Image 01 Image 03

Merger of Big Corp and Big Law with Democrats Is Part of a Political Realignment

Merger of Big Corp and Big Law with Democrats Is Part of a Political Realignment

We’re seeing a realignment of the country, with once Republican-friendly large corporate America openly siding with Democrats and pushing progressive agendas.

Something’s happening here, what it is is becoming clear.

We first noticed it when Big Tech began to silence Trump supporters on social media in an obvious attempt to sway the election for Joe Biden. And it worked. While there’s no single factor that threw the election, the actions of Big Tech is quashing negative stories, such as Biden family influence peddling, were significant. Post-election, the same Big Tech that allowed Russia-collusion conspiracy theories to thrive for four years deplatformed people and even the President, for allegedly spreading election conspiracy theories.

Focusing on Big Tech was correct and understandable because Big Tech controls so much of our communications. But what has become clear is that the Big Tech problem was really a subset of a Big Woke Corp. problem.

Many of largest corporations, including household names like Coca-Cola and Delta, have thrown in with Democrats based on the Big Lie that modest changes to preserve voting integrity are “Jim Crow 2.0.” We covered recently how lies about the Georgia voter integrity laws caused corporations to become agents of Democrats,  Over 100 Corporate Leaders Side With Democrats, Form Plan to Respond to Voting Laws.

But it’s more than that. Big Law, some of the largest law firms who represent Big Corp, are lending their legal weight to the effort:

A group of major law firms formed a coalition “to challenge voter suppression legislation.” ….

Also on the call was Brad Karp, the chairman of the law firm Paul Weiss. On Monday, Mr. Karp said he had organized the coalition of law firms, which also include Skadden; Cravath, Swaine & Moore; and Wachtell Lipton.

“It puts legislators on notice that if there are laws that are unconstitutional or illegal they will face pushback from the legal community,” said Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice, a New York think tank that is working with the coalition. “This is beyond the pale. You’re hearing that from the business community, and you’re hearing it from the legal community.”

The law firm Paul Weiss, which is among the most prestigious in the nation, has been touting this effort, referring to the new laws as “the rebirth of Jim Crow.”

This is bigger than Big Tech, as Dan McClaughlin points out at National Review, The Party in Power Is Directing a Corporate Conspiracy against Its Political Opposition:

The president, and his party’s lawyer, are urging multiple major corporations to combine to restrain trade for the purpose of making it harder for its political opposition to win elections, and using lies to restrict the president’s democratically elected critics from passing laws. If we saw this in another country, we would recognize it as a menacing step.

This is happening now, in the United States, in the fight over the Georgia election law. It appears likely to happen again in other states considering similar laws.

This is the big news. It’s not just Big Tech.

We’re seeing a realignment of the country, with once Republican-friendly large corporate America openly siding with Democrats and pushing progressive agendas.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Morning Sunshine | April 13, 2021 at 8:31 pm

There is a word for this type of economic system… If only I could remember what it is… if only it was not overused in inappropriate and WRONG ways.

Fascism. That is the word.

And it is the LEFT promoting it!

I question whether corporate America was ever really Republican-friendly. Often they worked both sides of the street (big tax cuts from Republicans, government bailouts and fat government contracts from the Communists).

What I think is different now is that since corporations have moved so much of their operations overseas to take advantage of slave labor (China) “woke” politics serves as a convenient cover for that unsavory fact.

    Burn_the_Witch in reply to Recovering Lutheran. | April 13, 2021 at 10:41 pm

    I think the bigger factor for corporations is that they’re trying to tap into the Chinese consumer market directly. As such, they’re taking their cues and marching orders from China.

    In the end, they’re not going to like dealing with the devil.

Corps are also buying scrutiny avoidance.

What we are seeing is an unfolding leftwing Marxist fascist coup, in progress. With the objective of creating a one party fascist nation. Like today’s communist China. And like Mussolini’s Italy and Nazi Germany in the past.

Will it succeed? Looks to me like it has much better than a 50/50 chance. This time. But if it fails, because there will be no consequences for failure, they’ll try again the next time there is a major crisis, real or fake, they can exploit. Sooner rather than later.

Unless a significant majority of the American public wakes up soon to the reality of what is happening there will no longer be free, fair, and open elections in most of the country. I see individual states beginning to virtually secede. By ignoring and defying the fascist federal government.

Do the fascists have enough support to forcefully impose their will on renegade states? They’re working on it. That’s what weeding out ‘extremism’ in the military is really all about. If the fascists can create a two or three division force loyal to them — like an American Republican Guard — they may try.

I have stocks. I am voting against every candidate on all of my proxies.Every single one. I am voting for making the corporations admit their donations and lobbying. Coke and Pepsi have some shareholder proposals that want sugar and health questions to be voted on. I said FOR.
We can start a movement like the liberals have done. Buy one share of stock, find out how to get questions on the proxies for things like political donations and lobbying. Get them on there.
Make them send you the proxy via USPS and don’t vote electronically. Those things are heavy. Postage is probably a pain to have to pay. Returned proxies have to have the envelope opened. They put a code to show at the back of the envelope. Cover it so they have to open the envelope.
Make it a pain in the ass for the fascists.
Vote against every candidate. If enough proxies show up with a total rejection of every candidate they may see there are more conservatives than liberals.

    Heh. Years ago I voted against every director on my Coke proxy ballot. I haven’t received one since, so I’m hoping my investment managers divested me of them.

Conservatives need to hit back hard in a focused manner.

We need to start boycotting a single big-name company which is joining in on this madness and make a painful, painful example of it. Otherwise our attempts are too diffuse and disjointed.

Our demand would not be for the company to lean conservative, but for it to revert back to non-partisanship. All our buying power concentrated and focused on one single vulnerable big company. Not only a complete boycott of the company by conservatives, but simultaneous support and patronization of its main competitor(s).

Action has to be simple and focused to be effective. Instead of dubiously and marginally affecting a list of companies, focus on one and let it be a lesson to all the others.

    Good plan. And it would work. But it needs a leader with reach who can keep it going. If Trump could get focused he could do it. Not sure I see anyone else who could, much less would.

    I am glad you said conservatives and not republicans. The republican wing of the uni-party is complicit in the globalists destruction of the United States.

    Coke seems to be the target (which is why they didn’t sign on to this particular letter). They are requiring black lawyer quotas in the firms that represent them AND they are teaching their employees to be “less white’, so their initial full-throated condemnations of Georgia’s voter integrity laws is just one more piece of evidence that Coke is woke. Normies (i.e. centrists, conservatives, righties, et al.) are registering their displeasure with Coke by not buying their product and by letting them know why.

    Other big ones to ditch are Amazon, Netflix, and Starbucks. And whatever woke airline you frequent. We can’t keep funding these people who not only hate America but literally hate us. They are counting on us to reason that our one contribution won’t matter, we really like the product (leaving Amazon was hard, Coke stung, but less so) or their movies/music, whatever, but at this point, you are kind of funding your own destruction and being targeted as a “domestic terrorist’ RAACIST if you keep giving them your money.

    I used to be of the mind that we can separate commerce/entertainment/sports/etc. from politics, but the regressive left has made it abundantly clear that everything is political all the time. We can’t like a person’s acting but dislike their politics as we used to, and we definitely can’t keep financing the woke businesses and mega-corporations that are cheer-leading the America Last commies who hate our country and work daily to destroy it.

    Look at the list, find other options if you already don’t drink Coke, take a stand with your wallet. It will matter because there are a LOT of us, and we can make an economic impact.

    If you want to focus on only one, though, and your logic is sound, Coke is the one (and they don’t just do Coca-Cola, so check out what other products you may use of theirs if you don’t drink diet/Coke: If you already don’t drink Coke products, choose the next big name on the list that you do use, chances are we’re all on the same page and boycotting them, too.

    I much prefer buycotts because they are so much more positive and good. The Chick-fil-A buycott was epic (before they folded to the woke mobs), as was the Goya one, but to work, we need to keep on keeping on with them. Whatever you stop using, don’t start again in a week or two, and whatever you start buying, like Goya or MyPillow, keep buying. That’s how we make our voices heard. The left boycotts for a week and then carries on, but that doesn’t matter to major corps, they have to lose our business for good (or until they change their ways and focus on their product and business and not politics).

Burn_the_Witch | April 13, 2021 at 10:53 pm

If it’s one person’s complaints I am totally uninterested in hearing, it’s Dan “Nevertrump” McLaughlin, or really anyone at National Review. They agitated to get rid of Trump and they’re reaping the consequences of their actions.

I’m tired of listening to fundamentally unserious Twitter addicts whose cherished principles revolve around their own egos and endlessly attacking their putative allies.

This is a full-court press. The Left doesn’t just want conservativism defeated, they want it beaten with the iron rod of fascism, thrown into prison, and starved to death. Any politician who dared to question the 2020 election is being threatened with criminal prosecution and stripped of their fundraising. Any person who questions election authority is clubbed to the ground and banished from any social media. Post something against Twitter or YouTube and poof, you’re a non-person.

Liberalism says “I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it.”
Leftism says “I disagree with what you say, therefore you are evil, and whatever we do to you and your family and your job is justified, hater!”

    mark311 in reply to georgfelis. | April 14, 2021 at 1:44 am

    You aren’t understanding the position that many have taken. That is an politician who questions the 2020 election and makes claims of election fraud cannot support that claim at all, since there is no credible evidence of election fraud. Politicians using that as an excuse to suppress voting is anathema to a functional democracy. It seems to me the right don’t have any arguments to support there positions anymore just vague accusations of bias or victimhood.

      nordic_prince in reply to mark311. | April 14, 2021 at 2:09 am

      Oh please. Stop with the “Voter ID requirements are suppressing the vote” nonsense. The only “votes” they’re suppressing are the ones they’re supposed to stop… you know, illegal votes…illegal aliens who don’t have the right to vote, people who vote early and vote often, dead voters, and all the other bullshit games the cheating Ds use.

      Furthermore, it’s racist and demeaning to insinuate that minorities are too stupid or otherwise incapable of securing a government ID to vote. And don’t bellyache about “muh cost,” because government-issued IDs are available for FREE.

        henrybowman in reply to nordic_prince. | April 14, 2021 at 1:55 pm

        “Furthermore, it’s racist and demeaning to insinuate that minorities are too stupid or otherwise incapable of securing a government ID to vote.”


      Burn_the_Witch in reply to mark311. | April 14, 2021 at 2:32 am

      You aren’t understanding the concept of election security and voter suppression. Color me shocked. There is plenty of evidence of voter fraud going back decades. The fact alone that the number of voters on voter rolls who no longer lived in various districts is more than enough to swing elections at all levels is enough to justify requiring an ID.

      You cannot opine about functional democracies while simultaneously advocating that a requirement in the rest of the 1st world (and much of the 3rd) is somehow uniquely oppressive in the United States. Well, you could opine that, but that would be a stupid opinion.

      The only reason you aren’t familiar with the Right’s arguments is because you’re ignorant of them. Clearly you are, or you wouldn’t be making stupid claims that requiring ID to participate in the franchise is bad when it’s a requirement for nearly every other aspect of life.

      Please, demonstrate that you aren’t this stupid, and racist.

        DSHornet in reply to Burn_the_Witch. | April 14, 2021 at 9:56 am

        He’s not stupid but he has convinced himself his Position Is Correct and he must convince others that their positions are incorrect. He gets laughed at and/or ignored elsewhere but he refuses to acknowledge the reason. In short, he’s arrogant.

          mark311 in reply to DSHornet. | April 14, 2021 at 10:55 am


          Firstly I guess a thank you is order for not calling me stupid that’s a start.

          No I’m not arrogant it’s based on the evidence I have available. If you have evidence /sources that support your position then I’d happily take a look

        @nordic prince

        Your position isn’t supported by the evidence. The evidence clearly shows a correlation with voter ID laws and weaker turn out. That’s compared to election fraud which has zero credible evidence thus to take a policy decision along those lines is not credible. I haven’t made any assertions regarding whom might be impacted up that was you.

        If you can provide a source that actually justifies your position I’d be happy to take a look.

        @burn the witch

        Wrong the evidence for election fraud going back decades is extremely weak something like 1200 individual cases of fraud affecting a very small scale of bates has been collated over the last 20 years. There have been specific examples of voting fraud which has resulted in changes in policy and and practise contemporaneously to those events. Thus characterising the present state of affairs as fraud prone isn’t supported by the evidence at all.

        Actually voter ID isn’t required in the UK , Ive never had to show ID. I can’t say for anywhere else and again you’d have to demonstrate that it’s actually an issue since there is evidence that voter ID suppresses voter turn out.

        Requiring ID for a democratic right is a far cry from buying alcohol nor does that address the fundamental issue of the evidence showing that it has a direct and significant impact on voting. You may try and characterise it as stupid but that’s false when considering the actual evidence.

        As for your comments regarding the rights arguments feel free to justify and clarify what those arguments might be. From where I’m standing the argument illustrated by countless media reports is pretty simple there is a feeling in the right that voter integrity is a problem but we know that the evidence for this is poor at best.

        I’d appreciate it if you left out the insults neither of which are justified.

          nordic_prince in reply to mark311. | April 14, 2021 at 12:40 pm

          Where’s your so- called “evidence” that “voter ID suppresses voter turnout”? What exactly do you mean by “suppresses voter turnout”? You seem to be missing the point – when you stop counting votes THAT SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED IN THE FIRST PLACE of course there are going to be fewer votes than there would be if you allowed cheating.

          Pedo Joe himself admitted that they had put together the largest voter fraud organization in the history of US politics.

          It’s not complicated. Try to follow along.

          Not counting fraudulent votes is NOT the same as “voter suppression,” and requiring voter ID is a simple but effective counter to election fraud. Won’t stop all election fraud, but it’s a damn good place to start. The fact that there are so many bitching about this is indirect proof that it’s a major step in the right direction.

          Burn_the_Witch in reply to mark311. | April 14, 2021 at 12:48 pm

          Let’s take your opening argument at face value then – that the evidence is weak. You previously claimed there was no evidence. This alone calls your entire argument into serious question.

          “I can’t say for anywhere else and again you’d have to demonstrate that it’s actually an issue since there is evidence that voter ID suppresses voter turn out.”

          For such a strong opinion on a subject, you seem remarkably ignorant. If you can’t “say for anywhere else”, then perhaps you should apprise yourself of relevant knowledge. And I’m going to take a page out of your book – there is no evidence that ID cause voter suppression. In fact, in some places in the US, minority turnout increased after voter ID laws were enacted. So I’m going to demand you show all this “actual evidence” you keep claiming. (Spoiler Alert – I know what evidence you’re going to cite, so please do.)

          [Let me help you – your real hurdle here is to show how voters are being suppressed in all those other countries that require some form of ID to vote.]

          So the onus is on you to explain just how ID requirements actually suppress voting, when all of those who would supposedly be suppressed from the franchise aren’t suppressed when presenting ID for government benefits, travel, alcohol sales, medical care, etc. Please, take your time. I want you to explain the causative effect, not the correlation.

          Presenting ID for a “democratic right” isn’t the same as presenting it for everything else? Nonsense. “Because Mark311 says so” isn’t a valid argument. By mark311’s logic, no one should have to present ID when buying a weapon, which I probably need to remind you is a fundamental right.

          As for your comments regarding the rights arguments feel free to justify and clarify what those arguments might be.”

          I’ve already done it. Pay attention, because I’m not repeating it and it’s already clear.

          “From where I’m standing the argument illustrated by countless media reports is pretty simple there is a feeling in the right that voter integrity is a problem but we know that the evidence for this is poor at best.”

          Ok, taking this comment at face value, you admit evidence of election regularities. Then shoring that up with the perfectly reasonable act of voter ID should be welcome to anyone who cares about the integrity of elections. Why don’t you care about election integrity?

          “I’d appreciate it if you left out the insults neither of which are justified.”

          Insulting you would be saying “mark311 is stupid”. I said your opinion here was stupid and explained why. There’s a massive qualitative difference. As such, if you keep making contradictory assertions and fallacious arguments, coupled with significant ignorance, I will continue to characterize them as “stupid”.

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | April 14, 2021 at 4:12 pm

          Your position isn’t supported by the evidence. The evidence clearly shows a correlation with voter ID laws and weaker turn out. That’s compared to election fraud which has zero credible evidence

          If you’re not stupid then you’re dishonest. You just presented evidence of election fraud. If requiring ID makes turnout lower, i.e. it causes some people not to vote, that is prima facie evidence that those people shouldn’t have been voting before. There is no reason why it would deter a legitimate voter; therefore those whom it does deter must not be legitimate voters. If you have evidence that the numbers it deters are significant, then that right there is the evidence of significant fraud that you asked for.

          Requiring ID for a democratic right is a far cry from buying alcohol

          Really? Why? And what about guns? They’re a fundamental right, and one protected by the constitution, which voting is not. If it’s OK to require ID to buy a gun, or to carry one, then how can it not be OK to require ID to vote?

          Indeed the UK doesn’t require ID, and that alone is strong evidence that there is rampant fraud. Because it is completely implausible that such a breach could stand open for so many years and yet nobody would take advantage of it.

          If someone makes it known far and wide that they never lock their back door, then you can be sure they have been burgled, even if they don’t know it. It’s not plausible that they haven’t been. And the same applies here. If would-be fraudsters know that there is nothing preventing them from voting illegally, it’s beyond ridiculous to imagine that they would all refrain.

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | April 14, 2021 at 4:28 pm

          the evidence for election fraud going back decades is extremely weak something like 1200 individual cases of fraud affecting a very small scale of bates has been collated over the last 20 years.

          It is almost impossible to catch people voting illegally. If nevertheless 1200 people have been caught, that is proof that the numbers are much greater than that.

          It’s like neutrinos. Theory tells us that we are awash in them; they surround us in the trillions all the time. And yet in most of a century of looking for them, only a handful have been detected, and that is accepted as proof of the theory that they are constantly everywhere. Because if they were rare it’s almost impossible that any would have been detected, no matter how long or how hard we looked for them.

      Jester Naybor in reply to mark311. | April 14, 2021 at 5:56 am

      Let me present the primary argument …

      The burden of proof that the election was honest, is borne by the officials who managed the process. And while it may apply to the individuals involved with respect to potential criminal activity, the government as an entity does NOT enjoy the presumption of innocence.

      They have yet to meet that burden of proof in several key locales … “We say it was fair” does not count, no more than the assertions of the Climate Change Cult count as conclusive fact. And the refusal of nearly every court to demand that burden be met, on the basis of “standing” or “laches” or “moot” is not the same as the dismissal of these cases after a review on the merits.

      In fact, the mere fact that the elections were compromised with hastily-made rule changes, made by entities not Constitutionally authorized to make those changes, is all that is needed to call them into question and demand the fulfillment of the burden of proof. It is neither our burden, nor President Trump’s, to bring even one fraudulent vote into evidence … the compromises are sufficient to demand that those in charge conclusively prove the elections were honest and accurate.

      But those same compromises also render these officials unable to provide that conclusive proof … and because of that, the election should have been thrown into the House. That wasn’t allowed to happen, because our “leaders” wanted to protect “the integrity of the institution” – whatever institution they were part of – more than assuring respect for the rights of our citizens …

      … and oh yeah, Orange Man Bad .

      And all the gaslighting from Big Media, Big Tech, and Big Government doesn’t change that.

      This demand for SUBMISSION to the Progressive narrative only (further) erodes the credibility and trust government leaders must have to govern effectively. But Progressives seem to enjoy playing with the fire of civil unrest, that is fed from such disregard for the rights of those who dissent from their One True Way.

        Milhouse in reply to Jester Naybor. | April 14, 2021 at 4:43 pm

        Most of your argument is reasonable and correct, until you get to the assertion that the presidential election ought to have been thrown to the House. The only way that can happen is if nobody got a majority of the electoral votes cast. Since only two people got any electoral votes, no matter how many or few of them you count one of the two must have got a majority, and that person would have been elected. There is no scenario leading to a House vote.

      henrybowman in reply to mark311. | April 14, 2021 at 1:50 pm

      Unless you’re down with cancelling, shunning, and throwing every Flat Earther into prison on precisely the same grounds, STFU.

      Milhouse in reply to mark311. | April 14, 2021 at 3:57 pm

      That is indeed “the position that many have taken”. That is exactly the problem. It’s a dictatorial position, straight out of the pages of the USSR, 1984, the Cultural Revolution, or the Spanish Inquisition. We declare the “reality”, and thus if you question that “reality” you must be either crazy or evil. Two plus two is whatever the Party says it is at any given moment, and you must not only parrot that but actually believe it.

      Contrast that with the Roman Church’s admotion to Galileo: He had the right to ask all the questions he liked, to speculate all he liked, and to make any statement of fact that he could prove scientifically — the only thing it would not allow him to do was to make absolute statements of fact which contradicted the current understanding of both the Bible and science, and for which he could offer no proof.

      Oh, and “an excuse to suppress voting” is yet another Pravda, a shibboleth that exposes anyone who repeats it as a party drone.

For a perfect example of Jacobson’s argument, check out the full two page ad in the center of section A of today’s Wall Street Journal, under the headline We Stand for Democracy. It includes the names of over 100 corporations, including Big Tech corporations IBM, Facebook, Alphabet and Microsoft. It also includes the names of 64 Big Law firms, and these are the biggest in the US. It includes the names of hundreds of individuals who have jumped on the Woke bandwagon, including athletes, celebrities, and many in corporate CxO positions.

    They only stand for themselves. I’m sure Big Law thinks there’s a handsome payoff in legal work from these corporations.

IMO, the change in the corporate philosophy from being basically neutral in terms of political issues except for attempting to influence legislation that benefited them financially or from a regulatory aspect is cause for.a.change in our tactics.

1. Consumer – shift purchases to non woke brands.
2. Invested – vote your shares, don’t sign off on a proxy
3. Regulatory – State Securities commissions can assist by requiring that investors residing in that State receive new proxy forms every year.
4. Tax policy – State and local government can adjust tax structure for Fortune 500 companies v medium and small business
5. Legislative – States can assist smaller investors to vote their shares as a ‘bloc’ by requiring mutual funds to make that an option within their State
6. State Pensions – The State itself can impact corporate decisions by leveraging its control of public pensions and their shares

When States begin acting on these proposals and especially in concert it will have an impact. Enough to make a difference? Let’s find out.

Personally I would love to see an ‘ anti hypocrisy act’ adopted. This would simply require corporations operating within the State to affirm that they will begin acting in accordance with their statements.

So if Delta Airlines pushes against use of ID as ‘racist, exclusionary’ they would be forced to report to the State if they intend:

1. To implement the changes by not requiring an ID by consumers and their corporate physical footprint
2. Admit that they have no intention of following the policy they advocate.

Of course Delta would not be able to operate an airline and be compliant with basic safety protocol so they would be required to admit their hypocrisy or be barred from operating in the State.


Marxists don’t come out and say “vote for me”. They are deceitful and manipulative. They make progress in small increments and then take advantage of any real or manufactured crisis. They undermine the status quo and the established power structure. They thrive on chaos.

Race is the perfect wedge for marxists.

People, there is a silent war in progress in the USA. The people who care about liberty are losing. Soon – they will be considered the enemy. The time to fight back was yesterday. Every added day they get stronger – we get weaker.

Corporate executives are simply stupid–theyimagine they can defend themselves from the socialist threat by playing the woke game. They will find–too late–they are simply strengthening their enemies.

    The_Mew_Cat in reply to JAB. | April 15, 2021 at 11:06 am

    But the will get their payoffs regardless. Corporate executives are paid in stock options and then cash out through buybacks. The gravy train won’t stop until the system implodes.


By the way – you’ll know America is gone forever when they start coming for people like Prof Jacobsen and shutting down sites like Legal Insurrection. That will happen as soon as they are assured of power (meaning your vote is no longer relevant). It could possibly happen within a year if all the current proposal succeed: (1) no-ID voting; (2) amnesty for illegal immigrants; (3) court-packing and (4) adding new Marxist senators by adding new states. Marxist are filling Biden’s head with delusions of grandeur as “the new FDR”. Biden is a useful idiot for the Marxists.

Soon Biden will pardon Hunter on the pretext of “Unity”. Hunter’s book laid the ground work for it – by claiming all his problems are the result of being victimized by Trump. This is corruption on a scale never before seen in modern America. But the Marxists cannot allow the Hunter problem to fester – unless they intend to use it to remove Biden and install comrade Harris (which is a realistic alternative scenario).

    henrybowman in reply to Ben Kent. | April 14, 2021 at 2:02 pm

    “Marxist are filling Biden’s head with delusions of grandeur as “the new FDR”

    FDR only had to govern fro a wheelchair, not a heart/lung machine.

    The_Mew_Cat in reply to Ben Kent. | April 15, 2021 at 11:08 am

    They can’t afford to remove Biden until they gain a Senate seat. Otherwise, they will have a 50:50 Senate with no tiebreaker. But mother nature could remove Biden at any time, and Biden knows it. That is why he is in such a hurry.

I think there’s two factors that are pushing corporations leftwards, politically. Firstly, these corporations have executives and management who genuinely support Dhimmi-crat goals and the Dhimmi-crat agenda. Secondly, even those executives who may not be sympathetic to Dhimmi-crat aims, and/or, may not even identify as Dhimmi-crats, have decided that the path of least resistance is to give in to Dhimmi-crat demands and intimidation, to placate the Dhimmi-crat mob.

The totalitarian Dhimmi-crats’ agitation and intimidation tactics work. They make the most noise, and, thus, they obtain the most effective results.

Why is this surprising, and what is new about it? The question is why large corporate America was ever Republican-friendly. Big business has always advocated big government, intrusive government, heavy-handed regulations, and even high taxes (with appropriate loopholes and exemptions for themselves). Big business thrives on a heavy government hand. Every push for regulation of industry for the last century or more (except antitrust) has been enthusiastically supported by the big players in that industry, because it’s in their interest.

As another commenter pointed out, fascism cast big business as one of the sticks in the fasces that constitutes society, an integral part of the system of government.

Grand Moff Tarkin | April 16, 2021 at 6:02 pm

On April 28, 1971 one of my older brothers committed suicide. Thursday was the 50th yahrzeit of his death. Maybe it is time for me to join him. This is all getting too much for me. The ultra-wealthy, uber-elite lawyers in white shoe firms are going to accuse anyone who disagrees with vote fraud to be as bad as the racists who hounded and murdered descendants of slaves. Well I am a descendant of slaves too and I think suicide is perfectly reasonable. It will be tough on my wife but she is a progressive who is quick to condemn this country and is in perfect agreement with NPR. Too bad for her.

We need to pick one company and boycott it as an example to the rest. I suggest Coke–their CEO shot his big mouth off about Georgia, not being honest about the laws; his company requires law firms who work for them to have quotas of minorities; and his company had the critical race theory training for its white employees.

If ever a CEO deserved to be fired, it’s him.

So, no more Coke or Coke products for me.