Listen to my command and hold your ground. Fight for honor, fight for the dignity of men, fight for our mothers! Fight for our descendants! Fight for our future
A list purportedly naming dozens of Democrats throughout history who have shot and killed presidents, politicians, and civilians has been circulating online since at least 2012 along with the argument that it should be illegal for Democrats to own guns. Musician Ted Nugent posted one of the most popular iterations in September 2015:
In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.
In 1881 a left-wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States – who later died from the wound.
In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonald’s restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen , TX.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US …
In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown, CT.
As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.
Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns. *Not one *NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservative was involved in any of these shootings and murders. *SOLUTION: *
*It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns. *Best idea I’ve heard to date!
BlackRock is the manager of the iShares group of exchange-traded funds, and along with The Vanguard Group and State Street, it is considered to be one of the Big Three index fund managers.[3][4] Its Aladdin software keeps track of investment portfolios for many major financial institutions and its BlackRock Solutions division provides financial risk management services. As of 2023, BlackRock was ranked 229th on the Fortune 500 list of the largest United States corporations by revenue.[5]
BlackRock was founded in 1988 by Larry Fink, Robert S. Kapito, Susan Wagner, Barbara Novick, Ben Golub, Hugh Frater, Ralph Schlosstein, and Keith Anderson[7] to provide institutional clients with asset management services from a risk management perspective.[8] Fink, Kapito, Golub and Novick had worked together at First Boston, where Fink and his team were pioneers in the mortgage-backed securities market in the United States.[9]
During Fink’s tenure, he had lost $90 million as head of First Boston. That experience was the motivation to develop what he and the others considered to be excellent risk management and fiduciary practices. Initially, Fink sought funding (for initial operating capital) from Peter Peterson of The Blackstone Group who believed in Fink’s vision of a firm devoted to risk management.
In August 2020, BlackRock received approval from the China Securities Regulatory Commission to set up a mutual fund business in the country. This made BlackRock the first global asset manager to get consent from the Chinese government to start operations in the country.[44][45]
In November 2021, Blackrock lowered its investment in India while increasing investment in China. The firm maintains a dedicated India Fund, through which it invests in Indian start-ups Byju’s, Paytm, and Pine Labs.[46][47]
On December 28, 2022, it was announced that BlackRock and Volodymyr Zelensky had coordinated a role for the company in the reconstruction of Ukraine.[48][49] This was after BlackRock CEO Larry Fink and Zelensky met over a video conference in September, 2022.[48]
In June 2023, BlackRock filed an application with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to launch a Spot BitcoinExchange-Traded Fund (ETF), and in November 2023 it filed another application for a Spot Ethereum ETF. The spot bitcoin ETF filing and 10 others were approved on January 10, 2024.[52][53] On January 19, 2024, the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) was the first spot bitcoin ETF to reach $1 billion in volume.[54]
In July 2023, the company appointed Amin H. Nasser to its board.[55] Nasser, the Chief Executive Officer of Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest oil company, will fill Blackrock’s board vacancy left by Bader Alsaad in 2024.[56]
In August 2023, BlackRock signed an agreement with New Zealand to establish a NZ$2 billion investment fund for solar, wind, green hydrogen, battery storage, and EV charging projects as part of its goal of reaching 100% renewable energy by 2030.[57][58]
In January 2024, BlackRock announced that it would acquire the investment fund Global Infrastructure Partners for $12.5 billion.[59][60][61] BlackRock agreed to pay $3 billion in cash and 12 million of its own shares as part of the deal to buy GIP.
In March 2024, BlackRock launched their first tokenized fund, the BlackRock USD Institutional Digital Liquidity Fund (BUIDL) on Ethereum, which represents investments in U.S. Treasury bills and repo agreements. The fund secured $245 million in assets in the first week.[62]
In 2020, the non-profit American Economic Liberties Project issued a report highlighting the fact that “the ‘Big Three’ asset management firms – BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street – manage over $15 trillion in combined global assets under management, an amount equivalent to more than three-quarters of U.S. gross domestic product.”[66] The report called for structural reforms and better regulation of the financial markets. In 2021, BlackRock managed over $10 trillion in assets under management, about 40% of the GDP of the United States (nominal $25.347 trillion in 2022).[67]
To gain understanding of Fink’s actions, we need to go deeper into the spiritual awakening in identity politics that could reshape virtually every institution in America and the West. In “American Awakening,” Joshua Mitchell argues that identity politics is a religious revival seeking salvation by replacing the substance of justice with the supplement of mercy.
Justice is the arduous task of giving to each person what is due to them. Our voluntary institutions in work, politics, and civic associations are predicated on us attempting and generally getting this virtue right. Mercy, Mitchell observes, is the supplement when we don’t. We ask and hope to be granted forgiveness when we fail our neighbor.
Mitchell further observes that we live in two worlds, two economies, the visible and invisible. Both are necessary to the human person.
The visible, tangible economy concerns profit and loss, debt and credit. These accounts must be measured and settled if the work of a modern economy is to go forward. The invisible economy is also part of our existence. Here, we deal with perennial notions of sin, guilt, forgiveness, and mercy.
Accounts in the invisible economy frequently can’t settle. Sins are too great; forgiveness is not sought; and the guilty go unpunished. Biblical religion has provided us the means to understand the enormity of these unmet accounts, and to help us live under their weight. But they remain different worlds, separate economies that we live in.
Identity politics seeks nothing less than to input the invisible economy’s ledger of sin and guilt into the visible economy of profit and loss, debt and credit. But it redesigns the invisible economy by its conception of sin and guilt. There is no original sin, only an original sinner, the heterosexual white male. And there are victims, holy innocents.
The heterosexual white male’s guilt cannot be atoned, he must endlessly bleed and attempt to show his innocence. Mitchell notes this is the most he can do. On him hangs the sins of colonialism, slavery, racism, sexism, bigotry against sexual minorities, and the rank injustice of the capitalist economy.
These sins committed by the transgressor against the innocent are unforgiveable. And this also means that our inheritance, defined and made by the white heterosexual male, is poison and must be replaced. There are only two terms: sinner and innocent.
Thus, identity politics replaces the liberal politics of deliberation, compromise, and building institutions with others and proclaims an illiberal politics that supplants our irredeemable inheritance.
And identity politics must be illiberal politics because it seeks the mercy of the invisible economy in the visible economy, and that latter economy cannot pay what is without cost. As Mitchell observes, if you eliminate the visible economy, you also eliminate justice.
But mercy needs justice. Mercy without justice becomes tyranny. Does Mitchell not give us the needed leverage to understand not only what amounts to the corporatist hijinks of Fink, but the unpayable debts sought by today’s Democratic Party, whose motivations and thought increasingly reflect the mindset of identity politics?
If the visible economy of the capitalist world is bound up with patriarchal white male sin and must be replaced with the mercy of the invisible economy as understood by identitarians, then, Mitchell notes, we can understand “the impossibly expensive Green New Deal and the demand that there be free health insurance, or free college tuition, or socialism—which for the upcoming generation is a proxy, really, for the negation of the “capitalist” world of payment.” And this “produces a citizen who demands everything and thinks he deserves everything.”
Might we also understand Larry Fink’s incessant push to remake global capitalism into a crusade for environmental atonement and diversity and racial equity? When identity politics approaches the environment, Mitchell reasons, it finds nature poisoned, another holy innocent besmirched by the white man’s economy. Accordingly, “the stain of “anthropogenic climate change” must be wiped away, either by dismantling the world white, heterosexual men have built with “unclean” energy or by sustaining that world only with “clean,” green energy.”
Larry Fink’s charge to the “international community” of transnational institutions, corporations, and governments to plan comprehensively for a capitalist net-zero carbon economy by 2050 becomes similarly rational once we grasp the identity politics component that drives it.
Fink proclaims not his virtue; he proclaims his innocence. As a white male capitalist, he is inherently tied to the “unclean” substance—carbon dioxide—and the sins it commits on holy nature. Can it be redeemed under a new order dictated by the invisible economy of identity politics?
Fink’s calling is to make it so.
So limitless are the debts of this economy that even BlackRock must acknowledge the inability of the visible economy to settle the account. BlackRock remains invested in unclean companies. And the protestors in front of BlackRock’s offices accusing them of hypocrisy and backsliding remind them of it. In the old religion, the path to hell was easy, the road to heaven was hard. Something of that remains.
ESG requirements on publicly traded companies are expensive and can lead to competitive disadvantages. Many companies will refuse them or accept them and then shirk. To deal with these sinners will require government orders, and the SEC now attempts to fill the void with proposed rules to mandate disclosure about sustainable business models and diversity metrics on their boards and employees.
Even here, BlackRock and others implore the SEC to go beyond its public company statutory mandate by similarly mandating private companies to comply with ESG disclosure requirements. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, BlackRock’s public comment to the proposed SEC rule stated “we encourage the SEC to explore its existing regulatory authority to mandate climate-related disclosures with respect to large private market issuers” in order “to avoid regulatory arbitrage.” No stone will be left unturned.
What to make, then, of BlackRock’s extensive operations in China, including being invited by the CCP to be the first foreign company to sell mutual fund investments to Chinese investors? BlackRock has poured its clients’ money into Chinese investments.
Of course, BlackRock also has ownership stakes in Chinese companies iFlytech and Hikavision, the former develops AI and voice recognition software while Hikavision manufactures surveillance equipment. Both companies were blacklisted by the United States government for participating in human rights abuses against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. BlackRock is invested in both and increased its holdings in Hikavision after the blacklisting.
Certainly, being a favored company like BlackRock in China’s strong-man economy guarantees a favorable return on investment. But BlackRock still must account for its actions in China under the standards of identity politics. The classic refrain of needing to be inside the system to change it, surely will be voiced. But, ultimately, within the communion of holy innocents, American capitalism, led by the innocence-seeking hands of Fink, must become China’s carbon offset.
Project 2025 is a historic movement, brought together by over 100 respected organizations from across the conservative movement, to take down the Deep State and return the government to the people. Its Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, published in April 2023, is a product of more than 400 scholars and policy experts from around the country. The book offers a menu of policy suggestions to meet our country’s deepest challenges and put America back on track, including:
Secure the border, finish building the wall, and deport illegal aliens
De-weaponize the Federal Government by increasing accountability and oversight of the FBI and DOJ
Unleash American energy production to reduce energy prices
Cut the growth of government spending to reduce inflation
Make federal bureaucrats more accountable to the democratically elected President and Congress
Improve education by moving control and funding of education from DC bureaucrats directly to parents and state and local governments
Ban biological males from competing in women’ s sports
Jim Marrs, in his book Crossfire, presented the theory that Kennedy was trying to rein in the power of the Federal Reserve, and that forces opposed to such action might have played some part in Kennedy’s assassination.[23][24][25] Marrs alleges that the issuance of Executive Order 11110 was an effort by Kennedy to transfer power from the Federal Reserve to the United States Department of the Treasury by replacing Federal Reserve Notes with silver certificates.[24] Author Richard Belzer named the responsible parties in this theory as American “billionaires, power brokers, and bankers … working in tandem with the CIA and other sympathetic agents of the government.”[26]
Critics of the theory note that Executive Order 11110 was a technicality that only delegated existing presidential powers to the Secretary of the Treasury for administrative convenience during a period of transition.[24][25]
BOTTOMLINE: Keep foreign interest out of Government.
Gallup: GOP Overtakes Democrats in Voter Identification for First Time A Gallup poll shows: More Americans now lean Republican over Democrat, with 48% siding with the GOP compared to 45% with Democrats. Voters trust Republicans more on key issues like the economy and immigration, seeing them as better at safeguarding prosperity and security. Just 22% are satisfied with the country’s direction, and President Biden’s approval rating has sunk to 39%. The economic index also paints a grim picture, highlighting widespread pessimism and poor conditions.
The G77 is a United Nations based bloc of developing countries that was formed in 1964.
“Poverty [….] is the greatest global challenge facing the world today, and we attach the highest priority to the eradication of poverty in the United Nations post-2015 development agenda. This must be supported by effective, appropriate means of implementation and strengthened global partnership for development. It entails, among other objectives, the promotion of employment and decent work for all, improvement in access to social services, the eradication of illiteracy and diseases, in addition to integrated, coordinated and coherent national and regional strategies”.
This is the wording of point 43 of the “Declaration of Santa Cruz”, drafted in Bolivia at the G77 Summit of the 133 member countries which comprise the Group of 77 and China. According to this group, inequality is more acute than ever “because of the prevalence of extreme wealth while poverty and hunger continue to exist”.
The deadline to eradicate it would be 2030. By then, we must tackle what is holding us back today, which in the opinion of the Group of 77 and China is, above all, the world financial and economic crisis, continuing food insecurity, the volatility of capital flows and the extreme volatility of commodity prices, energy accessibility and the challenges posed by climate change for developing countries.
In the Declaration, the governments of developing countries are urged to foster sustained and inclusive economic growth, with “the generation of employment as a priority, in particular for the young population, improvement in the provision of universal and affordable access to basic services, the provision of a well-designed social protection system, the empowerment of individuals to seize economic opportunities, and measures to ensure the protection of the environment”.
Hence, there is a need for incorporating sustainable development even more at all levels, integrating economic, social and environmental aspects and acknowledging the links existing between them.
In short, to paraphrase the slogan for the summit, let’s move towards a new world order to live better.
A release from the Foreign Affairs Ministry said that Guyana’s election follows a decision of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) earlier in 2019, to ensure that a regional candidate assumes the chairmanship in 2020 of the largest negotiating group of developing countries in the United Nations.
The release added that during its Chairmanship, which coincides with the United Nations seventy-fifth anniversary and Guyana’s 50th Republic jubilee, Guyana “is committed to endeavour to strengthen multilateralism for the benefit of all developing countries, including by presiding over global sustainable development and climate change negotiations, and efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Organization.
Foreign Affairs Minister Dr. Karen Cummings said Guyana will discharge the important responsibilities of the Chairmanship of the G77 and China with integrity, faithfulness to the principles and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations.
Dr. Cummings also noted her country’s resolve to use the opportunity to further the interests of all developing countries.
The Group of 77 (G77) at the United Nations (UN) is a coalition of developing countries, designed to promote its members’ collective economic interests and create an enhanced joint negotiating capacity in the United Nations.[1]: 79 The group consists of a diverse set of states with a common South-South ideology.[2] There were 77 founding members of the organization headquartered in Geneva, but it has since expanded to 134 member countries.[1]: 79–80 Uganda holds its chairmanship for 2024, succeeding Cuba.
Regarding environmental matters, the G77’s position is that the developed countries bear historical responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions, pointing also to the disparity in per capita emissions between the developing and developed countries.[8]: 53 As a result, the G77 often resists binding commitments to reduce its emissions.[8]: 53 The G77 has been subject to criticism for its lacklustre support, or outright opposition, to pro-environmental initiatives, which the group considers secondary to economic development and poverty eradication initiatives.[6]: 30 In turn, the G77 has criticized the wealthier nations for their insufficient attention to poverty eradication, including at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.[6]: 30–31
Members
As of 2023, the group comprises all of the UN member states (along with the UN observer State of Palestine), excluding the following countries:
New Zealand signed the original “Joint Declaration of the Developing Countries” in October 1963 but pulled out of the group before the formation of the G77 in 1964 (it joined the OECD in 1973).
South Korea was a founding member but left the Group after joining the OECD in 1996.
Yugoslavia was a founding member; by the late 1990s, it was still listed on the membership list, but it was noted that it “cannot participate in the activities of G77.” It was removed from the list in late 2003.[citation needed] It had presided over the group from 1985 to 1986.
Bosnia and Herzegovina was the only former Yugoslavian state to be listed as a member on the G77 official website in 2007;[14] it was removed from the member list in February 2020.[15][16]
Cyprus was a founding member[9] but was no longer listed on the official membership list after it acceded to the European Union in 2004.[citation needed] A document from 1975 states that Cyprus is not a member.[12]
Malta was admitted to the Group in 1976 but was no longer listed on the official membership list after it acceded to the European Union in 2004.
Palau joined the Group in 2002 but withdrew in 2004, having decided that it could best pursue its environmental interests through the Alliance of Small Island States.
Romania was classed as a Latin American country for the purposes of the G77, having joined in 1976.[17][18] The G77 was divided into geographical regions, and because there was technically no European area, Romania was placed under the umbrella of Latin America.[19] Romania left the G77 following its accession to the European Union.[20]
China
The Group of 77 lists China as one of its members.[21] The Chinese government provides consistent political support to the G77 and has made financial contributions to the Group since 1994, but it does not consider itself to be a member.[22] As a result, official statements of the G77 are delivered in the name of The Group of 77 and China or G77+China.[23]
More Americans now lean Republican over Democrat, with 48% siding with the GOP compared to 45% with Democrats. Republicans: +393,365
Democrats: -3,584,321
Independents: +1,802,932
Afghanistan[a]
Algeria
Argentina
Bangladesh
Benin[b]
Bolivia
Brazil
Burkina Faso[c]
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
Colombia
Congo
DR Congo
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt[d]
El Salvador
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala
Guinea
Haiti
Honduras
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jamaica
Jordan
Kenya
Kuwait
Laos
Lebanon
Liberia
Libya
Madagascar
Malaysia
Mali
Mauritania
Mexico[e]
Morocco
Myanmar[f]
Nepal
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sri Lanka[g]
Sudan
Syria
Tanzania[h]
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Uganda
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Barbados
Belize
Bhutan
Botswana
Brunei Darussalam
China[i]
Cabo Verde
Comores
Côte D’Ivoire
Cuba
Djibouti
Dominica
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Eswatini[j]
Fiji
The Gambia
Grenada
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Kiribati
Lesotho
Malawi
Maldives
Marshall Islands
Mauritius
Federated States of Micronesia
Mongolia
Mozambique
Namibia
North Korea
Nauru
Oman
Palestine[k]
Papua New Guinea
Qatar
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
São Tomé and Príncipe
Seychelles
Singapore
Solomon Islands
South Africa
South Sudan
Suriname
Tajikistan
East Timor
Tonga
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Vanuatu
Zambia
Zimbabwe
New Zealand signed the original “Joint Declaration of the Developing Countries” in October 1963 but pulled out of the group before the formation of the G77 in 1964 (it joined the OECD in 1973).
South Korea was a founding member but left the Group after joining the OECD in 1996.
Yugoslavia was a founding member; by the late 1990s, it was still listed on the membership list, but it was noted that it “cannot participate in the activities of G77.” It was removed from the list in late 2003.[citation needed] It had presided over the group from 1985 to 1986.
Bosnia and Herzegovina was the only former Yugoslavian state to be listed as a member on the G77 official website in 2007;[14] it was removed from the member list in February 2020.[15][16]
Cyprus was a founding member[9] but was no longer listed on the official membership list after it acceded to the European Union in 2004.[citation needed] A document from 1975 states that Cyprus is not a member.[12]
South Vietnam was a founding member, while North Vietnam never joined separately.[9][12]
South Yemen joined separately from founding member North Yemen sometime between 1967 and 1975.[9][12]
Malta was admitted to the Group in 1976 but was no longer listed on the official membership list after it acceded to the European Union in 2004.
Palau joined the Group in 2002 but withdrew in 2004, having decided that it could best pursue its environmental interests through the Alliance of Small Island States.
Romania was classed as a Latin American country for the purposes of the G77, having joined in 1976.[17][18] The G77 was divided into geographical regions, and because there was technically no European area, Romania was placed under the umbrella of Latin America.[19] Romania left the G77 following its accession to the European Union.[20]