Billionaires Worth A Combined $1.35 Trillion Attended Trump’s Inauguration: Here’s Who Was There—From Musk To Bezos Mary Whitfill Roeloffs Forbes Staff Jan 20, 2025 https://www.forbes.com/sites/katyas...n-ukraine-news-and-information-from-ukraine/? Big-name billionaires worth a collective $1.35 trillion—including four of the five richest men in the world—attended the inauguration of President Donald Trump Monday morning as many looked to strengthen their relationship with the pro-business president as he takes office. Priscilla Chan, Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg, [+] Lauren Sanchez, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Tesla CEO Elon Musk at the inauguration ceremony.POOL/AFP via Getty Images Key Facts The world’s three wealthiest people attended multiple inauguration morning events:Amazon founder Jeff Bezos (worth $239.4 billion according to Forbes’ estimates), Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg ($211.8 billion) and Elon Musk ($433.9 billion), the Tesla CEO, world’s richest person and presidential confidant who spent over a quarter of a billion dollars to help Trump win November's election. Sergey Brin ($154 billion), the co-founder of Alphabet and seventh-richest man in the world, joined Musk, Bezos and others in being seated behind Trump during the swearing-in. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman ($1.1 billion) and Apple CEO Tim Cook ($2.2 billion), who donated money to the inauguration, were in the Capitol Rotunda Monday morning, as was billionaire backer Miriam Adelson ($31.9 billion) and former Fox News Chairman Rupert Murdoch ($22.2 billion). Bernard Arnault ($179.6 billion), the head of the LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton luxury empire and the richest person in France, was at the inauguration with his son, Alexandre. Mukesh Ambani ($98.1 billion), the richest man in India, reportedly attended inauguration events, and Trump’s friend Phil Ruffin, a Las Vegas casino executive worth $4.7 billion, was also spotted at the Capitol, according to The New York Times. Several billionaires and their spouses have been offered top roles in the Trump administration, including Howard Lutnick ($1.5 billion) and Vivek Ramaswamy ($1 billion), both of whom were seen at the inauguration. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong ($12.8 billion) was invited to inauguration-related events, according to Bloomberg, but hadn’t yet been seen as of the swearing in. Other billionaires who have been offered jobs in the administration, but their attendance wasn’t confirmed, include Stephen Feinberg ($5 billion), Warren Stephens ($3.4 billion), Jared Isaacman ($1.9 billion), Steve Witkoff ($1 billion), Linda McMahon (husband Vince McMahon is worth $3 billion) and Kelly Loeffler (husband Jeff Sprecher is worth $1.1 billion). Zuckerberg co-hosted a pre-Inaugural Ball reception for Trump alongside Adelson, Tilman Fertitta ($10.2 billion) and Todd Ricketts, whose father J. Joe Ricketts and family are worth an estimated $4.2 billion. How Much Is Trump Worth? Trump himself is worth an estimated $6.7 billion thanks to his stake in Truth Social's parent company, his real estate investments and other assets. What Other Billionaires Could Attend? Dozens of other billionaires also supported Trump on his road to a second term who haven’t been confirmed as attendees, including Robert “Woody” Johnson ($3.3 billion), Elizabeth and Richard Uihlein (each worth $5.9 billion), Roger Penske ($6.5 billion) and Timothy Mellon (family was worth $14.1 billion). Did Billionaires Like Musk, Bezos And Zuckerberg Back Trump’s Campaign? Some of them did, but others either stayed out of the presidential race or were Trump foes before they started trying to make nice. Zuckerberg’s Meta previously banned Trump from Instagram and Facebook—and Trump once threatened to send him to prison—before he fell in line following the election results. Since then, Zuckerberg has donated $1 million to his inaugural fund, met with Trump at Mar-A-Lago, made changes to how its platforms fact-check posts and put Trump’s friend Dana White on Meta’s board. In the leadup to the election, Zuckerberg did not endorse a candidate but did call Trump’s response to his assassination attempt “badass.” Bezos also has a history of clashing with Trump: Amazon in 2019 blamed Trump's "personal dislike" of Bezos for losing a multibillion-dollar cloud computing contract with the Pentagon, and Trump has been critical of the Bezos-owned Washington Post. Bezos didn’t endorse Trump last year but said he “showed tremendous grace and courage under literal fire” following the assassination attempt, and donated $1 million to the inaugural fund. Others have supported him all along. Musk is among Trump’s biggest donors, alongside Adelson, the widow of billionaire Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson, who donated $100 million to the pro-Trump super PAC Preserve America during the election. Fertitta, owner of the Houston Rockets and Landry’s restaurant group, has been nominated to serve as U.S. ambassador to Italy after the Texas billionaire hosted a fundraiser for Trump last year. Ricketts, a co-owner of the Chicago Cubs, has been a major fundraiser for Republican politicians and, while he initially fundraised within the party against Trump during his first campaign, he ultimately went on to spearhead pro-Trump fundraising in 2020 and last year. Tangent Other corporate leaders planned on attending the inauguration, including Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla and Walmart CEO Doug McMillon, according to the Wall Street Journal. TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew attended, after his platform took itself offline Sunday due to a nationwide ban taking effect—and restored service when Trump vowed to delay the ban upon taking office. Other supporters are throwing events around Washington over inauguration weekend, including an “Inaugural Crypto Ball” that featured Snoop Dogg and a party held by Uber and its CEO Dara Khosrowshahi. James Quincey, CEO of Coca-Cola Company, on Tuesday presented Trump with the "first ever Presidential Commemorative Inaugural Diet Coke bottle." Microsoft, Ford, Google and AI search startup Perplexity also donated $1 million to the inaugural fund. Ripple, a crypto company, gave $5 million worth of its cryptocurrency to the inaugural committee. Other major donors include Goldman Sachs, Intuit, Toyota, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, General Motors, Bank of America, AT&T and Stanley Black & Decker, the Journal reported. Big Number More than $170 million. That’s how much Trump’s inaugural fund is believed to have raised, almost three times as much as the $62 million raised by President Joe Biden four years ago and well above the previous record of $107 million, set by Trump's 2016 inauguration. Donors who gave $1 million, or raised $2 million from others, were reportedly given six tickets to a series of events in the days leading up to the inauguration, including a “candlelight dinner” with Trump and Melania Trump and a black-tie ball.
Reply to this post is inline, below. Post has been reformatted to facilitate reply: QUOTE="themickey, post: 6082704, member: 161656"]Australians join super-rich cosying up to Trump – and aren’t afraid to say what they want Ben Doherty https://www.theguardian.com/austral...n-australian-politicians-billionaires-support Gina Rinehart and Anthony Pratt are among the super-rich seeking a direct line to the US president and a chance to increase their already immense power The characterization of "already immense power" needs to be supported, as it may not be a statement not based upon facts. In addition, it implies that checks and balances are either missing or have been compromised, which may be true, but does not identify the source of compromise. There is not an agreed collective noun for billionaires: an abundance … a bubble … a privilege … an avoidance. Why would there be a need for a "collective noun"? Is there not diversity among the world's 2640+ billionaires? From their country of origin, how their wealth was obtained, their political philosophy, to how the allocate their wealth? To name just a few differences? Newly reinstated as president of the US, Donald J Trump has surrounded himself – or finds himself surrounded by – a retinue of some of the richest people ever to walk the face of the Earth. "Newly reinstated"? Trump was reelected by a larger margin of victory than his first election victory. The images have been striking. Prominent at Trump’s intimate indoor inauguration sat the three wealthiest people on the planet: X’s Elon Musk, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg. "The images have been striking"? In what way? Flanked by other members of the billionaire’s club, they sat centre of a single row of people worth more than a trillion dollars, perched on fold-out chairs. "perched on fold-out chairs"? Heavy. This is the new elite, the new president’s praetorian guard. To some, including former presidents, this is an emerging oligarchy. "praetorian guard". This comparison needs support, especially as it has a seemingly undeserved negative connotation. "This is an emerging oligarchy" is a statement that needs factual support in order to be credible. The billionaires jostling for position in Trump’s inner circle already wield immense power. "jostling for position"? Is this an author's opinion, an expert on billionaire thinking, or a billionaire themselves? The statement "already wield immense power" needs factual support and justification for use for the word immense for reason stated earlier. “But I think getting close to Trump is about extending that economic power, that media power up to direct political power, and in a sense, breaking down the traditional boundary between the private and the public sphere,” argues Prof Carl Rhodes, professor of organisation studies and dean of the Business School, University of Technology Sydney. Democracies, he says, have long observed a distinction between the democratically governed public sphere, and the personal and corporate realms. Interesting the author of this post didn't lead with this paragraph. Let's break it down. ..."breaking down the traditional boundary between the private and public sphere". Don't know about the Australian system, but in the US system, corporate lobbyists have long had their interests expressed to those with political power. Incidentally, in the early twentieth century, a significant amount of the barons wealth benefitted public interests after their death, or even before, due to government action. “This is the final big step in erasing that barrier so that private interests can benefit from political power. And that’s why it’s so dangerous. The characterizations of this author are consistency unsupported and seemingly ridiculous. "final" "big step" "erasing that barrier". Sounds ominous. Is the author attempting to evoke an emotional, rather than intellectual reaction from readers? In order to be better able to manipulate them? “Of course, this has been going on for a long time, with lobbying and donations and other forms of direct contributions. But this now, is just so brazen. It’s not even pretending to be covert.” Good of author to mention lobbying, finally. Interesting the way this article was organized. "But this now, is just so brazen". "It's not even pretending to be Covert". Other words that could apply here are "Transparency". However, there is apparently an narrative that needs to be driven... The Trump presidencies have already proved themselves beneficial to the super-rich: Trump’s cuts to corporate tax in 2017 – from 35% to 21% – added billions to company profits and to the personal wealth of America’s richest. Income tax cuts skewed to the top 0.1% of households helped billionaires pay a lower rate of tax than the working class for the first time in American history. Until Covid-19 hit, the global economy was thriving with benefits reaching deeper into working poor in the United States than prior economic booms. Had Trump not been re-elected, those tax cuts were set to expire next year. But the reinstalled president has promised, instead, more cuts to corporate rates, and personal cuts for the “highest earners”. "the reinstalled president", again. Ok, now I get it. The author is insinuating the election results were not the will of the people, rather the will of the rich, at least for this particular election, who have the powers to cause their desired election outcome. Whatever the reason for the Democrat loss, it could not have been anything related to voter objection to policy and direction of country, right? (Eyeroll). The problem with the authors argument is the greater flow of money and endorsements to Democrat political candidates compared to republican candidates. The Democrats had roughly a four to one monetary advantage over Republicans. The Democrats seemingly used several forms of extortion against large businesses. In exchange for businesses to support DEI and Woke agendas through public statements, hiring practices, and logo displays, the DNC apparatus would provide "media protection". Media protection was especially attractive to key executives who were compromised through sex related activities such as sponsored parties, apparently. Remember the term "Cancelled"? If you spoke out against ongoing Leftist narratives, you faced retaliation in the media, an investigation, maybe private maybe more, and risked specific, increased regulatory oversight, apparently. Is it not reasonable for those who produce to want to be "free from the yolk" of those who don't produce? Especially when the morals of their "would be Leftist political masters" may have involved sex crimes of various kinds against children and their seeming elevation and imposition of alternative sexual identities within public schools? “You’re rich as hell,” he told a donor dinner on the campaign trail. “We’re going to give you tax cuts.” Business titans wanting the ear of a president is no new phenomenon in US politics. What is categorically different about Trump’s cohort is the influence they wield independent of the bully pulpit of the presidency. Many own and control social media platforms and tech companies that reach billions across the planet daily: they have an unprecedented capacity to sway public opinion. Many of these platforms have been crucial in spreading misinformation and disinformation around the globe. No shit. Misinformation has historically spread from both the Left and the Right. However, it seems the Left has a higher propensity to disseminate counter productive information related to culture than the Right. Leftist attacks upon culture, country, and heritage are particularly insidious over time. It is how to break a society. It destroys economic prosperity, family relationships, and mental health. It is useful for those with little to offer to gain power, however. Musk, the world’s richest person, has been a conspicuous constant, omnipresent at the side of the president: at Mar-a-Lago, at rallies, and at the inauguration day events. He poured a quarter of a billion dollars into getting Trump elected. Again, Democrats outspent Republicans four to one in the 2024 US Presidential election. Perhaps even more critically, his social media platform X, was slavish in its support of Trump’s campaign: credited by analysts as a key factor in his decisive election win. Bolded are emotion evoking words. The author "forgot to mention" MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, PBS, shills on social media, prominently displayed logos and flags at businesses that support Leftist narratives. Musk has made erratic forays into global politics too: demanding UK prime minister Keir Starmer be jailed, and endorsing Germany’s far-right AfD party. In Australia, prime minister Anthony Albanese pre-emptively warned Musk off interfering in elections this year: “Australian elections are a matter for Australians”. Would a reasonable solution for the above be a free and open press that reliably applies long established journalistic principles in order to maintain credibility with viewers as compared to prominent, attention seeking individuals? Is society better off with individuals being dumbed down by weak media content and a weak educational system or with stronger institutions? The question is … Can Australian culture withstand this new expansion of influence? Prof Carl Rhodes The lead-up to, and the wake of, November’s presidential election saw a steady stream of the super-wealthy make the pilgrimage to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, to be granted an audience to quietly pay obeisance, or a seat at the apparently joyless dinner table in which to publicly declare fealty. Ah, so Left is fearing their policies may cost them another election and are attempting to perform "damage control" against anticipated, previously successful campaign strategy of their opponents. Zuckerberg and Bezos arrived to kiss the ring, as did Apple’s Tim Cook, Google’s Sergey Brin, and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates. “Some of the business people who have been cozying up to Trump represent companies that get a lot of government contracts or are worried about government regulation,” Darrell West, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, observed to Reuters. Underlines here apparently represent an appeal to a greater authority for credibility purposes. Ironically, some members of the listed organizations may be self-servicing politically. And seeking a seat at the table too – literally and figuratively – have been Australian billionaires. James Packer came for dinner. Gina Rinehart and Anthony Pratt displayed their loyalty with effusive full-page ads in newspapers in Trump’s home town. Gina Rinehart’s wishlist was strikingly transparent. “To the Outstanding Leader,” she addressed her missive, “who understands that high government tape, regulation and taxes do nothing to encourage investment.” Is not the above statement "substantially" true and a desirable outcome that encourages productive use of wealth and risk taking that ultimately drives improves job prospects and innovation to the benefit of most, if not all? She backed it up in interviews with uncritical media in Australia, saying she hoped Australia would be “inspired by Donald Trump” and urging Australian governments to adopt his policies: “We should set up a Doge (department of government efficiency) immediately, reduce government waste, government tape and regulations”. She said she was “wanting to invest more billions in the US”. “We see the US will become, under President Trump’s leadership, an outstanding investment opportunity.” Anthony Pratt was similarly oleaginous. “I’m honored to support your call to Make America Great Again by bringing manufacturing jobs back home,” he told Trump through the pages of the New York T Pratt, whom Trump notoriously called “a red-haired weirdo from Australia”, has long sought to cultivate the president: he has invited him to factory openings (Pratt’s US company operates 70 sites across the country), and gave $US10m to MAGA Inc, a super-pac supporting Trump, in the days before the election. After Trump’s victory, Pratt hosted a party for 700 people at Mar-a-Lago (Trump wasn’t there). He also donated more than $1m to the president’s inauguration fund. Is it not possible this donation could ultimately benefit Australians through more favorable trade agreements, for example? Joe Biden, in his farewell address from the Oval Office that is now Trump’s, warned America of “the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a very few ultra-wealthy people, and the dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked”. No shit. “Today,” Biden said, “an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms.” Again, the key to Democracy is a free, open, and competent press that never losses its credibility with its informed viewers. Informed viewers are the result of a strong education system. Guess with institutions have been under attack by the Left in the last few decades? At least in the United States? The Right is also culpable to a degree, at least when it comes to funding of public education, it seems. Rhodes, the author of Stinking Rich: the Four Myths of the Good Billionaire, concurs with Biden’s assessment of the US, and argues the same risks exist for other liberal democracies such as Australia. Of course they concur. What was Biden's popularity ratings in the US? Hmmmm? “The question is: is Australian culture robust enough to see through it? It’s kind of characteristic of Australian culture to question these things, to not be duped by this sort of colonisation. Can Australian culture withstand this new expansion of influence?” Underlined and bolded text are emotional, manipulative words. Trump is useful too, Rhodes argues, to billionaires seeking to justify their vast wealth in a world of widening inequality. Applied to relative wealth, the statement "Widening inequality" is an concern. There is also the concept of improved standard of living that coordinated efforts between politicians and proven, very successful individuals can achieve. Is the glass half full or half empty? Perhaps in selling political services, it is best to campaign the glass is half empty. But actually it is better to vote for those who have a track record at being productive, right? He describes the myth of the “vigilante billionaire”, one with an admirable disrespect for the law and convention and who, faced with a social ill that government is unable or unwilling to fix, “comes in and single-handedly fixes it and then rides off into the sunset”. It’s the moral case, Rhodes says, the billionaire makes for the billionaire, the demagogue for the demagogue. “When Trump talks about ‘draining the swamp’ and dismantling government bureaucracy: it’s him and only him who can save America. “If you listen to Elon Musk, when he bought X, it wasn’t because it was a good business deal, it was because he wanted to be this messianic saviour of democracy.” Rhodes argues the myth is used as a self-justification for actions and policies that entrench inequality. Trump and Musk don't work because they have to. They are willing to be subject to unfair, hostile media coverage and people within crowds. Subjecting themselves to physical, reputational, financial, and legal risk. Is some of this ego based? Of course. Could some of their efforts be related to sincere concerns where we are headed as a country? As a species? I say, not knowing Trump or Musk personally, of course. What do you say? “That’s why I say it moralises billionaires because it makes them look good: they’re the heroes. “But what this myth does is mask the fact that they’re sequestering increasingly large proportions of the world’s wealth when many others are going hungry. It’s a means of preventing moves towards a more equal and fair society.”[/QUOTE The author closes strong. Fundamentally, if not structurally, a system needs to achieve a fair proportion of wealth among participants and should consider future participants, such as those in developing countries. By participants, I mean those who are productively engaged at modern or near modern levels. We need to address systemic weaknesses, deficiencies. For example, what was the chain of events that caused us to go so far astray politically, geopolitically, the media, the legal system, our educational system, and our environment? Massive reforms are necessary. We should look to the source that has a track record of productivity as opposed to the source that complains the glass in half empty because the other side is unfair, while the complainers engage in seeming well established unethical conduct. Still, a strong, incorruptible fair system of check and balances is needed. This requires the people managing checks and balances to be uncorruptible as well. A tall order. Thus a strong auditing system is needed as well. Our institutions used to reliably deliver upon their imperatives. They are broken now in the United States and the Biden Administration has done seemingly nothing to fix them. Trump may not either, but at least he has committed to doing so. Now that Trump has the additional resources of successful billionaires in his second term, it seems he has a fighting change. Let's give them a chance and either help directly or in our own way. At least not throw roadblocks in needed progress that will ultimately benefit all, including the dissenters. My assertion implies the honest discussion between politicians, billionaires, intellectuals, scientists, experts of their field, and the media. Including among ourselves. We all need to allocate time to think about things and be willing to participate in our system in a helpful way, with an eye towards improving things, especially within our expertise.
The article above fails to mention Tik Tok CEO, Shou Chew. TikTok CEO joins Trump’s inauguration as app’s future remains in doubt ByteDance has said it doesn’t intend to sell the video-sharing app, valued at an estimated US$40 billion to US$50 billion Author of the article: Bloomberg News, Kurt Wagner, Published Jan 20, 2025 https://financialpost.com/news/tiktok-ceo-joins-trumps-inauguration Shou Chew’s relationship with Donald Trump could be key to the app’s survival, as after TikTok temporarily went dark in the U.S. over the weekend, the app returned on Sunday following Trump’s pledge that he would not enforce the law. Photo by Shawn Thew-Pool/Getty Images files TikTok chief executive Shou Chew attended president-elect Donald Trump’s inaugural events in Washington, appearing at a church service before the swearing-in ceremony as his popular video-sharing app faces the threat of a nationwide ban....... .......Chew’s relationship with Trump could be key to the app’s survival. After TikTok temporarily went dark in the U.S. over the weekend, the app returned on Sunday following Trump’s pledge that he would not enforce the law. The law forbids tech giants like Apple Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Oracle Corp. from carrying TikTok in their respective app stores or providing the app with necessary cloud and infrastructure support. “Thanks for your patience and support,” TikTok wrote to users in an in-app notification on Sunday. “As a result of President Trump’s efforts, TikTok is back in the U.S.!”
How a German Thinker Explains MAGA Morality Jan. 26, 2025 Trump splits the world into friends and enemies.Credit...Paola Chapdelaine for The New York Times By David French Opinion Columnist https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/26/opinion/trump-maga-schmitt.html “When you worship power, compassion and mercy will look like sins.” Benjamin Cremer, a Wesleyan pastor and writer who is based in Idaho, posted that thought last year. I saw it last week and immediately forwarded it to some of my close friends with a note that said that this sentence captures our political moment. It helps describe America’s moral divide. Over the last decade, I’ve watched many of my friends and neighbors make a remarkable transformation. They’ve gone from supporting Donald Trump in spite of his hatefulness to reveling in his aggression. This isn’t a new observation. In fact, it’s so obvious as to verge on the banal. The far more interesting question is why. How is it that so many Americans seem to have abandoned any commitment to personal virtue — at least in their political lives — and have instead embraced merciless political combat so enthusiastically that they believe you’re immoral if you don’t join their crusade or even if you don’t mimic their methods? It’s a question with a multifaceted answer. In December, I wrote a column examining the question through a specifically religious lens. When a person believes that he or she possesses eternal truth, there’s a temptation to believe that he or she is entitled to rule. There’s a difference, however, between yielding to temptation and developing an alternative morality. And what we’ve been witnessing in the last decade is millions of Americans constructing a different moral superstructure. And while it is certainly notable and powerful in Trumpism, it is not exclusive to Trumpism. A good way to understand this terrible political morality is to read Carl Schmitt, a German political theorist who joined the Nazi Party after Hitler became chancellor. I want to be careful here — I am not arguing that millions of Americans are suddenly Schmittians, acolytes of one of the fascist regime’s favorite political theorists. The vast majority of Americans have no idea who he is. Nor would they accept all of his ideas. One of his ideas, however, is almost perfectly salient to the moment: his description, in a 1932 book called “The Concept of the Political,” of the “friend-enemy distinction.” The political sphere, according to Schmitt, is distinct from the personal sphere, and it has its own distinct contrasts. “Let us assume,” Schmitt wrote, “that in the realm of morality the final distinctions are between good and evil, in aesthetics beautiful and ugly, in economics profitable and unprofitable.” Politics, however, has “its own ultimate distinctions.” In that realm, “the specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.” One of liberalism’s deficiencies, according to Schmitt, is a reluctance to draw the friend-enemy distinction. Failing to draw it is a fool’s errand. An enduring political community can exist only when it draws this distinction. It is this contrast with outsiders that creates the community. Schmitt was being both descriptive and prescriptive here. If the friend-enemy distinction is necessary to the creation and preservation of a political community, then it can be destructive to seek accommodation with your political opponents. This is human nature, and it’s naïve not to yield to our essential character. Schmitt was partly right. The friend-enemy distinction is an aspect of human nature, and we are constantly tempted to yield to it, to rationalize it and to indulge it. Rather than resist it, we want to find some way to make it right, often simply to preserve our self-conception that we are moral and decent people. He was also right that the friend-enemy distinction is ultimately incompatible with the liberal democratic project. Pluralism seeks to create a community in which historical enemies can live in peace and flourish side by side. If the friend-enemy distinction is an essential feature of human nature, how can pluralism survive? No one was more aware than the founders that the American experiment contradicts our base natures. A century before Schmitt was born, they understood that reality intimately. Our government is constructed with the understanding that, as James Madison famously put it in Federalist No. 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” The Constitution tries to ameliorate the will to power as best it can — as Madison said in the same essay, “ambition must be made to counteract ambition” — but the founders also knew that even our elaborate system of checks and balances is insufficient. To make our system work, virtue is a necessity. “We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion,” John Adams wrote in his 1798 Letter to the Massachusetts Militia, “Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net.” Adams’s New England metaphor is perfect (his readers would absolutely know what a whale would do to a net): Pluralism requires both law and ethics to function, and without ethics the law will fail. We forget how much the founders — for all their faults — were focused not just on the forms of American government, but also on personal virtue. One of my favorite books from last year was “The Pursuit of Happiness” by Jeffrey Rosen, the president of the National Constitution Center. The book describes how the founders envisioned the pursuit of happiness not as the pursuit of pleasure or wealth, but rather as “the pursuit of virtue — as being good, rather than feeling good.” Benjamin Franklin, for example, listed temperance, silence, order, resolution, frugality, industry, sincerity, justice, moderation, cleanliness, tranquillity, chastity and humility as indispensable elements of virtue. You can immediately see the contrast with Schmitt’s friend-enemy politics. Virtue ethics certainly recognizes the existence of enemies, but it still imposes moral obligations on our treatment of our foes. The virtues Franklin listed are not simply the way you love your own political tribe; they are universal moral obligations that apply to our treatment of everyone. Demonstrate these virtues, and your enemies can live with dignity and freedom even when they lose a political battle. When your enemies show the same virtues, you can still enjoy a good life even when you lose. That’s the social compact of pluralism. In a decent society, no defeat is ultimate defeat, and no victory is ultimate victory. And in all circumstances, your fundamental human rights must be preserved. Dive too deeply into the friend-enemy distinction, by contrast, and it can become immoral to treat your enemies with kindness if kindness weakens the community in its struggle against a mortal foe. In the world of the friend-enemy distinction, your ultimate virtue is found in your willingness to fight. Your ultimate vice is betraying your side by refusing the call to political war. The friend-enemy distinction explains why so many Republicans are particularly furious at anti-Trump dissenters — especially when those dissenters hold conservative values. In the friend-enemy distinction, ideology is secondary to loyalty. You see this principle at work in Trump’s decision to pardon or commute the sentences of the Jan. 6 rioters and to revoke secret service protection from one of his former national security advisers, John Bolton, and from one of his former secretarys of state, Mike Pompeo. Friends can get away with violent crimes. Bolton and Pompeo publicly criticized Trump, and now they’re enemies who have to pay the price. While Trumpists are among the most vicious voices in the public square, merciless aggression is sadly common across the political spectrum, especially at the extremes. I’ve seen far-left activists utterly demonize their opponents. Any deviation from orthodoxy is perceived as evil, and evil must be utterly eradicated. And there’s no humility in cancel culture — regardless of whether it comes from left or right. Because our civics depends on our ethics, we should be teaching ethics right alongside civics. Sadly, we’re failing at both tasks, and our baser nature is telling millions of Americans that cruelty is good, if it helps us win, and kindness is evil, if it weakens our cause. That is the path of destruction. As the prophet Isaiah said, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.” Woe to them, yes, but as friend-enemy politics dominates our discourse, tears our families and communities to shreds and reshapes our national morality, a darker thought crosses my mind. Woe to us all.
Predator’: Caroline Kennedy warns senators of RFK Jr in searing letter By Jacqueline Alemany, Dan Diamond and Liz Goodwin January 29, 2025 Washington: Caroline Kennedy has warned US senators about her cousin Robert F. Kennedy Jr, calling him a “predator” whose victims have ranged from family members to the parents of sick children. Kennedy Jr is President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. In a copy of a letter obtained by The Washington Post and sent to lawmakers ahead of his confirmation hearings this week, the former ambassador to Australia alleges that her cousin, “addicted to attention and power” has given hypocritical advice by discouraging parents from vaccinating their children, while vaccinating his own children. She alleged that his “crusade against vaccination” has also served to enrich him. US Ambassador to Australia Caroline Kennedy and Robert F Kennedy Jr.Credit: Dominic Lorrimer/Bloomberg “I have known Bobby my whole life; we grew up together,” wrote Kennedy. “It’s no surprise that he keeps birds of prey as pets because he himself is a predator.” A spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. She goes on to claim that through “the strength of his personality”, other family members followed Kennedy Jr “down the path of drug addiction”. “His basement, his garage, his dorm room were the centres of the action where drugs were available, and he enjoyed showing off how he put baby chickens and mice in the blender to feed his hawks. It was often a perverse scene of despair and violence.” It is noteworthy and significant that Caroline Kennedy, who is famously private about family matters, felt moved to issue this searing indictment of RFK Jr.'s nomination as HHS Secy. She commended Kennedy Jr for “pulling himself out of illness and disease” but lamented the “siblings and cousins who Bobby encouraged down the path of substance abuse suffered addiction, illness, and death while Bobby has gone on to misrepresent, lie, and cheat his way through life.” Caroline Kennedy has been reticent to publicly comment on her cousin’s politics, and told senators that she is speaking up now but reluctantly. “I have never wanted to speak publicly about my family members and their challenges,” she wrote. But at an event in November at the National Press Club in Canberra, she dismissed her cousin’s views on vaccines as “dangerous” and said they were not reflective of the views of “most Americans” and the rest of the Kennedy family. “I would say that our family is united in terms of our support for the public health sector and infrastructure and has the greatest admiration for the medical profession in our country and Bobby Kennedy has got a different set of views,” Caroline Kennedy said at the time. Robert F. Kennedy Jr is among Trump’s most vulnerable cabinet nominees. Former Vice President Mike Pence and his conservative advocacy group have raised concerns about his past support for abortion. Several Republican senators, including Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who chairs the Senate’s health committee, have said that he has wrongly questioned the safety of vaccines. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a polio survivor, does not appear to have granted a meeting with Kennedy Jr, raising questions about whether he will vote to confirm him, and other Republican senators have also not said where they stand on the nomination. Kennedy Jr can only lose three Republican votes if all Democrats vote against him, and still be confirmed. He has two confirmation hearings, one on Wednesday and one on Thursday. While Caroline Kennedy’s testimonial may not sway Republicans, it could shore up Democrats’ opposition to her cousin’s nomination. Democrats have contested his nomination but many have said they will approach the confirmation with an open mind and are refusing to rule out voting for him, though they have cited deep concerns about his views on vaccines. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania and some other senators have signalled they are open to supporting Trump’s nominees and have agreed with some of Kennedy Jr’s views on the healthcare industry. He has spent more than a month meeting with dozens of senators, seeking to sway them, although it is not clear whether those efforts secured additional votes or further antagonised his sceptics. Patty Murray of Washington, a prominent Kennedy critic, told The Washington Post it was the most troubling meeting that she has had with a cabinet nominee in her entire career. Some of Kennedy’s family members spoke out against his presidential campaign and endorsement of Trump, saying he did not represent their family’s Democratic values, but had been largely silent on his nomination to run the nation’s health department. Robert F. Kennedy Jr arrives before Donald Trump speaks during an America First Policy Institute gala at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida.Credit: AP Advocacy groups, meanwhile, have heavily contested his nomination, warning that the longtime anti-vaccine activist is not fit to oversee agencies responsible for the nation’s vaccine supply; would restrict abortion access; and take other steps to weaken the nation’s public health infrastructure. Protect Our Care, a Democrat-aligned advocacy group running a “Stop RFK” war room, has commissioned advertisements highlighting Kennedy Jr’s visit to Samoa and meetings with anti-vaccine activists before an outbreak of measles, a vaccine-preventable disease, hit the island nation. 314 Action, another liberal advocacy group, unveiled new ads on Monday that also focus on his rhetoric and Samoa’s outbreak. Kennedy Jr has maintained that he is not anti-vaccine and has denied any connection with Samoa’s measles outbreak. He is also facing pressure from some conservatives who say they do not trust the longtime liberal and scion of a famous Democratic family to pursue Republican priorities. Advancing American Freedom, a conservative group backed by Pence, has commissioned its own ads featuring video of then-candidate Trump deriding Kennedy Jr last year as “more liberal” than any Democratic candidate for president. Pence and his group have also urged conservative Republicans to scrutinise his stance on abortion in the upcoming hearings. Trump allies have tried to rally support for Kennedy Jr’s nomination. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative advocacy organisation, has touted him as a would-be reformer who can take on special interests that have harmed Americans’ health. The Washington Post
Under their Government they started the situation that killed 40000 Gaza citizens Hamas leaders worth staggering $11B revel in luxury — while Gaza’s people suffer
Oh, you mean Rupert Murdochs NY Post? New York Post Hamas leaders worth staggering $11B revel in luxury — while Gaza’s people suffer By Isabel Vincent and Benjamin Weinthal Published Nov. 7, 2023 ............................... The New York Post (NY Post) is an American conservative daily tabloid newspaper published in New York City. The Post also operates three online sites: NYPost.com; PageSix.com, a gossip site; and Decider.com, an entertainment site. In 1976, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp bought the Post for US$30.5 million (equivalent to $163 million in 2023). As of 2023, the New York Post is the fourth-largest newspaper by print circulation among all U.S. newspapers. The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy, and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review stated that the "New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem—a force for evil." The Post has been accused of contorting its news coverage to suit Murdoch's business needs, in particular avoiding subjects which could be unflattering to the government of the People's Republic of China, where Murdoch has invested heavily in satellite television. In a 2004 survey conducted by Pace University, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible). WIKI
The luxury that the Hamas leadership is living in outside of Gaza has regularly been pointed out in the Arab press as well. It is clear where a good portion of UNRWA cash actually went.