We love ourselves too often and need reach out much more often. It is a social responsibility and it effects the environment also.
Contents hide (Top) History Structure and content Legacy See also Citations General and cited references External links Anti-Federalist Papers Article Talk Read Edit View history Tools Appearance hide Text Small Standard Large Width Standard Wide Color (beta) Automatic Light Dark From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Anti-Federalist Papers is the collective name given to the works written by the Founding Fathers who were opposed to, or concerned with, the merits of the United States Constitution of 1787. Starting on 25 September 1787 (eight days after the final draft of the US Constitution) and running through the early 1790s, these Anti-Federalists published a series of essays arguing against the ratification of the new Constitution.[1] They argued against the implementation of a stronger federal government without protections on certain rights. The Anti-Federalist papers failed to halt the ratification of the Constitution but they succeeded in influencing the first assembly of the United States Congress to draft the Bill of Rights.[2] These works were authored primarily by anonymous contributors using pseudonyms such as "Brutus" and the "Federal Farmer." Unlike the Federalists, the Anti-Federalists created their works as part of an unorganized group.[3] History Patrick Henry, author of several of the Anti-Federalist papers Following its victory against the British in the Revolutionary War, the United States was plagued by a variety of internal problems. The weak central government could not raise taxes to cover war debts and was largely unable to pass legislation. Many early American politicians and thinkers believed that these issues were the result of the Articles of Confederation, the first governing document of the United States.[4] In 1787 a convention gathered in Philadelphia to attempt to amend it. Soon, however, the gathering shifted its focus to constructing a newer and more powerful Constitution for the fledgling country. Two main competing factions emerged, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The former supported a more powerful central government while the latter opposed it. During the lengthy and heated national debate following this convention, both groups wrote extensively in favor of their respective positions. The Anti-Federalist papers are a selection of the written arguments against the US Constitution by those known to posterity as the Anti-Federalists. As with the Federalist papers, these essays were originally published in newspapers. The most widely known are "a series of sixteen essays published in the New York Journal from October 1787 through April 1788 during the same period. The Anti-Federalist was appearing in New York newspapers, under the pseudonym 'Brutus'."[attribution needed] Structure and content The Anti-Federalist papers were written over a number of years and by a variety of authors who utilized pen names to remain anonymous, and debates over authorship continue to this day. Unlike the authors of The Federalist Papers, a group of three men working closely together, the authors of the Anti-Federalist papers were not engaged in an organized project. Thus, in contrast to the pro-Constitution advocates, there was no one book or collection of Anti-Federalist Papers at the time. The essays were the product of a vast number of authors, working individually rather than as a group.[5] Although there is no canonical list of anti-federalist authors, major authors include Cato (likely George Clinton), Brutus (likely either Melancton Smith, Robert Yates or perhaps John Williams), Centinel (Samuel Bryan), and the Federal Farmer (either Melancton Smith, Richard Henry Lee, or Mercy Otis Warren[citation needed]). Works by Patrick Henry and a variety of others are often included as well. Until the mid-20th century, there was no united series of Anti-Federalist papers. The first major collection was compiled by Morton Borden, a professor at Columbia University, in 1965. He "collected 85 of the most significant papers and arranged them in an order closely resembling that of the 85 Federalist Papers". The most frequently cited contemporary collection, The Complete Anti-Federalist, was compiled by Herbert Storing and Murray Dry of the University of Chicago and published in 1981. At seven volumes and including many pamphlets and other materials not previously published in a collection, this work is considered, by many, to be the authoritative compendium on the publications.[6] Considering their number and diversity, it is difficult to summarize the contents of the Anti-Federalist papers. Generally speaking they reflected the sentiments of the Anti-Federalists, which Akhil Reed Amar of the Yale Law School generalized as: a localist fear of a powerful central government, a belief in the necessity of direct citizen participation in democracy, and a distrust of wealthy merchants and industrialists.[7] Essays with titles such as "A Dangerous Plan of Benefit Only to The 'Aristocratick Combination'" and "New Constitution Creates a National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers of Civil War And Despotism" fill the collection, and reflect the strong feelings of the authors. In the table below, a selection of Anti-Federalist papers have been contrasted with their Federalist counterparts.[8] Topics common to Anti-Federalist and Federalist papers Subject Anti-Federalist Federalist Need for stronger Union John DeWitt No. I and II Federalist No. 1–6 Bill of Rights John DeWitt No. II James Wilson, 10/6/87 Federalist No. 84 Nature and powers of the Union Patrick Henry, 6/5/88 Federalist No. 1, 14, 15 Responsibility and checks in self-government Centinel No. 1 Federalist No. 10, 51 Extent of Union, states' rights, Bill of Rights, taxation Pennsylvania Minority: Brutus No. 1 Federalist No. 10, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 45, 84 Extended republics, taxation Federal Farmer No. I and II Federalist No. 8, 10, 14, 35, 36 Broad construction, taxing powers Brutus No. VI Federalist No. 23, 30–34 Defense, standing armies Brutus No. X Federalist No. 24–29 The judiciary Brutus No. XI, XII, XV Federalist No. 78–83 Government resting on the people John DeWitt No. III Federalist No. 23, 49 Executive power Cato No. IV Federalist No. 67 Regulating elections Cato No. VII Federalist No. 59 House of Representatives Brutus No. IV Federalist No. 27, 28, 52–54, 57 The Senate Brutus No. XVI Federalist No. 62, 63 Representation in House of Representatives and Senate Melancton Smith, 6/20-6/27-88 Federalist No. 52–57, 62–63 Legacy The Anti-Federalists proved unable to stop the ratification of the US Constitution, which took effect in 1789. Since then, the essays they wrote have largely fallen into obscurity.[9] The influence of their writing, however, can be seen to this day – particularly in the nature and shape of the United States Bill of Rights. Federalists, such as Alexander Hamilton, vigorously argued against its passage but were in the end forced to compromise. The Massachusetts Compromise took place during the ratification process after 5 states had already ratified. Despite being the minority power, Anti-Federalists were able to create enough stir to prevent Massachusetts from ratifying the newly drafted Constitution. They agreed that there would need to at least be amendments made before their state would ratify the Constitution, leading to the beginning of the United States Bill of Rights.[10] Other states with strong Anti-Federalist populations would follow this example, expanding this list of amendments to the 10 we know today. The Bill of Rights was constructed specifically to quell the fears of the Anti-Federalists and to address their concerns. The Anti-Federalists feared that there were not enough checks and balances to protect the citizens from a governmental abuse of power. As such, the Anti-Federalists focused on explicitly listing out the individuals' rights and freedoms including free practice of religion, press, legal rights, and arms for protection from both their fellow man and government military occupation like what they faced during the Revolution. To prevent the federal government from assuming all unspecified powers, as the Anti-Federalists feared, the 10th and final Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that all powers not specified in the Constitution would be left to the States. These States' Rights would be a cornerstone issue for the entirety of United States history, from the treatment and freeing of slaves to the modern-day healthcare systems. The Anti-Federalists were not successful in stopping the ratification of the Constitution, but their actions still impact the Federal Government centuries after the writers of the Anti-Federalist papers are gone.[11]
I can change your mind about Trump: Bibliography of Donald Trump Article Talk Read Edit View history Tools Appearance hide Text Small Standard Large Width Standard Wide Color (beta) Automatic Light Dark From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is part of a series about Donald Trump Business and personal 45th and 47th President of the United States Incumbent Tenure Policies Appointments (first · second) Presidential campaigns Impeachments Civil and criminal prosecutions COVID-19 pandemic Donald Trump's signature Seal of the President of the United States vte This bibliography of Donald Trump is a list of written and published works, by and about Donald Trump, the 45th and 47th president of the United States. Due to the sheer volume of books about Trump, the titles listed here are limited to non-fiction books about Trump or his presidency, published by notable authors and scholars. Tertiary sources (including textbooks and juvenile literature), satire, and self-published books are excluded. Prior to his 2016 campaign, Trump was already the focus of many books describing his life as a businessman and politician.[1] Biographer Michael D'Antonio observed in Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success (2015) that Trump "has been a topic of conversation in America for almost 40 years. No one in the world of business – not Bill Gates, Steve Jobs or Warren Buffett – has been as famous as Trump for as long." Almost one year after his inauguration as president, The Guardian noted that more than 4,500 English-language books about Trump had been published since he took office, compared to just over 800 works about Trump's predecessor Barack Obama during his first year in office.[2] This "Trump bump" for the U.S. publishing industry, as The New York Times put it, persisted throughout his time in office.[3] But afterwards, demand for books about his presidency dropped off sharply.[4] Trump's first published book in 1987 was Trump: The Art of the Deal, written by ghostwriter Tony Schwartz.[1][5][6] Trump made a practice of hiring ghostwriters and co-authors to write his books.[7][8][9] In some cases the ghostwriters are credited on the cover, while in other instances, including Time to Get Tough (2011) and Crippled America (2015), Trump makes mention of the writer's contributions in the acknowledgements sections. Works written by Trump himself include self-help books, personal finance books, political policy treatises, and autobiographies.[1][10] "...Schwartz has noted that, during the year and a half that they worked together on The Art of the Deal, he never saw a single book in Trump's office or apartment. Yet Trump has taken authorial credits on more than a dozen books to date, and, given that he's a proven marketing master, it's inconceivable that he won't try to sell more."[11] The Washington Post journalist Carlos Lozada observed that a continuous theme throughout Trump's written works is a focus on Trump himself, such as citing examples from his business in real estate investing and work on television. Parties and individuals discussed in books by Trump are reduced to a zero-sum game, according to Lozada: "Trump's world is binary, divided into class acts and total losers." Trump often makes use of hyperbole to illustrate his points in his works. In other books, Trump repeats the same stories of what he views as key successes from his business career; for example, a tale about a 1980s business deal improving the Wollman Rink in Central Park, New York.[10] Trump's published writings shifted post-2000, from generally memoirs about himself to books giving advice about finance.[10]
It looks rather biblical: Scott, Rosen reintroduce Antisemitism Awareness Act in Senate “It’s critical the Department of Education has the tools and resources it needs to investigate antisemitism,” said Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.). U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C. Credit: Maxim Kapytka/Pexels.U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C. Credit: Maxim Kapytka/Pexels. Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Email Print (Feb. 12, 2025 / JNS) Sens. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) reintroduced the Antisemitism Awareness Act in the Senate on Wednesday. The bipartisan bill directs the U.S. Department of Education to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism when investigating acts of Jew-hatred on campus. “In the continued aftermath of the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel by Hamas and Iran, we have seen college campuses across our nation become hotbeds of antisemitism where Jewish students’ rights are being threatened,” Scott said. “It’s critical the Department of Education has the tools and resources it needs to investigate antisemitism and root out this vile hatred wherever it rears its ugly head.” Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate and never miss our top stories and analyses Email By signing up, you agree to receive emails from JNS. The legislation would enshrine in law U.S. President Donald Trump’s 2019 executive order instructing federal agencies to consider the IHRA definition of antisemitism in enforcing Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits any recipient of federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race, color or national origin. Title VI notably applies to virtually every university in the country. The IHRA definition includes both a “non-legally binding working definition” of antisemitism as well as 11 “contemporary examples” of antisemitism, including “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel,” and “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” Related Articles Karim Khan, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, briefs the Security Council meeting on the situation in Libya on Nov. 23, 2021. Credit: Eskinder Debebe/U.N. Photo. White House officially sanctions ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan Feb. 13, 2025 U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters at the White House in Washington, D.C., Feb. 4, 2025. Photo by Liri Agami/Flash90. Nobel laureates make bold peace prize offer to Trump in bid to save hostages from Hamas Feb. 13, 2025 The Iron Dome aerial-defense system fires interceptor missiles at enemy rockets fired from Lebanon, April 12, 2024. Photo by Ayal Margolin/Flash90. Iron Dome developer elected to National Academy of Engineering Feb. 13, 2025 A previous iteration the bill passed the House by a wide margin in 2024, but the previous Senate majority leader, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), did not bring it to a vote in the upper chamber before the end of the 118th Congress. Critics of the legislation argue that the IHRA definition is too restrictive, with some on the left, like Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), saying that it precludes legitimate criticism of Israel. From the right, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) argued during the 2024 House vote Christians could be accused of antisemitism “for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews.” The Senate version of the act has 32 co-sponsors, including Schumer, who was not a co-sponsor of the previous Senate version. Jewish groups such as the the Anti-Defamation League, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Federations of North America have also endorsed the legislation. Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) and Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) reintroduced the House version of the bill in the lower chamber earlier in February.
Yahoo Finance Yahoo Finance Search query Search for news, symbols or companies News Finance Sports More Mail Sign in My Portfolio News Markets Research Personal Finance Videos Streaming Now Upgrade to Premium Fortune Apple, Coca-Cola, IBM, Berkshire Hathaway: These companies are facing a DEI shareholder showdown in 2025 Shareholder proposals that would have once been unremarkable are now a closely watched battlefront in the war against corporate diversity and inclusion initiatives. · Fortune · Richard Drury—Getty Images Lila MacLellan Mon, February 10, 2025 at 1:00 AM PST 8 min read 3 In This Article: StockStory Top Pick COST +1.10% IBM +1.32% KO +1.15% When Costco asked investors to vote against an anti-DEI shareholder proposal at the company’s recent annual meeting last month—and won their support—it should have been a nonevent. Such an exchange is typical in the corporate world: A small group of investors buy a tiny stake in a company and use that platform to call for a specific change, like pushing it to adopt better climate change policies or take succession planning more seriously. Their proposal then goes to a vote among all shareholders at the company’s annual meeting. Boards usually urge everyone to reject the ideas for the simple reason that companies don’t like to be told how to run their businesses. Over the past few years, anti-DEI resolutions like the one Costco faced have become increasingly common, but their support rates are usually in the low single digits. In any other year, Costco’s vote would have garnered little to no attention. But this year, Costco’s stance became a noteworthy symbol of resistance. As President Donald Trump issues executive orders to end DEI, and one company after another rolls back their DEI initiatives, a fresh crop of shareholder proposals that would have once been unremarkable are now a closely watched battlefront in the war against corporate diversity and inclusion initiatives. To be sure, the results of proxy votes are nonbinding, making the exercise somewhat symbolic. But companies will find it hard to ignore a proposal that’s popular with investors. It’s also worth noting that several companies that have received resolutions have moved to have the proposals excluded from their 2025 shareholder votes, which requires approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission. Here’s a look at anti-DEI shareholder proposals set to be presented this year. Fortune reached out to all of the companies on this list and will update the story with any relevant responses. American Express Meeting date: April 17, 2025 The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), a conservative activist think tank, is requesting that the financial company remove DEI considerations from its executive pay formulas. American Express has moved to have the proposal excluded from its meeting. "The shareholder proposal challenges a metric that is no longer being used in the company's scorecard," according to a company spokesperson. Apple Meeting date: Feb. 25, 2025 Apple has asked its shareholders to reject a proposal from the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), a conservative advocacy group, asking that the tech company cease all DEI-related activities, including dropping its diverse supplier programs. Apple’s response to the proposal centered on the company’s preference for not being micromanaged. In its proxy statement, the company wrote: “We strive to create a culture of belonging where everyone can do their best work.” Berkshire Hathaway Meeting date: May 3, 2025 Berkshire Hathaway has asked the SEC to exclude a proposal from the NCPPR asking the company to perform a legal audit of its race-based initiatives. Its letter to the SEC cited studies on the benefits of diversity, and included a quote from Warren Buffett speaking at Berkshire’s 2023 annual meeting: “If [I] had been born Black, a woman, or in a different country, [I] wouldn’t nearly [have] enjoyed the same type of life [I] have].” Bristol Myers Squibb Meeting date: TBA A shareholder proposal submitted by the NCPPR requests that the company consider abolishing its DEI program, policies, department, and goals. The drugmaker wants to omit the proposal, calling it “vague and open to interpretation.” Coca-Cola Meeting date: May 1, 2025 Coca-Cola hopes to block a proposal on executive pay and DEI hiring goals, submitted by the NLPC, from its general meeting. In a letter filed with the SEC, the company states: “The Coca-Cola Company maintains ‘employee representation goals’ designed to achieve diversity so the company ‘mirror[s] the markets we serve.’ The company expects ‘by 2030, our employee population across all job levels will align with U.S. Census data by race/ethnicity: Black: 13%; Hispanic: 18%; Asian: 6%.’” Deere and Co. Meeting date: Feb. 25, 2025 Deere scaled back DEI last July, following an online campaign by conservative influencer Robby Starbuck. However, the NLPC had also submitted a shareholder proposal asking Deere to produce a report on its racial and gender hiring statistics. The NLPC argues that emphasizing diversity in hiring leaves companies open to legal challenges from employees, and that white employees may feel that they are the victims of discrimination. In its 2025 proxy statement, the company urges shareholders to vote against the resolution “because Deere is committed to treating our employees, who propel us toward achieving our business ambitions, fairly and inclusively.” Deere also states that it already provides investors with comprehensive hiring data. General Motors Meeting date: June 4, 2025 The NLPC is calling on the automaker to drop the practice of attaching DEI goals to executive pay. In a letter to the SEC, GM said the company had already substantially implemented the proposal. Goldman Sachs Meeting date: April 24, 2025 The NLPC has submitted shareholder proposals over diversity aspirations and executive pay incentives, including the compensation of CEO David Solomon. A spokesperson for Goldman recently told Fortune: “We strongly believe that organizations benefit from diverse perspectives, and Goldman Sachs is committed to operating our programs and policies in compliance with the law.” IBM Meeting date: TBA In partnership with an IBM shareholder, the Heritage Foundation, a powerful conservative think tank, has asked the company to drop pay incentives for executives tied to DEI targets. IBM has moved to block the proposal on the grounds that it falsely depicts the company’s practices. JPMorgan Chase Meeting date: May 19, 2025 The NLPC and the NCPPR are targeting the bank for DEI incentives in executive pay and its general DEI programs, respectively, claiming the practices leave the bank open to reputational and legal risks. The company has moved to have the proposals blocked since, among other reasons, they pertain to the company’s ordinary manner of doing business. (The SEC generally allows companies to exclude resolutions about a company’s ordinary operations.) The bank also said the executive pay shareholder proposal does not accurately represent the company’s practices. CEO Jamie Dimon has been vocal about the bank’s resistance to anti-DEI groups. “We’re going to continue to reach out to the Black community, the Hispanic community, the LGBT community, the veterans community,” he said at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos this year. A spokesperson for JPMorgan declined to comment on the anti-DEI proposals and directed Fortune to the bank’s philosophy around diversity as outlined by Dimon’s most recent annual letter to shareholders. Levi’s Meeting date: TBA The NCPPR is asking Levi’s investors to vote in favor of its request that the company “consider abolishing its DEI program, policies, department, and goals.” Levi Strauss & Co. has moved to have the proposal left off its proxy, saying that, among other reasons, it makes false claims. The decision from the SEC is still pending. Levi’s CEO Michelle Gass recently told Women’s Wear Daily, “We’ve been committed to diversity and inclusion for literally decades, and it’s the core to who we are. So our commitment remains unchanged. We will do what’s right for our people, for our business. And at the end of the day, building a diverse and inclusive workplace helps us deliver stronger results.” Mastercard Meeting date: June 18, 2025 The NLPC says it has submitted a proposal to the credit card company over executive pay and DEI goals. The proposal, seen by Fortune, asks “the board of directors’ Human Resources and Compensation Committee to consider eliminating discriminatory DEI and ESG goals from compensation inducements.” Mastercard did not respond to a request for comment, but the company touts the value of inclusion on its website. McDonald’s Meeting date: TBA McDonald’s recently scaled back some of its DEI programs after facing online activism from Robby Starbuck. The NLPC has also submitted a shareholder proposal over executive pay at the company and its connection to diversity targets. But the company hopes to keep the issue from reaching its annual meeting, telling the SEC that it has already implemented many of the requested changes. Merck Meeting date: TBA The NLPC submitted a proposal over Merck tying DEI goals to executive pay. The company hopes to omit the proposal from its annual meeting both because the pharmaceutical company has implemented many of the suggested changes, and because the proposal relates to the company’s ordinary operations. Mondelez Meeting date: TBA The NLPC wants investors in the food and beverage company to support its call for a corporate financial sustainability report outlining Mondelez’s “association and support for controversial issues” such as LGBTQ+ rights. The conservative think tank claims the company lost money when it partnered with PFLAG to produce Pride-themed Oreo cookies. Mondelez has moved to have the proposal excluded from the company’s proxy statement, arguing that it resembles a proposal submitted in 2024 that did not receive enough support to be resubmitted. PepsiCo Meeting date: TBA The NLPC has called on PepsiCo to “revisit its incentive guidelines for executive pay, to consider eliminating discriminatory DEI goals from compensation inducements, to reduce risk exposure.” Pepsi did not respond to a request for comment. The company’s commitments to diversity and racial equality are described on its website, and in its most recent DEI report. This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
The problem I have faced to my face as a Jew. 1. You're rich. 2. Jews are aggressive :The issue really is I can't convince them otherwise when one of the two happens. Nothing can change their mind, unless I let them see my bank account and perform monk like passivity for a month. The other one is being watched as I tip, as if I was on stage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
