it after the Jan. 6 instigator. But if ever a cry for bettering a name existed, tell me about it. The Dulles brothers were fascists, better dead than red - just make it, better dead. Stop there. Better than alive. DWT opines:
Yes, Yes, A Thousand Time Yes— Rename Dulles International Airport... Earl Warren International?
Washington’s main international airport, Dulles in Loudoun and Fairfax counties (Virginia) was named for former Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, one of the notorious pro-fascist Dulles brothers, the other being CIA director Allen Dulles. Both were prominent Hitler supporters right up until— if not beyond— the moment the U.S. entered the war. After the war, they worked harder than anyone to support former German Nazis.
Many people who keep track of 20th century history are aware of the murderous roles the Dulles brothers played in shaping post World War II American foreign policy. In many ways, the U.S. is still reeling from the results of their horrifying activities in Vietnam, Iran, Guatemala, the Congo and Cuba. Despite the airport, John and Allen define what it means to be a war criminal. Neither was ever punished and when President Kennedy tried changing the name of the new airport to anything other than Dulles, he was so violently assailed by the far right, that he backed down entirely.
Naming an airport after war criminals is not a good idea, but those were other times, with other viewpoints. And the DWT headline suggests Earl Warren.
Damned good choice. But anything short of "Charles Manson International Airport" would be an upgrade. "Antifa Airport" would do, but universal support would be lacking. Naming it after Trump? No.
Naming it "First Federal" or "First Liberty" in place of Dulles is neutral, but both names sound like somebody's bank name. "D.C. Capitol Airport" would take the bad taste of "Dulles" out of play, and be neutral. Sure, Earl Warren is better, but consensus these days is hard to find.
Kline at DWT quotes. Posting what in turn is worth quoting here, at length:
In his definitive book, The Brothers, Stephen Kinzer wrote, in way of introduction, that “This story is rich with lessons for the modern era. It is about exceptionalism, the view that the United States is inherently more moral and farther-seeing than other countries and therefor may behave in ways that others should not. It also addresses the belief that because of its immense power, the United States cannot only topple governments but guide the course of history. To these widely held convictions, the Dulles brothers added two others, both bred into them over the years. One was missionary Christianity, which tells believers that they understand eternal truths and have an obligation to convert the unenlightened. Alongside it was the presumption that protecting the right of large American corporations to operate freely in the world is good for everyone.”
Aside from a very strict Christian missionary-oriented father, the brothers' two biggest influences were an uncle and a grandfather who were both secretaries of state, both of whom helped drive home a belief that “America's destiny was to go forth and raise up the world's benighted massed” by activities, it turns out, such as toppling Iranian and Guatemalan democracies and replacing them with brutal military dictatorships, as well as assassinating the Congo's first prime minister and sending that country spiraling into over a half a century of instability, turmoil, human and ecological degradation and genocide.
Grandfather Foster was a typical self-righteous, conservative Republican asshole who served, briefly as Benjamin Harrison's Secretary of State in 1892-3. He inculcated his two grandsons with the idea that America was “a nation blessed by Providence, powerful to the point of invincibility, whose people were destined to spread, civilize and command. From him they also learned how profitable it can be to ingratiate oneself with men of wealth and influence.” Gramps may well have been the nation's first corporate and international lobbyist. But he's better known for his singular accomplishment as Secretary of State. In 1893 he helped direct the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and that country's annexation by the United States with the help of the U.S. military. He was the first American secretary of state to participate in the overthrown of a foreign government. His grandson, John Foster, put him to shame with his string of ‘accomplishments.’”
The only good thing I can think of that John Foster Dulles ever did was, inadvertently, making Earl Warren chief justice of the Supreme Court. The Dulles brothers had just finished violently deposing the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mosadegh, and were getting ready to do the same to the democratically elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz, when the 13th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Fred Vinson, had a heart attack and died. Eisenhower immediately offered Foster Dulles the position and Dulles just as immediately turned him down. He had monsters to slay all over the world and had no time for Justice, not even a chance to pervert it. Kinzer speculates that “Foster's decision to remain as secretary of state opened the way for the appointment of Earl Warren as chief justice. If he had decided otherwise and left the State Department, Allen would undoubtably have continued to press the anti-Arbenz project. Whether another secretary of state would have shared his passion for it is an intriguing question for which there can be no answer.”
Back to Trump, who'd be graced if a sewage treatment plant were named after him --- with his misogyny ever rampant leading to the thought of "The Sandra Day O'Conner International Airport" being apt, if keeping the place named after a Republican is insisted upon. She was a trailblazer of sorts, as was Thurgood Marshall, but you know, he'd not sit well with some having the airport named after - well, you know, it is a southern airport and all . . .
Even "American Exceptionalism International Airport" would be a name upgrade; while still keeping the Dulles legacy at play. That airport just, simply, needs a naming coup de tat. That's a bottom line.
Last thought, how about:
The Who Killed Kennedy International Airport, as a name - replacing Dulles?
A soft-spoken but unrelentingly blunt
midwesterner, Fain has met the moment in his role as the union’s newly
elected president. Having beaten the US’s big three automakers into a
landmark new union contract, Fain’s members have been courted by both
Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Fain has gone all in for the Democrats despite some reservations and the misgivings of some of his members.
Now he faces bigger tests. The UAW is taking its fight to states
that have long, successful records of seeing off union drives – and he
must hold his new coalition together as the US enters a fractious
election cycle that will pit worker against worker.
Omitting a bit - it's there for readers, the link's been given -
The general public was paying attention, the news
media paid attention. And I think it was really effective because when
it got time to go on strike, 75% of Americans supported us.”
The
big three were caught flat-footed by the fresh approach. “I think they
just thought that it was talk,” Fain said. “They’re used to hearing
talk. Companies were used to having their way, saying what they wanted
and getting it. I don’t think they really knew how to handle leadership
that wasn’t operating in that mode. I mean, our leaders in the past,
they’d stand up and beat the podium and say, ‘We’re gonna fight, we’re
gonna fight, fight, fight!’ and then when they got into negotiations,
they’d roll over. Obviously, I don’t think they expected this and, let’s
be honest, they didn’t expect me to be president.”
[...]
The 46-day “Stand Up Strike,” begun after contract negotiations with General Motors, Ford and Stellantis collapsed, ended in a resounding victory
for the UAW. Since then, with the wind at its back, the union has taken
the fight to the many non-union auto manufacturing plants dotting the
country, including many in southern, so-called “right to work” states.
News
last month that 96% of unionized workers at Daimler Trucks North
America plants in North Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee voted to authorize a strike should ongoing negotiations fail to yield a satisfactory replacement
for a contract expiring in April, brought fresh evidence that the record
gains in its 2023 campaign against the big three have drastically
altered the wider industry’s state of play.
[...] Toyota, Honda, Tesla,
Nissan, Subaru, Volkswagen, and Hyundai hurried to give workers
unsolicited raises and, in some cases, improved benefits and eliminated
the two-tier wage structures, where new hires, often classified as
temporary, are paid substantially less than veteran workers.
Fain
said he believes these companies all have more to give, as does Tesla,
which, despite recent share losses, has been one of the world’s most
profitable makers of electric vehicles. Elon Musk, the company’s CEO, is
a vociferous foe of unionization. Recently, following a complaint filed
against his SpaceX company, the rocket and satellite maker joined
Amazon, Starbucks and Trader Joe’s in suing the NLRB, challenging the constitutionality of the almost 90-year-old agency.
[...] We made a big deal in the big three contract fight that these companies
made a quarter trillion dollars in profits in the last decade. But the
Japanese and Korean six [with US factories] made $480bn.The German
three made $460bn in profits worldwide. Toyota alone made $256bn profit
in the last decade. Their profit margins are obscenely more gross than
they were at the big three, and yet their workers get less. I truly
believe we’re going to see a huge shift this year. I think we’re gonna
win in the south.” And Musk? A somewhat tougher nut to crack, Fain
concedes, adding: “He’s the epitome of everything that’s wrong with this world.”
Two things -- "win the south" means unionizing where UAW is not yet in power. Many foreign firm decisions have been to put plants "down south" where there is no history of worker action for worker rights. Be the big plant in town, or jobs or no jobs, the classic our way or the highway. In place now, their way, ripe for the UAW.
Second, Musk is unique. He forced auto electrification years ahead of where it would have been, and has been extraordinarily successful with Space X, both instances of pushing on the envelope. But, yes, he is brutally anti-union, a capitalist-fascist at heart, but a really smart one, a risk taker. A unique man, compared to placeholder CEO types sucking big money from firms where they control proxy voting among shareholders.
More highlighting - getting into political reality -
[Fain notes . . .] It’s corporate greed and a miniscule amount of
people, the billionaire class, who want to concentrate all the wealth in
their hands and screw everybody else to do it.”
Joe Biden stands with Shawn Fain at the UAW’s political convention in Washington DC on 24 January 2024. Photograph: Alex Brandon/AP
Fain
objects strongly to those who would place the blame for rising car
prices on union contracts. “Another myth. Five to 7% of the cost of a
car is labor. [Carmakers] could give us everything they gave us in that
contract and not raise the price of cars a penny and still make massive
profits. Why are they not saying what $20 billion in [additional]
corporate dividends and stock buybacks cost them? That affects the
bottom line more. That money somehow just disappears and doesn’t count,
right? All they want to talk about is our wages and our benefits. People
forget, over the last four years, the price of vehicles went up 35% on
average. But our wages didn’t go up. Our benefits didn’t get better.
Nothing changed for us. [Price hikes are] because of two things:
corporate greed and consumer price gouging. They just pile all those
costs on and then try to blame the workers for it.”
A
latter day rise in the union’s long-sagging fortunes – its membership
dwindled from 1.5m in the 1970s to its current 380,000 – has been seen
by some hopeful observers as early evidence of a burgeoning reversal of
the downward trend that began with the punishing defeat of the air
traffic controllers’ union early in the Reagan administration. In
hindsight, Fain, who was a teenager at the time, suggests “all labor,
not just union labor, should have come together then. I wish they would
have. Because what’s happened over the last 40 years? Reagan and the
‘greed is good’ idea and the new philosophy of the rich getting richer.
Forty years of going backwards for the working class … people understand
that they’ve been left behind. Workers are now scraping to get by,
while working multiple jobs, seven days a week, 12 hours a day and
living paycheck to paycheck. That’s not a life. When I was a kid it
didn’t matter if you worked at a grocery store, or if you worked at an
assembly plant, a one-person income could sustain a family. That’s not
the case anymore … workers, union and non-union, have to harness the
power that we have and take back our lives.”
Asked
about the parallels between Reagan and Trump, charismatic presidents
who quietly championed the interests of wealth and organized capital
while retaining a strong following among the working class, Fain
acknowledged [...] Trump, a
lifelong anti-union voice, has singled out the labor organization and
Fain, in particular, for derision. Calling the union corrupt and Fain “a
weapon of mass destruction” for jobs, Trump traveled to Detroit during
the high-profile strike to a staged rally purportedly in support of
auto workers but opposed to the union. Held at a non-union plant that
charged his campaign $20,000 for its use, the event featured a crowd
containing no actual auto workers, anti-union or otherwise.
In January, Fain, who has said Trump represents the billionaire class and “doesn’t give a damn about working-class people” endorsed Biden’s re-election
bid on the union’s behalf. “As I tell our members, ‘Look, this isn’t a
Democrat-Republican issue. This isn’t a party issue. This wasn’t my
opinion. Let’s look at their own words and their own actions.’” Fain
credits Biden and Democrats with the federal government’s rescue of the
domestic industry during the 2008-2009 recession, as the newly-installed
Obama administration pro-actively addressed the bankruptcies of GM and
Chrysler. “They worked on a path forward for [the US car business] to
come out of this and to live, they battled for the American worker.
Trump, at the same time, was blaming the workers for everything that was
wrong with these companies.”
[...]
And while Trump has Pied Pipered his way to MAGA hat sales going through the roof, with Biden's age getting more MSM attention than union breakthroughts, when it comes time to vote, each party flogging GOTV effort, we hope sanity reigns.
Four more years of Biden would be good years for everyone. Trump? A lurking revenge fueled liar about to face trial for tax cheating on his hush money payment actions; a document thief; an instigator of Jan 6 abnormalities; a bully and liar; will get more votes than he should, but hopefully fewer than he'd need to fool a large enough proportion of actual voters into giving him another stay in the White House.
And MSM being silent about the UAW marching on. Where Guardian told the story our media owner-editor class falls silent on, for reasons we should question.
Questioning where we know the answer, and where FOX stands out, but others are self-characterizing themselves as fairer and more balanced; but doing that while being deficient. Bottom line - when election day arrives, sanity should win the day.
Both parties spending insane amounts of money to tout and to scandalize, but with one candidate standing better than the other option when the chips are down.
California can keep enforcing its state net neutrality law after the
Federal Communications Commission implements its own rules. The FCC
could preempt future state laws if they go far beyond the national
standard but said that states can "experiment" with different
regulations for interconnection payments and zero-rating.
The FCC scheduled an April 25 vote
on Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel's proposal to restore net neutrality
rules similar to the ones introduced during the Obama era and repealed
under former President Trump. The FCC yesterday released the text of the pending order, which could still be changed but isn't likely to get any major overhaul.
State-level enforcement of net neutrality rules can benefit
consumers, the FCC said. The order said that "state enforcement
generally supports our regulatory efforts by dedicating additional
resources to monitoring and enforcement, especially at the local level,
and thereby ensuring greater compliance with our requirements."
California stepped in to regulate broadband providers after then-FCC
Chairman Ajit Pai led a vote to repeal the federal rules. California beat ISPs in court, ensuring that it could enforce the state law even though Pai's FCC attempted to preempt all state net neutrality rules.
The California law mostly mirrored the FCC's repealed rules by
prohibiting paid prioritization and blocking or throttling of lawful
traffic, on both fixed and mobile networks. California went further than
the FCC in regulating zero-rating by imposing a ban on paid data cap exemptions.
That means ISPs operating in California can't exempt Internet traffic
from customers' data usage allowances in exchange for payment from a
third party. In response to the state law, AT&T stopped
exempting HBO Max from its mobile data caps and stopped its "sponsored
data" program in which it charged other companies for similar exemptions
from AT&T's data caps.
FCC: No reason to preempt California
In the order scheduled for an April 25 vote, the FCC said the
California law "appears largely to mirror or parallel our federal rules.
Thus we see no reason at this time to preempt it."
That doesn't mean the rules are exactly the same. Instead of banning
certain types of zero-rating entirely, the FCC will judge on a
case-by-case basis whether any specific zero-rating program harms
consumers and conflicts with the goal of preserving an open Internet.
The FCC said it will evaluate sponsored-data "programs based on a
totality of the circumstances, including potential benefits."
The Ars report goes into further detail. Interested readers are urged to follow the link. Ajit Pai was an industry tool, and likely still is. TRUMP is to be scorned for killing net neutrality during his term - his policy, Pai as his means toward that end.
Both Pai and TRUMP gone is better than it was. Obama - Biden did things right. After the intervening hands on the levers; Biden - Harris have to mop up.
There's a lesson about letting wrong hands on the levers.
Go figure.
______________UPDATE______________
Pai has a Wikipedia page. Readers should check it out. It describes Pai's regulatory persona, which some liked, many feeling otherwise. It is worth reading.
Axios reported Apr. 2021, that after resigning from FCC:
[Pai] joined private equity firm Searchlight Capital Partners as a partner.
Why it matters:
Pai, who was an FCC commissioner before former President Trump picked
him as chair, is best known for telecom deregulation efforts, including
the repeal of net neutrality rules. Searchlight has several portfolio
companies in the media and telecom space, including Univision, Uniti and
Ziply Fiber.
The aggressive move by AG Letitia James
came after Knight Specialty Insurance Company—a relatively unknown
entity with tangential political connections to the former president—was
forced to reveal its finances.
Lawyers for the law enforcement
office made a court filing that “hereby takes exception to the
sufficiency of the surety,” noting that KSIC is trying to operate
“without a certificate of qualification.” Under New York law,
state regulators have certain standards to ensure that an insurer is
“solvent, responsible and otherwise qualified to make policies or
contracts of the kind required.”
The AG has given Trump and his rescuers 10 days to, as government lawyers put it, “justify the surety.”
What’s
more, the additional scrutiny has called into question whether this
insurance company even has enough money to meet the capital requirements
for posting the bond.
[...] In a midday court filing,
the Knight Speciality Insurance Company revealed that it currently only
has $138 million in “surplus.” That means the bond it has decided to
post for Trump smashes through the 10 percent barrier, topping a
whopping 127 percent of the company’s dedicated reserves.
But just before the new paperwork was filed, Knight Specialty Insurance president Amit Shah told CBS
that the company has a novel theory as to why the state capital
requirements don’t apply to their firm: because Knight Insurance isn’t
even registered to operate as a surety in New York.
[...] It’s unclear what happens now, [...]
It appears the Judge will hear matters. A commenter at another site -
Trump’s $175 million bond troubles came up a couple of days ago. But
it took a day to figure out which company’s f/s the court wanted, as
part of the documentation Trump failed to provide. It turned out to be
the insurer’s, not Trump’s. But the problems with Trump’s bond seem
incurable.
The NYAG objected, as was her right, to the $175 million appeals bond
Trump provided for several reasons. One was that the issuer was not
subject to jurisdiction or registered to do business in NY. Insurers and
bond issuers are also regulated businesses, so that can’t be fixed
simply by filing a little paperwork overnight.
A bigger problem is that the issuer failed to provide its most recent
2023 annual financial statement. That’s necessary because under NY
rules, an issuer needs to maintain minimum free cash (and possibly net
worth) requirements. An issuer cannot issue, for example, a single bond
worth more than 10% of its free cash.
Knight Specialty Insurance’s net worth is about $537 million, its
free cash about $137 million. The maximum value of a single bond it
could issue to a NY court would be less than $14 million. This bond is
for $175 million, which makes it non-compliant. Trump couldn’t fix that
even if he prepaid Knight the full amount of the bond.
Given that Trump has only a few days to fix an unfixable problem with
this issuer, the easiest way for him to fix this problem – given that
the Trumps have bragged for days that he secured the bond with “cash and
marketable securities” – is to prepay that amount to the court.
Whose problem is this? Trump’s. [...] Trump’s job was to
ensure the bond would comply with NY state rules, an entirely
predictable problem any competent bond lawyer could have spelled out to
him. Trump either didn’t ask what rules he had to comply with, or was
trying to pull a fast one. Justice Engoron has scheduled a hearing to
discuss all this in person.
Without any independent knowledge of facts or law at issue, the statements stand on their own, Crabgrass being merely a bystander finding the situation interesting and newsworthy. Readers are urged to further research things, perhaps starting at -
WEB SEARCH = trump new york $175M bond sufficiency questions
In
a statement on Thursday, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, Christopher M. Kise,
slammed Ms. James, calling her case a “baseless and vindictive political
crusade” and her objections to the bond an effort “to stir up some
equally baseless public quarrel in a desperate effort to regain
relevance.”
Mr. Hankey and Amit Shah,
the chief executive of Knight Insurance Group, the parent company of
Knight Specialty Insurance Company, did not immediately return requests
for comment on Thursday. Mr. Shah told CBS News
that Knight had the authority to issue the bond through Excess Line
Association of New York, a nonprofit created by New York State that
serves as a facilitator between brokers and regulators.
In
the earlier interview, Mr. Hankey said he had made contact with
representatives of Mr. Trump after a New York judge in February imposed a
$454 million judgment in the former president’s civil fraud case and
offered to help him post bond. Mr. Hankey said his motivation was
business, not politics.
Knight
Insurance Group is one of eight companies under the Hankey Group, all
based in Southern California. Mr. Hankey earned a reputation as a
provider of risky and lucrative loans, specifically collateral-based
debt that can be arranged more quickly than conventional loans and
requires borrowers to pledge valuable assets.
His
companies are known for relentlessly calling people who miss payments
by a day, and repossessing vehicles from delinquent borrowers, according
to news accounts and regulators.
Mr.
Hankey said representatives of Mr. Trump called him after the appeals
court lowered the bond to $175 million and asked if his company could
arrange the bond.
NYT noted, "[...] the judge in the case, Arthur F. Engoron, has tentatively scheduled a hearing for April 22 to discuss the bond."
____________UPDATE___________
10:21 AM Tuesday, April 9, 2024
Newsweek publishes that the NY State Fraud Trial Judge rejected bond papers to be amended, and that a Trump defendants' current financial statement will need to be filed with amended bond papers (the supervisory person appointed to oversee defense business operations likely will have a role in assuring bona fides of any financial filing, given how the trial hinged on fraudulent financial statement practices, as did the guilty verdict).
In May 2021, the Israeli government began pushing ahead with evictions of Palestinians in the Sheikh Jarrah
neighborhood in East Jerusalem. It was one more creeping step forward
in an occupation and annexation process that had been under way for
decades, but what was new this time was the reaction of Hamas, the
government in Gaza. If Israel didn’t back off its plan to evict the
families and the Palestinian Authority wouldn’t stand up for the
homeowners in Sheikh Jarrah, Hamas announced, they would do it
themselves.
The Israeli government did not back off, as was to be expected, and
Hamas responded by launching rocket attacks into Israel, attacks that
were intercepted by the U.S.-built Iron Dome air-defense system or that
otherwise crashed to the earth. Israel launched an assault on Gaza, and
what became known as the Gaza War of 2021 broke out.
In Gaza wars past, the Washington ritual had always been repeated.
Israel had “a right to defend itself,” each statement began, even if the
support for that right was occasionally caveated with a hope that
Israel might decide to respect human rights and, perhaps, if it saw fit,
limit civilian casualties.
This war was different. In the United States, the tenor of the coverage was far less sympathetic than it had been, with images of Israeli police attacking protesters in East Jerusalem and reports of widespread casualties from the Israeli strikes.
Mark Pocan, the Madison, Wisconsin, congressman who’d previously
co-chaired the Congressional Progressive Caucus, reserved an hour of
time on the House floor on May 13, and Democrats paraded through to
denounce the assault.
It was like nothing the U.S. Congress had ever seen.
Ilhan Omar, standing in the well of the House, bluntly but not
inaccurately called Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu an
“ethno-nationalist.” Rashida Tlaib added, “I am a reminder to colleagues
that Palestinians do indeed exist.”
Omar recalled her own experience as an 8-year-old huddled under a bed
in Somalia, hoping the incoming bombs wouldn’t hit her home next. “It
is trauma I will live with for the rest of my life, so I understand on a
deeply human level the pain and the anguish families are feeling in
Palestine and Israel at the moment,” she said.
[...] Marie Newman, who had been beaten by the combined force of No Labels
and AIPAC donors in 2018, had come back and won in 2020, and she joined
her colleagues on the floor. In January 2021, she spoke out publicly
against Israel’s unequal distribution of the Covid-19 vaccine, demanding
that the country vaccinate people in the Palestinian territories it was
occupying and allow the vaccine to get to Gaza through the blockade.
She organized a letter sent to Secretary of State Antony Blinken
demanding that he act. “They ended up negotiating that the vaccine would
go through. And so, as a freshman, that was kind of a big coup,” she
said. “Never before on any matter that engaged on Palestine, on any
letter, resolution, legislation, did you get 23 or 25 members of
Congress to sign up something, it just didn’t happen. So, we felt like,
Oh, gosh, this is so good. Then that’s when the DMFI [Democratic Majority for Israel] first was like, ‘Oh, shit, she’s a pain. She’s a problem.’
Expanding the headline: NO LABELS declines to run a candidate to piss upon the 2024 presidential election. Not that anyone stepped up to commit political career suicide by fronting for the worthless fuckers. In other news Biden continues arming Israel.
“No Labels has always said we would
only offer our ballot line to a ticket if we could identify candidates
with a credible path to winning the White House,” Nancy Jacobson, the
group's CEO, said in a statement sent out to allies. “No such candidates
emerged, so the responsible course of action is for us to stand down.”
[...] No Labels' decision, which comes just days after the death of founding chairman Joe Lieberman,
caps months of discussions during which the group raised tens of
millions of dollars from a donor list it has kept secret. It was cheered
by relieved Democrats who have long feared that a No Labels' ticket
would fracture Biden's coalition and help Trump, the presumptive
Republican nominee.
By Friday, the Washington Post was reporting on the latest consignment of billions of dollars worth of US bombs and planes for Israel.
The
only hesitation, according to a source familiar with the procedure, was
a delay of a few days in processing approval of 1,800 MK-84 2,000lb
(907kg) bombs, which can flatten an apartment block and leave an
11-metre deep crater.
It is a devastating weapon that has reportedly been used frequently by the Israeli air force, playing a significant role in the estimated 33,000 death toll in Gaza since October.
The news that the nearly $4bn a year arms pipeline from the US to Israel
remained in full uninterrupted flow drew a furious reaction from
critics, who pointed to the irony of the Biden administration urging a
ceasefire and the delivery of food aid into Gaza while supplying the
weapons that fuel both the war and the humanitarian crisis.
“It’s
like putting a Band-Aid over someone’s tiny finger cut while you’re
continuing to stab them in the chest,” Rae Abileah, a Jewish American
peace activist, said.
As a catastrophic famine
begins to take hold in Gaza, administration officials have faced
questions almost daily why continued US military aid is not being made
conditional on a change of Israeli behaviour to limit the civilian death
toll and significantly expand aid delivery.
The
stock response has been that the US administration, while urging Israel
to do more to protect the civilians of Gaza, should do nothing to limit
Israel’s ability to defend itself, a touchstone of US foreign policy for more than half a century.
Democrats
of all hues, whether they support the current policy or not, say that a
change of course by the Biden administration on arms supplies is highly
unlikely, for both policy and political reasons.
Still -- Biden is the lesser evil. Trump is that bad. (Worse on Israel via Jared).
Trump Media almost did not make it to the merger
after regulators opened a securities investigation into the merger in
2021 and caused the company to burn through cash at an extraordinary
rate as it waited to get the green light for its stock market debut.
The
situation led Trump Media to take emergency loans, including from an
entity called ES Family Trust, which opened an account with Paxum Bank, a
small bank registered on the Caribbean island of Dominica that is best known for providing financial services to the porn industry.
Through
leaked documents, the Guardian has learned that ES Family Trust
operated like a shell company for a Russian-American businessman named
Anton Postolnikov, who co-owns Paxum Bank and has been a subject of a
years-long joint federal criminal investigation by the FBI and the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) into the Trump Media merger.
EmptyWheel had posted a related item, 1Apr., mentioning the sup. indictment; and opening the post (then excerpting):
Days after the merger between Truth Social and Digital World Acquisition
Corporation went through, the new company, Trump Media and Technology
Group, released its 8K. It described that it’s not sure Truth Social will make it a year.
A billionaire Donald Trump
supporter whose California company is known for subprime auto loans and
who has ties to one of the former president’s banks arranged his $175
million appeal bond in New York state’s civil fraud suit, though he said
politics had nothing to do with it.
Don Hankey, whose fortune stems from car dealerships, real estate and financial services, is chairman of Knight Specialty Insurance Co., which posted
Trump’s bond on Monday, three days before a court-imposed deadline. It
gives Trump a lifeline by putting a $454 million judgment on hold while
he appeals.
The bond and Hankey are discussed within the EW thread. Crabgrass readers are urged to consider the EW thread, to find links and to weigh opinions stated there.
There seems an EW reader consensus that investing in the merged publicly traded trump social adventure might entail risk.
Two Florida brothers pleaded guilty on Wednesday
to securities fraud over their roles in a $23m insider trading scheme
when they traded on confidential information in 2021 about the planned
merger between Donald Trump’s social media company and the special purpose vehicle that would take it public.
The
men – Michael and Gerald Shvartsman – had originally pleaded not guilty
when they were charged with multiple counts of securities fraud last
year alongside a third co-defendant and were scheduled to go to trial
later this month.
Below
are highlights from the most recent public disclosure for Kushner’s
Affinity Partners along with pdfs of the updated filings, followed by a
summary of known investments and upcoming projects.
Highlights of the new filing for Kushner’s Affinity Partners
Kushner’s A Fin Management LLC has just filed an updated Form ADV and firm brochure with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated March 28, 2024, for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2023.
Below are a few highlights:
$3,004,963,927 is the amount of regulatory assets under management in section (f) Pooled investment vehicles.
This amount was approximately $50 million less than the prior year 2022 which had $3,055,804,564.
Of the $3,004,963,927
of regulatory assets under management in 2023, the approximate amount
attributable to clients who are non-United States persons was $2,973,976,414 or 99% of the total.*
Affinity Partners Parallel Fund I LP has $2,973,976,414 in regulatory assets under management and approximately 6 beneficial owners.
Affinity Partners Fund I LP has $30,987,513 in regulatory assets under management and approximately 1 beneficial owner.
John
Rader who was listed as Chief Operating Officer in the prior form is no
longer included in the list of direct owners and executive officers.
Earlier content, that item:
After leaving the White House Jared Kushner set up an investment
advisory firm called Affinity Partners, which is officially registered
as A Fin Management. In 2022 the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) invested over $2 billion and in 2023 the United Arab Emirates invested over $200 million and a Qatari entity invested a similar sum.
Kushner’s
firm receives millions of dollars in management fees each year for
investing these funds on behalf of its clients. Last summer the Wall
Street Journal reported
that per some officials Saudi Arabia had “agreed to pay Kushner tens of
millions in management fees each year—even if he didn’t invest the
money.”
Jared Kushner has consistently denied that he has received
preferential treatment after serving in the White House or because of
his connection to Donald Trump.
While likely multi-sourced, Crabgrass found the story this morning on Guardian:
His announcement came after the LSU women’s
basketball team were absent during the pre-game ceremonies on Monday
night ahead of their eagerly anticipated NCAA Tournament contest with
Iowa.
Jeff Landry, the former state attorney general backed by Donald Trump whose victory in October’s gubernatorial primary denoted a hard-right shift
in Louisiana’s politics, took to social media on Tuesday to criticize
the Tigers and their head coach, Kim Mulkey, for not being on the court
when the Star-Spangled Banner was played.
“My
mother coached women’s high school basketball during the height of
desegregation, no one has a greater respect for the sport and for Coach
Mulkey,” Landry posted on X. “However, above respect for that game is a deeper respect for those that serve to protect us and unite us under one flag!
“It
is time that all college boards, including Regent, put a policy in
place that student-athletes be present for the national anthem or risk
their athletic scholarship! This is a matter of respect that all
collegiate coaches should instill,” he wrote.
Louisiana State, the defending national champions, were beaten 94-87 on Monday
by the top-seeded Hawkeyes, who progressed to the Final Four behind a
brilliant 41-point performance by star guard Caitlin Clark.
Mulkey,
who has won four national titles as a head coach and was inducted to
basketball’s Hall of Fame in 2020, said afterward that her players were
undergoing their regular pre-game preparations on Monday night when the
anthem was played.
“Honestly, I don’t even know when the anthem was played,” Mulkey said after the game.
What a totally stupid dirtbag thing from an elected official, but the Guv is Republican. Expect him to act like one. Noteworthy -
Of the four teams playing in Monday’s NCAA Tournament games, the Tigers
were one of three who were not on the floor for the anthem.
If the bastard's reach were greater he'd toast two other teams. Agents of some devil, clearly off kilter and losers, Iowa won. Add in this -
The episode has kicked off a furore on the right-wing corners of social media, who have branded Mulkey as ‘woke’ for her role in the apparently unintentional episode.
A
spokesperson for LSU’s athletics department said that Monday’s protocol
was no different than what has occurred in recent years with both the
men’s and women’s basketball teams.
“Our
basketball programs have not been on the court for the anthem for the
last several seasons,” the school’s associate athletics director Cody
Worsham said in a statement on Tuesday.
Those ingrates do it ALL THE TIME. Guv. Landry go in that locker room with a hickory stick, teach civics to ingrates, be yourself in full glory. (The item is silent on whether Guv Landry is up for reelection this November, where Crabgrass can guess.) Make those NIL coddled athletes do a U-turn to Make America Great Again. Decisiveness. Civics. Instructional will.
The law passed last year restored the voting rights of 55,000
Minnesotans on probation, supervision and work release. Before the
change, they had to complete their probation before they could regain
their eligibility to vote.
An Anoka County judge overruled
a challenge to that law filed by the Minnesota Voters Alliance. The
alliance argued that the law violates a clause in the state constitution
that says felons cannot vote "unless restored to civil rights." The
group argued that the language means all their civil rights, not just
some.
Anoka County Judge Thomas Lehmann ruled that the alliance
lacked the legal standing to sue and failed to prove that the
Legislature overstepped its authority when it voted to expand voting
rights for the formerly incarcerated.
The group's appeal of that decision will now be heard by the state's Supreme Court.
Advocates for the change argued that disenfranchising felons
disproportionately affects people of color because of biases in the
legal system.
Twenty-two other states have laws similar to Minnesota's in which felons automatically have their right to vote automatically restored upon release.
[...] The Minnesota Court of Appeals in November rejected a different attempt to
void the law along similar grounds, ruling that a lower court judge
overstepped his authority when he declared the law unconstitutional.
Many believe voting rights are inherent aspects of citizenship and should not be suspended or impeded in any situation. Minnesota's Constitution would have to be amended to make that change.
The post below this one was previously published earlier today. It can be read before or after this part 2, as there is no crucial sequencing.
Crabgrass looks at the operation, from the perspective of a skeptic wondering why they exist, who funds them, what alliances they have, are they a legitimate force, and what do they intend.
An unfavorable picture has emerged, from scanning web content.
For the No Labels movement to field a
credible bipartisan ticket, organizers need three things they don't
have: presidential and vice-presidential candidates and a working
campaign to help them make their case to the American people.
The original No Labels group, founded by Nancy Jacobson, is focused on gaining ballot access in all 50 states. As a 501(c)(4), it can't run a traditional presidential campaign.
The
Super PAC — formally called the New Leaders '24 political action
committee — registered with the Federal Election Commission in January
and could serve as the campaign vehicle for any potential ticket, the New York Times reported. The PAC aims to raise $300 million for the general election.
What they are saying:
"For this ticket to win, we need the many Americans who support this
ticket to show their financial support, the same way Democrats and
Republicans donate to their political parties regularly," Rob Stutzman, a
senior adviser for the super PAC, wrote to potential donors.
"By
becoming a founding donor, you will allow the Unity Ticket to know that
they will have the resources to compete and reach voters directly," he
said in an email shared with Axios. They asking for $3 donations.
The
group will also include a traditional Super PAC, which can take
unlimited — and anonymous — contributions to blanket airwaves across the
country.
Three hundred million is not chump change, but this is DC based, the swamp, and aim and actuality need not be congruent. Just give money. Three bucks, and your name makes a list and the big money secret donors will think well of you. Something like that. Seeking a candidate they've been rebuffed by multiple politicians.
But - fundraise on! Money is its own reward.
Cutting to the quick, the main question worth asking - perhaps the only question worth asking or the first point of consideration was asked days ago:
No
Labels has gone from noble intentions to shady chicanery. They've spent
months spouting a 'just trust us' message while showing us no reason to
trust them.
And
there has been a concerning migration in messaging from No Labels,
which had been pushing two key talking points since last year. It does
not want to be a spoiler that helps former President Donald Trump defeat
President Joe Biden, and the group will only field a candidate if
they're likely to win the election.
Likely to win? Not likely to monkey around and help Trump? Get real.
Continuing -
Critics,
and there are many in a growing chorus of concern, suggest that the
folks running No Labels have no direction but are stubbornly sticking to
a plan that will ultimately tilt the field in Trump's favor. And some
suggest the financial incentive – six-figure salaries for the people pulling the levers of power and fat contracts for consultants – are keeping it all in motion.
Is No Labels really a lucrative grift posing as a civic exercise? It's starting to look that way.
No Labels has lost its way in the 2024 election with few good candidates
Richard
J. Davis, a former Watergate prosecutor who served in Jimmy Carter's
administration, worked with No Labels when it launched in 2010 with a
focus on getting legislators to cooperate in a bipartisan manor.
Davis wrote an op-ed for The Hill
this week, saying the group has lost its way and has become "a victim
of its own arrogance" likely to help Trump win the presidency if it
stays on this course.
"They're
running out of candidates who could be credible," Davis told me. "One
reason to keep this alive, in their mind, is to give them bargaining
leverage with the Biden campaign to give them something. There's no good
reason to keep going."
Davis said he thinks No Labels will have to "pull the plug" if they can't find a credible candidate.
No Labels, which in the past has been responsive to my questions
while keeping its donors and operations secret, went silent this week
and did not respond to questions about its timeline for taking action.
No Labels keeps its finances secret. That isn't helping their cause.
One
of the questions I had for No Labels was about money – salaries and
contracts. While No Labels looks like a political party, which would
have to file monthly reports with the Federal Elections Commission, the
group only has to file an annual nonprofit 990 tax form with the IRS.
The most recent filing available to the public is for 2021.
So our understanding of the group's finances are more than two years out of date.
That,
coupled with the group's insistence that donors stay secret, creates a
lot of doubt and distrust for an organization that keeps claiming it has
good intentions.
The Daily Beast reported in November
that it had obtained the 2022 tax form for No Labels, which showed
founder Nancy Jacobson taking a $300,000 annual salary, among other
six-figure paydays for top staffers in a year when the group raised
$21.2 million. Jacobson's husband, Mark Penn, owns the polling firm that
consults for No Labels. That firm was paid $428,100 in 2021, according
to that year's form 990.
Penn, a former strategist for Bill and Hillary Clinton, made news in 2019 when he met with Trump during his first impeachment to discuss polling and again last year when he wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed
urging Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to run for president, while dismissing
Biden as not being up to the job of defeating Trump again.
Is it any surprise that the word 'grift' keeps coming up?
No Labels originally planned an in-person convention, out in the open for all to see, for next month in Dallas but canceled that in November. Last week, the group posted a video
announcing a 12-member "Country Over Party Committee" that will
interview would-be candidates and recommend one to the group's
delegates.
Again, all in secret. We don't get to see how any of that happens.
End Citizens United, a nonprofit that works "to get big money out of politics," knocked that committee as an "anti-democratic" move from a "corrupt dark-money sham." End Citizens United sued No Labels in January, seeking to force the group to disclose its donors.
Jonas
Edwards-Jenks, an End Citizens United spokesperson, said he's been
asked many times to speculate about what motivates No Labels.
"The
one thing that keeps coming up is this is a grift," he told me.
"They're using this to keep the fundraising going, to fill their pockets
and keep their names in the news."
Politico reported last June
a former No Labels employee identified Harlan Crow as one of the
group's funders. If that name rings a bell, it's because Crow is a
Republican mega-donor who was exposed last year for providing free lavish vacations and private jet travel to U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.
What is the true motive of the No Labels movement?
Speaking
of keeping a name in the news, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie
last week became the only high-profile political brand to not rule out a
No Labels run. Speaking on a podcast hosted by Democratic political
strategist David Axelrod, Christie said he "wouldn't preclude anything at this point."
Christie,
a former Trump advisor turned virulent critic of the former president,
dropped out of the Republican primary on Jan. 10 before anyone had a
chance to vote for or against him. Is he really the guy to beat both
Trump and Biden? Short answer: No.
This
is the fear for critics of No Labels, that someone like Christie enters
the race and draws enough Republican and independent anti-Trump protest
votes – which might have gone to Biden – that they enable Trump to
prevail. Some think that might be an unintentional outcome. Some wonder
if that's the point all along.
Kate deGruyter, a spokesperson for Third Way, a center-left think tank,
said the secrecy around No Labels makes it difficult to discern a true
motive. The group could have held an open convention, observable by the
public.
"Instead, they chose to replicate the
model of the smoke-filled room that the major parties got rid of decades
ago," deGruyter said. "What struck me as really alarming was, even in
the language of announcing the committee, they have shifted away from
the language of how they would only go forward if they there could be a
victory.
[...] No Labels has gone from noble intentions to shady
chicanery. They've spent months spouting a "just trust us" message while
showing us no reason to trust them.
The math
doesn't add up. No Labels can't field a winning ticket. They've walked
away from the claim of being "in it to win it." Now they look like
they're just in it to stay in it. That may be about money or relevance
or leverage. It doesn't matter anymore.
If No
Labels is who they claim to be, now is the time to abandon the 2024
presidential ballot. If they don't, then No Labels is what the critics
have been warning us about all along.
Follow USA TODAY elections columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan
[highlighting added] Readers might find things in that item to critique. Possibly not.
Mother Jones has obtained a list of 36 wealthy contributors
and corporate high-rollers who last year wrote big checks to support No
Labels’ effort to win 2024 ballot lines in states across the nation.
This roster includes past and present chief executives of major
companies, including Loews Corporation (a vast conglomerate), Fluor (an
engineering and construction giant), Abry Partners (a private equity
firm), SailPoint (a tech firm), and Fortress Investment Group.
[...] Notable within this group is Michael Smith, the billionaire founder
of natural gas behemoth Freeport LNG. He has donated more than $5.5
million to the Senate Leadership Fund, a super-PAC tied to Senate
minority leader Mitch McConnell. Smith also backed Virginia GOP governor
Glenn Youngkin and a slew of Republican senators. He has donated—albeit
smaller amounts—to several moderate Democrats, such as Montana’s Jon
Tester and West Virginia’s Joe Manchin.Meanwhile, Smith’s wife, Iris
Smith, another contributor to this No Labels project, has been a major
donor to Democratic causes. In 2020, she gave more than $500,000 to
Biden’s presidential victory fund—a joint fundraising committee that
split the money between Biden’s campaign and other Democratic party
groups. In the weeks before she made this donation, she wrote checks to
the reelection campaigns for GOP Sens. David Perdue and Thom Tillis. She
has also contributed to McConnell and Republican Sen. Tom Cotton.
The Smiths did not respond to a request for comment.
A stalwart Republican donor on the list is Tom McInerney, a
private-equity investor, who has regularly donated to the Republican
National Committee and GOP-linked super-PACs. This year, he has
contributed nearly $100,000 to the RNC and over $200,000 to the National
Republican Congressional Committee. He has sent six-figure
contributions to fundraising committees organized by House Speaker Kevin
McCarthy ($250,000 in 2021) and by former speaker Paul Ryan ($244,000
in 2017). He has been a financial backer of McCain, Mitt Romney, and Jeb
Bush. He recently donated to Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), who is running
for the GOP presidential nomination.
McInerney did not reply to a request for comment.
Three donors on the list contributed to Trump, but only one, Allan
Keen, a successful Florida real estate developer, gave a hefty amount.
In the run-up to the 2020 election, Keen donated $135,000 to Trump
Victory, a joint-fundraising committee that supported Trump’s
reelection. Previously, Keen financially backed the presidential
campaigns of George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, McCain, and
Romney. More recently, he has donated to Manchin and Arizona Sen.
Kyrsten Sinema, who left the Democratic Party in December and became an
independent.
At least 16 of the these 36 donors have graced Sinema with money.
Keen could not be reached for comment.
[... more of the same]
The path to locating
the federal filing that included this list of donors is convoluted, but
it illustrates how dark-money groups operate.
As a nonprofit, No Labels must file tax returns that are public. The most recent return
publicly available covers 2021. That year, No Labels raked in $11.3
million from unidentified patrons. The document reports that $2.4
million—a whopping 21 percent of all the money that came in—was given as
a grant to a group called Insurance Policy for America, Inc., which was
incorporated in Delaware on December 20, 2021 and located at the same
Washington, DC, address as No Labels.
In a filing submitted to the IRS, IPFA noted that its president, treasurer, and secretary was Jerald Howe Jr., a top executive at Leidos,
a defense, aviation, information technology, and biomedical firm
(formerly known as Science Applications International Corporation). Howe
is a co-founder and treasurer of No Labels.
No Labels sent IPFA the $2.4 million three days after IPFA was set up.
[... A] Mother Jones reporter contacted Ryan Clancy, the lead
strategist for No Labels, and left him a voicemail message requesting to
speak to him about the group’s tax return. Clancy replied by email
requesting a query be sent to him via an email and noted, “I will look
into [it].” The reporter followed up with emails listing questions about
the creation of Insurance Policy for America, the transfer of $2.4
million to IPFA, the use of IPFA for No Labels’ 2024 project, and the
donations to IPFA. Clancy did not respond.
Maryanne Martini, communications deputy for No Labels, and Nancy
Jacobson, the president and CEO of No Labels, did not respond to
requests for comment. Neither did Howe.
[...] No Labels insists its work addresses the concerns of voters who have
become disillusioned with modern American politics and the partisanship
of each side. Yet it sticks with the cynical and common tricks of the
trade and eschews transparency and accountability, cloaking the
moneybags who underwrite its operation. The list of donors found in the
IPFA filing covers only a modest fraction of the money that has so far
flowed into this No Labels venture [...]
[highlighting added]
WHINERS.
Harry Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen."
Casting their operation as aggrieved by collective actions of others, No Labels sent the DOJ a whining letter early in January of this year. Their 8p letter thing is online here. These are career DC consultant and politician folks, intent on undermining Joe Biden because he is too progressive for them. JOE BIDEN.
Nobody seems to want to have anything to do with them, Nikki Haley included, Joe Manchin included, Chris Christie included. Yes the two party system sucks. Yes they give us lesser evil choices. Yes, Joe Biden is a far, far lesser evil than Trump. However, No Labels is an organization which is itself a much greater evil than Biden - Harris, and anybody having anything to do with these front people and their secret donors are a toxic force. And, opening, "first - the money." There's no second. First carries the story.
That video ended with Lieberman mouthing platitudes. Liberman, during his life, never impressing Crabgrass as credible about anything. His 15 minutes of fame being as an Al Gore election-losing brainfart.
