Random

    Opinion

    Home Opinion

    How the FBI Colluded with Big Tech’s Twitter to Censor Hunter Biden Laptop Story

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    1
    President Joe Biden hugs his family during the 59th Presidential Inauguration ceremony in Washington, Jan. 20, 2021. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took the oath of office on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol. (DOD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II)

    ANALYSIS – While the establishment media continues to ignore the disturbing ‘Twitter Files’ released by Elon Musk showing how Twitter censored the Hunter Biden laptop story, more information now indicates it was worse than we first thought.

    As Musk noted, it’s not a direct First Amendment violation for a private company to censor the news, but it absolutely is if it’s done at the behest of our government.

    And while I will argue that as the nation’s new ‘public square,’ Big Tech does violate the First Amendment when it censors news, there is now no denying that in the Hunter laptop case it did so with input from the FBI.

    I will save the public square censorship discussion for another time.

    These new disclosures provide more evidence that under the purported guise of stopping Russian election interference, the FBI ended up being guilty of employing its own U.S. election interference.

    And Twitter (like Facebook and LinkedIn, et al.) took the ball and ran with it.

    Based on the Twitter emails recently released by Elon Musk and reported by former Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi, the Daily Caller reports:

    The FBI explicitly warned Twitter about a potential “hack-and-leak” operation involving Hunter Biden shortly before the platform censored the New York Post’s story based on emails from Biden’s laptop, according to a signed declaration by Twitter’s former head of Site Integrity, Yoel Roth.

    The FBI, along with several other agencies, warned Roth that “state actors” might attempt to leak hacked materials shortly before the 2020 election in a bid to influence its results, according to the declaration filed with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) in December 2020, two months after the platform censored the NYP’s story. Roth stated that the conversation occurred during weekly meetings with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, in which they warned him of potential threats to election security.

    “These expectations of hack-and-leak operations were discussed throughout 2020. I also learned in these meetings that there were rumors that a hack-and-leak operation would involve Hunter Biden,” Roth wrote.

    As Taibbi notes, Twitter, like all of Big Tech, including Twitter, is staffed by leftists and hence skewers its policies and actions to favor the left.

    This system wasn’t balanced. It was based on contacts. Because Twitter was and is overwhelmingly staffed by people of one political orientation, there were more channels, more ways to complain, open to the left (well, Democrats) than the right.

    The Daily Caller continues explaining the background to the Bureau’s own ‘election interference’ events:

    Roth’s revelations about the meetings with intelligence agencies are similar to those of Mark Zuckerberg, who said in August that Facebook censored the Hunter Biden story after federal law enforcement officials asked him to restrict “misinformation” and “Russian propaganda” ahead of the 2020 election.

    The FBI agent overseeing these weekly meetings was Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan, according to the NYP; however, Chan claimed not to recall whether the topic of Hunter Biden came up at these meetings in a deposition for a lawsuit filed by Republican attorneys general that alleged collusion to censor speech by federal agencies and Big Tech. Chan was also one of two FBI agents who met with Zuckerberg to warn him of potential Russian election interference before Facebook censored the story.

    However, while the FBI insinuated and influenced Twitter and Facebook and other platforms, like LinkedIn, indirectly to censor the laptop story, it never explicitly provided Big Tech any evidence or statement claiming officially that the laptop info was hacked.

    And this only makes Twitter’s decision more egregious.

    As the Daily Caller concludes:

    Taibbi tweeted an email indicating that Twitter’s trust and safety team initially explained to other employees that it made the decision to suppress the story — the company even went so far as to prevent it from being sent in private messages — because it violated Twitter’s policy for sharing “hacked materials.” Typically, such a ruling would require an official statement from law enforcement identifying the material as hacked, something that Twitter never received, according to Taibbi…

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    As Biden Launches Re-election His Approval Plunges to New Low

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    0
    The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    Within weeks of President Joe Biden’s announcement he is seeking re-election in 2024, his job approval ratings have cratered to a new low.

    The latest Gallup poll finds only 37 percent of Americans approve of the job Biden is doing, the lowest number yet recorded for him.

    “Biden’s latest approval rating is from an April 3-25 Gallup poll, which was completed the day he announced he will seek reelection, and marks a three-point dip from March and a five-point drop from February,” Gallup notes.

    “Biden’s job approval has been in the low 40 percent range for most of the past 19 months, apart from the current reading and a 38 percent score last July,” Gallup adds.

    Other than Ronald Reagan, no president has ever been re-elected with approval below 40 percent at this point in his first term.  

    Both Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump, who lost their re-election bids, had slightly higher approval at just over 40 percent.

    In addition to widespread doubt Biden can physically and mentally handle a second term, Gallup finds Americans are unhappy with inflation under Biden.

    “The drop in Biden’s job approval corresponds with Americans’ worsening evaluations of the U.S. economy. Gallup’s Economic Confidence Index for April is -44, down from -38 in March. It was last at this level in October,” Gallup reports.

    “19 percent say the economy is getting better and 75 percent worse, compared with ratings of 23 percent and 72 percent, respectively, in March,” Gallup’s polling finds.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Legal Theorists Try To Attack Trump. Their Argument May Be Dead On Arrival.

    By
    Norman Leahy
    -
    4
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    A novel legal theory from two conservative legal scholars published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review that a section of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to run for president may be getting a court hearing in Florida.

    As Ballot Access news editor emeritus Richard Winger notes:

    On August 24, a Florida voter, Lawrence Caplan, filed a federal lawsuit seeking to bar former President Donald Trump from being placed on 2024 ballots as a presidential candidate. Caplan v Trump, s.d., 0:23cv-61618.

    Caplan, who appears to be representing himself in the case, writes:

    Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which provides for the disqualification of an individual who commits insurrection against our government has remained on the books for some one hundred and fifty plus years without ever facing question as to its legitimacy. While one can certainly argue that it has not been thoroughly tested, that fact is only because we have not faced an insurrection against our federal government such as the one while we faced on January 6, 2021. It should also be noted that President Trump has since made statements to the effect that should he be elected, he would advocate the total elimination of the US Constitution and the creation of a new charter more in line with his personal values.

    Winger believes Caplan’s suit is “misguided:”

    The Fourteenth Amendment “insurrection clause” bars individuals from being sworn in to certain offices, but it does not bar them from seeking the office. When the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, there was no mechanism to prevent any voter from voting for any candidate.

    Caplan appears to be taking the law review article’s authors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulson, at their word:

    “No official should shrink from these duties. It would be wrong — indeed, arguably itself a breach of one’s constitutional oath of office — to abandon one’s responsibilities of faithful interpretation, application, and enforcement of Section Three,” Bode and Paulsen write.

    Alternatively, ordinary citizens could file challenges on the same grounds with state election officials themselves.

    And other such suits may emerge over the coming weeks. I’m not convinced any federal judge will be willing to read Section 3 like Baude and Paulson say it should be. It’s not because the Section’s words aren’t clear – they are.

    My concerns are akin to those of Cato’s Walter Olsen, who writes:

    …no one should assume that just because Baude and Paulsen have made a powerful intellectual case for their originalist reading, that the Supreme Court will declare itself convinced and disqualify Trump. Justice Antonin Scalia memorably described himself as a “faint‐​hearted originalist,” which captures something important about the thinking of almost every Justice—if overruling a wrongly decided old case threatens to disrupt settled expectations to the point of spreading chaos and grief through society, most of them will refrain. Stare decisis, and a general preference for continuity in law, still matters.

    Exactly. While some judges may nurse images of themselves as bold crusaders for justice, most jurists aren’t eager to upset established practice and precedent on a whim. Though, to be fair to the times when such upsets have occurred – Brown v. Board of Education, for example, or Griswold v. Connecticut – have been warranted, necessary, and beneficial.

    Does that apply in the Caplan case? A court will decide. But as I’ve long said about Trump, the only court he cares about is public opinion. If voters reject him, that will carry more weight and sanction than any court could ever deliver.

    The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It first appeared in American Liberty News. Republished with permission.

    Amanda Head: Drag Star Spews Hate About Traditional Families

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    2

    If you’re in search of a New Years resolution let it be to stop inadvertently supporting the left’s wild attacks on the family.

    It’s time to fight back and this is one easy step you can take to dismantle the radical left.

    Watch Amanda break down the latest controversy below.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Backlash Grows as Well-Known Conservatives Sell Out to Woke Bud Light

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    4
    Mike Mozart, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – Easily bought conservatives. In the aftermath of the brutal fallout from Bud Light’s woke transgender promotion fiasco with man-pretending-to-be-a-woman, ‘transgender influencer’ Dylan Mulvaney, the beer giant tried everything to woo back angry conservatives who have been successfully boycotting it. 

    Bud Light sales have crashed, dropping almost over 27% in a few short months.

    In a panicked response, parent company Anheuser-Busch brought back the majestic Clydesdale horses, it also highlighted its events for, and donations to, veteran’s groups. It even made a commercial with football star Travis Kelce. 

    But nothing. Nada.

    Videos and images of empty Bud Light venues went viral, as did shelves filled with untouched Bud Light cases being almost given away free. Bud Light kept crashing and Mexico’s Modelo beer passed it up as top-selling beer in America.

    Along the way, Modelo became a sponsor of the UFC.

    The only thing the American beer behemoth hasn’t done is apologize for its huge mistake. And Bud Light executives, apparently fearing a minority of leftist woke activists more than they fear losing hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, stubbornly refuse to do that.

    Bud Light even co-sponsored an LGBTQ+ Pride event in Arizona over the weekend.

    Instead, Anheuser-Busch made a more than $100 million bet (“well into nine figures”), and essentially bought a powerful, Trump-supporting conservative personality to become its shill, and affiliated itself with one of the most conservative and masculine sports entertainment venues in the country.

    The big conservative personality is UFC CEO Dana White, the organization is the UFC, promoter of mixed martial arts (MMA) fights. Both are being paid handsomely via a “multi-year marketing partnership” to promote Bud Light as the much-hated beer returns as the official beer of the sports juggernaut. 

    As part of Dana White’s new job promoting his sellout, he is doing the rounds of conservative media. As part of that ‘we aren’t woke’ spin tour, he went on the Sean Hannity show to repeatedly claim – unconvincingly to me – that the UFC, Anheuser-Busch and Bud Light “are very aligned when it comes to our core values.”

    That is the talking point. You will hear it a lot.

    Well, apparently that’s all it took for Hannity to embrace Bud Light’s faux return to the conservative fold. After a little mild, mostly symbolic, pushback, Hannity quickly folded and said he could give the unrepentant woke beer brand ‘one more chance.’

    White also went on the The Charlie Kirk Show on October 26 to push back at conservative critics calling him a sellout. He said he admired the beer company’s core values, adding: “It’s this unbelievable, powerful, American-built business…”

    When discussing the deal, conservative radio hosts Buck Sexton and Clay Travis (who I generally agree with and like) also sympathized with White and the UFC, meekly saying, ‘that’s a lot of money,’ and they might take it from Bud Light too. 

    One of the two also predicted that Bud Light’s huge bet with White and the UFC might pay off, and in a year the transgender boycott will be forgotten, seemingly trying to help make it so.

    I hope they are all dead wrong, and their kowtowing to Bud Light just to please Dana White and his powerful organization will be condemned by conservatives. And there is evidence that a backlash against the UFC decision is now growing.

    It has ignited a firestorm of criticism on Elon Musk’s social media platform X. Many fans have said they will now be boycotting the UFC and canceling their pay-per-view subscription because of the brand partnership.

    As Newsweek reported:

    “I’m canceling my subscription and never buying ANY PPV (pay-per-view) fights anymore until this sponsorship is gone. This is the worst business deal UFC has ever made EVER,” one angry fan wrote.

    “How about you explain your pathetic Bud Light sponsorship!!?? What you doing rainbow uniforms next?? Canceling my UFC fight pass subscription,” said another.

    “I just canceled my ESPN+ subscription. I used to buy every PPV but this is the last straw,” wrote another.

    A fourth added: “Canceled my UFC fight pass subscription. Enjoy your Bud Light, hope it was worth it.”

    But realize it’s not just Dana White and the UFC that are sellouts, it’s also conservative powerhouse commentators like Sean Hannity, and lesser ones like Buck and Clay who seem to be quickly and meekly surrendering to Bud Light and their new partners, the UFC.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    CEO’s Vow To Blacklist Harvard Students Who Blamed Israel For Hamas Attack

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    7
    PaWikiCom, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – In the immediate wake of one of the most horrifying terror attacks ever filmed, a coalition of 34 leftist Harvard student groups stupidly and offensively circulated a letter that stated that they “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.”

    This, as stomach-churning images, and reports surfaced hourly of the vile murders and atrocities committed by the Hamas jihadists against over 1,000 Israeli civilians, entire families, children, even babies. 

    Not to mention over 25 Americans were killed and scores kidnapped.

    Well, this time, things didn’t go as planned for the lefty Ivy League students accustomed to being coddled by woke corporate executives.

    The response from Wall Street leaders, and soon other titans of corporate America was swift.

    Bill Ackman the billionaire founder and CEO of hedge fund giant Pershing Square Capital Management, wrote on his X social media account on Tuesday: 

    I have been asked by a number of CEOs if Harvard would release a list of the members of each of the Harvard organizations that have issued the letter assigning sole responsibility for Hamas’ heinous acts to Israel, so as to insure [sic] that none of us inadvertently hire any of their members.

    “If, in fact, their members support the letter they have released, the names of the signatories should be made public so their views are publicly known.”

    Ackman, a Harvard grad worth $3.5 billion, added: “One should not be able to hide behind a corporate shield when issuing statements supporting the actions of terrorists, who, we now learn, have beheaded babies, among other inconceivably despicable acts.”

    Soon, other CEOs were joining him.

    Jonathan Newman, CEO of salad chain Sweetgreen, quickly seconded Ackman in urging that the signatories of the letter be banned from future employment.

    “I would like to know so I know never to hire these people,” Newman wrote in response to Ackman’s post on X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday.

    “Same,” David Duel, CEO of health care services firm EasyHealth, wrote in response to Newman.

    Many other executives posted agreement with Ackman, such as Stephen Ready, CEO of marketing firm Inspired who posted “this is a must” and Michael Broukhim, CEO of FabFitFun, who said to Ackman: “We are in as well.”

    Meanwhile, as The New York Post reported, others signaled their approval of his post with a supportive emoji or a gesture of agreement. These included: Hu Montague, founder, and vice president of construction company Diligent; Art Levy, head of strategy at payments platform Brex; and Jake Wurzak, the CEO of hospitality group Dovehill Capital Management.

    The Post added that after the online fusillade from so many potential future employers, many of the spineless lefties responsible for the letter quickly ran for the hills.

    “The backlash and possible blacklisting has led to a flurry of backpedaling by four of the initial student organizations attached to the inflammatory statement — while board members of other groups have quit in an effort to distance themselves.”

    Amnesty International at Harvard, Harvard College Act on a Dream, the Harvard Undergraduate Nepali Student Association, the Harvard Islamic Society, and Harvard Undergraduate Ghungroo, are among the groups that have since recanted according to the Harvard Crimson.

    In fairness, many organizations didn’t know one of their representatives had signed on the group’s behalf.

    To Harvard’s credit, many other student groups and faculty expressed outrage at the letter, and their fellow students and colleagues.

    According to the campus paper, at least 17 other Harvard groups have joined 500 faculty and staff and 3,000 others in signing a counterstatement attacking the other groups’ letter as “completely wrong and deeply offensive.” 

    This was followed by 160 faculty members bashing Harvard’s response to the scandal, writing in their own separate letter that it “can be seen as nothing less than condoning the mass murder of civilians based only on their nationality.”

    Its good to see that some at Harvard still have common sense as well as decency and humanity. Its also good to see corporate America responding in the way it has to these snively terror enabling leftist college students and staff.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Outrage Grows After Woke Navy Launched Drag Queen ‘Recruiter’

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    6
    Daniel Ramirez from Honolulu, USA, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – America’s Navy is sinking fast – last year, the world’s premier maritime combat service launched, then apparently scuttled, a new recruiting campaign led by an active-duty ‘non-binary’ sailor drag queen.

    And our nation’s enemies are likely quaking in their boots at the promise of even more drag queens being recruited to fight on the front lines by our armed forces.

    The Navy’s appointment of a gay cross-dresser as its first ‘digital ambassador,’ while struggling with recruitment, has sparked outrage, disbelief and mockery of the Navy and the entire Department of Defense.

    A Navy spokesperson told Fox News that the now defunct program was “designed to explore the digital environment to reach a wide range of potential candidates” as the Navy battles “the most challenging recruiting environment it has faced since the start of the all-volunteer force.”

    Yeoman 2nd Class Joshua Kelley, whose stage name is Harpy Daniels, has a large following on TikTok (of course). He announced his role in November but has only recently been discovered by mainstream news sources.

    (NOTE: I don’t use preferred pronouns. He is either a ‘he’ or she is a ‘she,’ regardless of how they ‘identify.’ And ‘they’ is only used to refer to two or more individuals.)

    Kelley calls himself an ‘advocate’ for those who ‘were oppressed for years in the service.’

    Many have compared him to Dylan Mulvaney, the biologically male trans activist whose association with Bud Light sparked a PR crisis for the brand and sent sales plummeting.

    Rep. Jim Banks, a Republican from Indiana, tweeted that “Biden DoD’s [Department of Defense] recruitment is as good as Bud Light’s marketing.”

    Jesse Watters said on his Fox News show on Wednesday: “What’s wrong with the Navy? They looked at Bud Light and said: ‘Hold my beer?’ Harpy is the Navy’s Dylan. Dylan killed Bud Light sales. What do you think Harpy’s going to do to recruitment?”

    Kelley is not the Navy’s only digital ambassador (he is one of five). The Navy says that the ‘digital ambassador’ was a pilot program that ended in March 2023.

    According to surveys, only 13 percent of 18-29-year-olds in the U.S. are ‘highly willing’ to join the Navy, while 25 percent are ‘somewhat willing.’ Critics like me can’t see how a man made up to look like a caricature of a woman will help convince more of our youth to serve in a warfighting role.

    Unless the plan is to recruit even more cross-dressing young men with possible gender dysphoria to serve aboard warships, planes and tanks.

    Robert J. O’Neill, a decorated combat veteran who served as a member of SEAL Team Six, and was on the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, said on Twitter he “can’t believe [he] fought for this bulls**t.”

    “Alright. The U.S. Navy is now using an enlisted sailor Drag Queen as a recruiter,” he tweeted. “I’m done. China is going to destroy us.”

    His tweet quickly gained 1.1 million views and thousands of likes and retweets. 

    “Not this Navy veteran. I’m ashamed of the Navy,” wrote another veteran. “It’s an insult to every veteran. The army kept making me go to trans EO-type classes before I retired. Nope. Didn’t go.”

    Another veteran responded: “As a Navy veteran, I am ashamed on behalf of the US Navy. I hope that goes over as well as Bud Light did.”

    But another person – who can’t distinguish between freedom of expression in the civilian world and pushing a bizarre, fringe sexual agenda in our armed forces – mockingly commented:

    “Local man angry he fought for freedom of expression.”

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Biden Classified Documents Scandal Blows Open Again After Nine Mystery Boxes Discovered

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    1
    Joe Biden via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    The same United States Justice Department prosecuting former President Donald Trump for mishandling classified documents ordered the National Archives and Records Administration to recover nine boxes of documents that had been held by Joe Biden – but a federal prosecutor investing whether Biden illegally retained documents appears to have not looked into the matter.

    U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, “sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Christopher Wray, and Special Counsel Robert Hur regarding an apparent ‘significant factual omission’ in the Special Counsel’s report on President Biden’s handling of classified records,” a statement from Johnson announced.

    “In March 2023, the senators revealed that the Department of Justice (DOJ) tasked the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to retrieve nine boxes of Biden records from the Boston office of Patrick Moore, one of Biden’s personal counsels. NARA told the senators that it did move the boxes to its facility in Boston on November 9, 2022.  It remains unclear whether any of the records in those boxes contained classified information,” the statement reveals.

    Many assume the boxes contained classified documents, as the order to retrieve them came from the Justice Department.

    The senators wrote, “[o]ddly, Special Counsel Hur’s report did not mention NARA’s retrieval of the nine boxes from Mr. Moore’s office. This apparent omission is significant given that, according to NARA, the Department of Justice requested that NARA recover the boxes. In fact, in March 2023, NARA informed our offices that ‘while NARA has not yet reviewed the contents of the nine boxes, the FBI has.’” 

    “The senators noted that if the FBI did review the contents of the boxes, it is unclear what was found, if it included any classified information, and ‘whether the FBI informed Special Counsel Hur’s office of its findings,’” Johnson noted.

    The senators added, “it is unclear if Special Counsel Hur had any awareness of or reviewed the information contained in these nine boxes. It would be extremely troubling if Special Counsel Hur failed to investigate the contents of these nine boxes particularly given that we first publicly revealed the existence of these specific boxes on March 27, 2023 — nearly one year ago.”

    Supreme Court Discrimination Ruling Undermines Corporate Wokeness

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    2
    Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – BOOM! – The landmark Supreme Court decision against racial and sex discrimination by schools and universities (under the guise of ‘affirmative action’) will also impact corporate ‘diversity’ programs based on the same flawed, discriminatory ideas. 

    In what has become a major legal development in a growing wave of anti-wokeness, corporations will soon have to reconsider all their – likely illegal – Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) efforts. 

    While pushed by the increasingly leftist establishment, most of these woke programs have been illegal under U.S. state and federal laws, which explicitly prohibit discrimination by race and gender. But until now the courts let them get away with it.

    Now the Supreme Court has made it official. Affirmative action (aka – discriminatory ‘diversity’ efforts) are out.

    The court held by that Harvard and University of North Carolina’s (UNC’s) admissions programs violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Students for Fair Admissions, a conservative group, sued Harvard and UNC over their ‘race-conscious’ admissions programs, arguing they intentionally discriminated against Asian American applicants.

    In the decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points.”

    He added:  “We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today.”

    Previously, the Supreme Court in the 2003 case of Grutter v. Bollinger, ruled that “the use of an applicant’s race as one factor in an admissions policy of a public educational institution does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if the policy is narrowly tailored to the compelling interest of promoting a diverse student body.”

    This was intended to be a very narrow exception, but soon became far more. And this helped woke corporate America justify its own discriminatory DEI programs.

    A 2022 Harvard Business Review 2022 survey, reported by The Epoch Times, showed that more than 60 percent of U.S. companies had a DEI program, which separates employees according to race and gender. 

    After the 2020 Black Lives Matter (BLM) riots, major corporations announced explicit race-based hiring and promotion policies.

    But now that the 2003 decision has been superseded, they will all need to revisit the legality of their DEI programs. As Kevin Stocklin explains in The Epoch Times: 

    In an amicus brief regarding the Harvard and UNC case, the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and attorney Ilya Shapiro argued that “what this Court authorized in Grutter as a temporary, grudging exception to America’s ideals and generally applicable law of Equal Protection … has metastasized into a threat blooming across the legal landscape, the economy, and society as a whole.”

    The exceptions granted by the Grutter case were narrowly tailored to government-funded universities’ admissions policies, and were intended to be a temporary remedy that would include “sunset” provisions. But corporations have applied them as a precedent to race-based policies on staffing and training, and expanded them to include new racial goals.

    “To the extent that corporate America has thought that Grutter provided some kind of fig leaf to the illegal discrimination they’ve been engaging in for the last two decades, this would be a really good time for them to rethink that,” Morenoff said. “It never made sense for corporate America to argue that there was a diversity rationale exception to our civil rights laws,” he said.

    However, if the Supreme Court decision reverses Grutter or the Johnson executive order, even that questionable pretense would be gone. Rather than standing on thin ice, Morenoff said, “they’re standing on no ice at all.”

    This is the next battleground – using this Supreme Court precedent to eliminate discrimination by sex and race from corporate America.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Amanda Head: Late Night TV Hits Rock Bottom

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    3

    Things are going downhill at an alarming rate…

    Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    123...40Page 1 of 40
    © Great America News Desk 2022