Random

    Opinion

    Home Opinion

    Musk Questions Radical Leftist Soros and Asks if Davos ‘Globalist Elite’ is Trying to Rule the World

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    4

    ANALYSIS – Elon Musk is challenging fellow billionaire George Soros and the entire globalist elite now meeting in Davos Switzerland. Musk, still majority owner and CEO of Twitter, made his challenge via his recently acquired social media platform. 

    In a tweet by Ian Miles asking, “If we got George Soros in a Twitter Space what question would you ask him?” – Musk responded with his own simple question for Soros: “Do you actually know where your money is going?”

    This prompted a flurry of anti-Soros comments. 

    One user said he would ask: Do you realize that you are part of the hegemonic imperialism you claim to be fighting against..?”

    Another said Soros would respond by saying: “To fund the demise of capitalism so no one will ever be as rich as me again”

    Musk has never directly attacked Soros, but his provocative question comes less than two months after Soros disclosed that he had tripled his investment stake in Tesla over the summer.

    Since then, Tesla’s shares lost almost two-thirds of their value in 2022. 

    We will have to wait until February’s 13F quarterly financial disclosures to know whether Soros remains a shareholder of Tesla.

    But getting back to Musk’s question, Soros, who is reportedly worth about $8.5 billion according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, should definitely know where his money is going.

    Most recently the far-left financier who is one of the Democrat Party’s biggest donors spent $128.4 million on the midterms, says the Americans for Tax Fairness.

    And the Democrat Party has been effectively co-opted by the extreme, so-called ‘progressive’ left.

    However, that is trifling compared to the vast sums of money and resources he uses to fund a radical leftist agenda, causes, and NGOs worldwide through his Open Society Foundations, the billionaire also funds many socialist and socially radical causes and NGOs worldwide. 

    In the U.S. his organizations are notorious for funding the election of leftist prosecutors who are releasing hardened criminals into our nation’s cities without bail, and supporting the extreme transgender agenda, as well as various extreme far-left ‘racial justice’ groups throughout the country.

    He does all this under the highly deceptive banner of promoting democracy, human rights, and press freedom.

    Rather than attack Soros too directly, Musk heaped most of his scorn on the World Economic Forum (WEF), apparently trying to shake up the gathering of those liberal political and economic elites. 

    The forum is traditionally held every year in January in the ski resort of Davos, Switzerland, though it was suspended for the covid-19 pandemic.

    This year’s event, which opened on Jan. 16, brought together 52 heads of state and government and nearly 600 CEOs, including JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon and BlackRock’s Larry Finkis.

    A few days before the forum opened, Musk said he’d been invited to join the WEF but had turned down the invite – a claim denied by the WEF. 

    They stated he had not been invited.

    “My reason for declining the Davos invitation was not because I thought they were engaged in diabolical scheming, but because it sounded boring,” Musk explained on Dec. 31.

    However, later Musk tweeted: “I guess there’s value to having a mixed government & commercial forum of some kind,” the billionaire said on Jan. 15. “WEF does kinda give me the willies though, but I’m sure everything is fine 👀.”

    His mockery of the WEF only intensified after that.

    He wondered in particular about the message of Klaus Schwab, the founder of the WEF, urging the participants of the 2023 edition to “master the future” in the face of the challenges currently facing the world.

    “‘Master the Future’ doesn’t sound ominous at all,” the billionaire said sarcastically. “How is WEF/Davos even a thing? Are they trying to be the boss of Earth!?”

    Later on Musk dialed it back quite a bit in response to comments from Chris Rufo of the conservative Manhattan Institute arguing that the Davos forum was essentially an overrated clown show and not a serious concern to Americans.

    It is still good to see Musk questioning both Soros and the Davos WEF forum. I can only hope this is the beginning of even more questioning – especially of Soros and his deceptive and extremely far-left Open Society Foundation.

    There is a lot to question.

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

    North Dakota AG Sounds Off on Concerns Facing His State

    By
    Matt Whitaker
    -
    1
    Ted Eytan from Washington, DC, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley joins Liberty & Justice to discusses challenges facing his state and the United States of America.

    Per Matt Whitaker:

    Drew Wrigley is a fourth generation North Dakotan with family roots in Walsh County and Burke County, where Wrigley Brothers Farm still thrives. Wrigley was born in Bismarck and grew up in Fargo. After graduating from Fargo South High School in 1984, Wrigley attended the University of North Dakota, graduating in 1988 with honors in economics and philosophy. He graduated from the American University, Washington College of Law, in 1991, followed by a year-long judicial clerkship in Delaware. Wrigley then worked as an Assistant District Attorney for the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office, prosecuting every variety of crime in one of our nation’s most violent cities.

    Wrigley and his wife Kathleen married in 1998 and moved home to North Dakota. In 2001, Wrigley was nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate as North Dakota’s 17th United States Attorney. Wrigley led his office’s successful efforts to combat violent crime, large-scale narcotics trafficking, illegal immigration, financial fraud and ground-breaking investigations focused on Internet crimes against children. Under Wrigley’s leadership, the office’s Civil Division worked diligently to promote and protect legal and contractual interests of the United States, while battling to ensure the protection of civil rights and the promise of landmark legal protections such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. Even while serving as United States Attorney, Wrigley personally tried several noteworthy cases, including North Dakota’s first federal Internet child-luring case, and the successful death penalty prosecution of Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr., who kidnapped, assaulted, and viciously murdered University of North Dakota student Dru Sjodin. That was North Dakota’s first and only federal death penalty case, for which Wrigley served as lead trial and appellate counsel. From 2004 to 2009, Wrigley was appointed by three successive Attorney Generals of the United States to serve on the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee, a select group of United States Attorneys tasked with advising the Attorney General of the United States and other Department of Justice leaders.

    After stepping down as United States Attorney in 2009, Wrigley served as vice-president of a national Medicare and Medicaid contractor based in Fargo. He subsequently served as North Dakota’s 37th Lieutenant Governor, from December 2010 through December 2016. Wrigley served as the President of the State Senate, chaired the State Investment Board and its oversight of then-$11 billion in pension and other state assets, chaired the state’s International Trade Office Board, chaired the Governor’s Cybersecurity Task Force, and led the economic development efforts and oversight authority for North Dakota’s FAA-sanctioned unmanned flight systems testing facility. In 2016, Wrigley and Governor Jack Dalrymple chose to not seek re-election, and in early 2017 Wrigley once again returned to the private sector, serving in a senior advisory role for a regional healthcare, insurance, research and philanthropy enterprise, Sanford Health. In 2019, Wrigley was nominated by President Donald J. Trump and confirmed by the United States Senate as North Dakota’s 19th United States Attorney, becoming the first North Dakotan to twice serve as our state’s chief federal law enforcement officer. Wrigley stepped down in February of 2021 and worked as counsel with his family’s industrial/mechanical/commercial contracting firms, Wrigley Mechanical, Inc. and BDT Mechanical LLC, both located in Fargo. Wrigley maintains an ownership interest in both companies.

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

    Congress Investigating Alleged Biden Attempt To Rig Election For Campaign Supporter

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    2
    Missvain, CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    A congressional committee is now investigating allegations that the Biden White House tried to sway a major workplace unionization vote in favor of the United Auto Workers union bosses.

    U.S. House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) “probed senior Biden administration officials for their attempts to sway the outcome of a Mercedes-Benz unionization election,” the Committee announced in a statement

    “In a letter to Jake Sullivan, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Chairwoman Foxx is demanding information regarding the Biden administration’s attempts to influence the outcome of a unionization vote at the Mercedes-Benz plant in Vance, Alabama, as voting was underway,” the statement reads.

    The UAW is a major donor and political supporter of Democrats, spending a reported total of $22.64 million on politics in the 2020 election cycle, according to OpenSecrets.

     “On May 17, Mercedes-Benz employees at a plant in Vance, Alabama, voted not to join the United Auto Workers (UAW). In this election, 56 percent of the workers cast their ballots against UAW membership, with more than 90 percent of eligible workers voting in the election. Simultaneously, the UAW became the first U.S. union to file charges using a new German supply chain law. The Committee on Education and the Workforce (Committee) is concerned about recent reports of unusual and inappropriate communications between you and German government officials in what appears to be an attempt to impact the outcome of this election,” Foxx writes in in the letter.

    “On May 6, a news report stated that U.S. government officials had a phone call with German government officials and raised concerns over the Mercedes-Benz representation election in Alabama. … A later report regarding the call also indicated that you prodded Germany to examine the UAW’s allegations against Mercedes-Benz at the direct request of UAW President Shawn Fain. On May 16, the UAW announced that the German government was investigating Mercedes-Benz as a result of charges filed by the UAW in Germany. … It appears the Biden administration, through your actions, sought to put its thumb on the scale to benefit the UAW as the Mercedes-Benz election in Alabama was pending,” Fox continues, adding “It also suggests the UAW sought to use your influence and the White House’s bully pulpit to impact a union representation election.”

    Foxx asked the White House for answers to the following questions:

    Did you raise concerns with German government officials over the Mercedes-Benz representation election in Vance, Alabama, at the request of the UAW?

    In your call with German government officials, did you or any other White House official ask Germany to initiate an investigation of Mercedes-Benz before the Mercedes-Benz union representation election in Alabama concluded?

    Was the purpose of the call with German government officials to discuss the Mercedes-Benz union representation election in Alabama? Were other labor issues or representation elections discussed?

    When did the call with German government officials take place? Provide any White House call logs related to this call.

    Did you discuss your call with German government officials with any employees of the Department of Labor or the NLRB? If so, who?

    Is a local union representation election a national security issue? Why is a local union representation election occupying the time of the U.S. National Security Advisor?

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


    Amanda Head: Hugh Jackman Goes Insanely Woke

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0

    Another Hollywood hero has gone woke!

    “X-Men” Actor and Broadway performer Hugh Jackman says that gender-specific awards are a thing of the past!

    Watch Amanda explain the newest controversy below:

    Universities Training Gen Z to be Woke Snitches and to Punish Speech

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    1

    ANALYSIS – It is becoming sadly clear that this may be the last generation of any real freedom in America as Generation Z (Gen Z or Zoomers) increasingly supports the surveillance and punishment state. Many are also exhibitionists craving 24-7 attention.

    As I wrote about earlier – Gen Z ‘loves Big Brother.’ Big Brother is the term used by George Orwell to describe the totalitarian surveillance state in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984).

    In that piece, I noted a CATO Institute poll that showed 30 percent of people under 30 support allowing the government to install video cameras in our homes to “reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity.”

    And we can blame a lot of that on the far-l*ft w*ke culture at our colleges and universities.

    It’s bad enough that many of this generation is willing to let faceless bureaucrats watch us in our homes, but Zoomers appear willing to go beyond even that. They are the generation of snitches, and punishers, going after anyone they disagree with.

    This generation has been taught to equate ‘unapproved’ speech with actual violence, so it makes sense that they’ll do whatever it takes to eliminate it. 

    Much of this can be traced back to higher education. Our colleges and schools are teaching our kids to be hypersensitive, ideological, w*ke snitches. 

    After providing various scary examples, including one where a professor used the oft-used term “sacred cow,” and a student filed a complaint that said the student would “not feel safe around him” any longer, Christian Schneider writes in National Review:

    …part of the reason Gen Z has an unquenchable thirst for surveillance is what they are being taught at their colleges and universities. All the above examples were reports filed with campus “Bias Response Teams” — programs set up by institutions of higher education that incentivize students to narc on each other for expressing unpopular opinions or engaging in disfavored behavior.

    Decades ago, courts threw out college “speech codes,” finding that public universities banning language was impermissible under the First Amendment. So when the internet grew as a tool, schools crafted a workaround: What if, instead of the schools targeting students for unpopular speech, it was the students themselves doing the targeting? And thus a majority of public colleges and universities began crowdsourcing their speech codes.

    In fact, bias-response teams are actually worse than the traditional speech codes, which outlawed specific words: The new standard for determining whether speech is forbidden is simply anything that offends someone. Any oversensitive campus resident now has the power to log on and anonymously report a fellow student or professor.

    Not to be outdone by its elite competitors, Stanford University implemented its own Orwellian system in which the school offered students a cash bounty if they reported insensitive speech on campus. In April, the school backtracked on the plan after an ensuing episode of national outrage.

    You can’t get much more Orwellian than that. 

    But there is a big added factor in why this generation loves surveillance, “cameras are what young people now seek, hoping to parlay their everyday goings-on into a Kardashian-like media empire.”

    Schneider notes that one poll found that nearly one-quarter of Zoomers in the United States planned to be internet ‘influencers,’ making their living creating videos for YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram. 

    Apparently, we no longer need doctors, engineers, scientists, or lawyers (well, maybe not so many lawyers).

    I don’t know about you, but a nation of empty-headed TikTok influencers scares me almost more than the Orwellian surveillance they like so much.

    Schneider adds: “Today’s young people have become both informers and self-exposers. If we’re not careful, their snitch culture will threaten privacy and freedom.” 

    I would go further. If we aren’t careful, very soon, America, as a free country, will be totally unrecognizable.

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

    GOP Leaders Fund Anti-Freedom Caucus Primary Candidates

    By
    Alex Muse
    -
    2
    Ted Eytan from Washington, DC, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    In the quiet corridors of Republican power, something unprecedented is happening. For decades, party leadership maintained a mostly unspoken, but deeply respected ethic: do not intervene in open-seat primaries, especially in safely Republican districts. Let the voters decide. Let the grassroots rise. Let the contest unfold without the heavy thumb of Washington tipping the scale. This was not merely tradition. It was a matter of trust, a recognition that voters, not donors, not operatives, not Majority Whips, should choose the next Republican standard-bearer. Today, that ethic is being cast aside.

    The stage is Arizona’s 5th Congressional District, a deep-red seat held by House Freedom Caucus (HFC) stalwart Andy Biggs, who is stepping down to pursue the governorship. Historically, this would be the moment for conservative insurgents to rise, for HFC allies to present their case to voters without interference from party brass. Instead, what we are witnessing is an unmistakable effort by House Republican leadership to erase one of the Freedom Caucus’s most reliable seats.

    Three separate leadership PACs have now contributed directly to Jay Feely, a former NFL kicker and establishment-favored Republican who is not aligned with the Freedom Caucus. Majority Whip Tom Emmer’s “Electing Majority Making Effective Republicans” PAC gave $5,000. NRCC Chair Richard Hudson’s “First in Freedom PAC” gave $2,500. And Rep. Juan Ciscomani, of neighboring AZ-6, added $1,000 from his own “Defending the American Dream PAC.” These are not idle contributions. They are targeted, strategic, and meant to shape the outcome of a race that should have been left to the people.

    Only one candidate in the race, Daniel Keenan, a local home builder, has pledged to join the Freedom Caucus. His candidacy represents continuity with Biggs’s conservative legacy. Feely’s candidacy, by contrast, is backed by leadership precisely because it promises rupture. That is the point. The goal here is not merely to elect a Republican, but to deny the seat to the Freedom Caucus entirely.

    To grasp the seriousness of this act, one must understand just how rare it is. Leadership PACs, particularly those operated by high-ranking figures like the Majority Whip and NRCC Chair, have historically stayed neutral in Republican primaries unless protecting incumbents. This was not a legal requirement, but a moral one. Rick Scott, as NRSC chair, was emphatic on this point during his tenure: “We should remain neutral in primaries, except in the cases of GOP incumbents. The voters will decide.”

    In fact, neutrality in safe-seat primaries was such a bedrock value that during the contentious 2023 Speaker’s race, conservative holdouts demanded that Kevin McCarthy enshrine it in writing. The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), the House GOP’s main super PAC aligned with McCarthy, publicly promised not to interfere in open safe Republican primaries. CLF president Dan Conston declared, “CLF will not spend in any open-seat primaries in safe Republican districts, and CLF will not grant resources to other super PACs to do so.” That promise secured enough support for McCarthy to win the gavel. It was a recognition that such meddling would constitute a betrayal.

    And yet, here we are, watching as Emmer, Hudson, and Ciscomani appear to do precisely what CLF promised not to do. They are not spending millions, but the act is significant because of who they are and what it signals. A whisper from the Majority Whip carries weight. A nod from the NRCC chair is not an idle gesture. Their PAC money announces a clear intention: the Republican Party must no longer accommodate the Freedom Caucus.

    To call this behavior unethical is not hyperbole. The entire point of leadership PACs is to strengthen the party against Democrats, not to wage civil war within it. Donors to these PACs do not expect their money to be used to sandbag fellow Republicans who happen to believe in a stricter reading of the Constitution, in tighter budgets, in actually following the rules. They expect their money to be used to expand the majority, not to hollow it out ideologically.

    This is why even modest interventions like these cause such a stir. They are not just financial acts, but symbolic declarations. They say to the conservative base, “You are not welcome here.” They say to the House Freedom Caucus, “You will be replaced.” They signal that what was once an uneasy coalition is now an open conflict.

    There is precedent, to be sure, but not encouraging one. In 2016, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Tim Huelskamp was defeated in his Kansas primary after outside money flooded the race. It was widely seen as retaliation for his opposition to then-Speaker John Boehner. The establishment, furious at Huelskamp’s independence, funded a challenger, Roger Marshall, who went on to win. At the time, that maneuver was shocking. Paul Gosar, another HFC member, remarked, “The Freedom Caucus hasn’t challenged sitting members. We’ve only played in open seats. But isn’t it interesting that K Street and Wall Street are playing against our members?”

    Now, that behavior is becoming institutional. The NRCC chair and the Majority Whip are no longer merely allowing such intervention, they are directing it. The shift is profound. It marks a move from tolerating intra-party dissent to crushing it.

    What changed? The rise of the Freedom Caucus has been a source of anxiety for establishment Republicans ever since its inception. But with the return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2025 and the growing alignment between the Freedom Caucus and the MAGA base, that anxiety has morphed into fear. The Freedom Caucus has shown it can shape leadership elections, influence appropriations bills, and demand accountability. It is no longer a fringe. It is a force. And that makes it a target.

    Trump himself has called Tom Emmer a “RINO” and opposed his speakership bid. Hudson and Ciscomani have similarly earned the ire of MAGA-aligned voters for their votes on spending bills and procedural maneuvers seen as too accommodating to Democrats. The leadership PAC donations in Arizona’s 5th are not just about that race. They are part of a larger strategy to neutralize the most vocal advocates of the America First agenda.

    None of this is illegal. But neither is it wise. When party leadership abandons neutrality, it sends a message to grassroots conservatives: your vote does not count unless we approve of your candidate. That message corrodes trust. It demoralizes volunteers. It severs the organic connection between representative and represented. It replaces the republican with the oligarchic.

    The party should not fear its conservative wing. It should listen to it. If leadership believes Freedom Caucus members are too extreme, they should make that argument on the merits, in public, and with courage. They should not attempt to buy the outcome behind closed doors with PAC money. That is not persuasion. That is manipulation.

    What is unfolding in Arizona’s 5th is not just a local race. It is a test case. If leadership succeeds in deleting a Freedom Caucus seat here, others will follow. More PAC money will flow. More loyal conservatives will be boxed out before the voters even speak. The House Freedom Caucus will be diminished, not by debate or democracy, but by design.

    This is not the path to unity. It is the road to irrelevance. The Republican Party must decide whether it wishes to be a big tent or a closed club. If the answer is the latter, it should at least have the honesty to admit it.

    If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing https://x.com/amuse.

    Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

    DOUBLE Your Impact to Crush the Left’s Comeback! It’s up to patriots like you to stop them. Heritage will match every dollar — up to $1 MILLION. Double your impact before it’s too late!

    .

    Famous Navy Seal Now De-transitioning – Says He Was Manipulated

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0
    Katy Blackwood, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    Former decorated Navy SEAL Chris Beck, who publicly announced his transition to look like a woman in 2013, has now said that this was a life-shattering mistake, and he is de-transitioning back to his biologically male gender.

    Beck, who started going by the name Kirsten, was a poster child of the trans movement and was used aggressively by them to promote and impose their radical agenda in the U.S. military.

    Beck earlier served in the Navy SEALs for 20 years, going on 13 deployments, including with the famed SEAL Team Six.

    According to his speaker bio, he was awarded over 50 citations and medals, including the Bronze Star with valor and the Purple Heart.

    But now Beck calls the trans movement a ‘cult’ that used, manipulated, and propagandized him into making this radical life change.

    He is also speaking out to warn about the devastating effect of the trans agenda on children.

    Beck made his explosive comments during an interview with political commentator Robby Starbuck. 

    Starbuck tweeted that “Navy SEAL Chris Beck came out in 2013 as transgender. @andersoncooper did a special on @cnn about it. His story was used as propaganda to allow trans people in the military and to popularize the issue. Now Chris is ready to expose the truth.”

    The Daily Caller reported:

    He [Beck]told Starbuck that he is “not transgender” and used his confusion as an example of why psychologists should not “push their agenda” onto children. Beck claimed in the interview that it took a one hour long meeting at the Department of Veterans Affairs for him to be recommended hormones, which he has now been off for seven years. He went on to break down the effects of the hormones used for the gender transition on his body.

    Beck was turned into a national figure when he came out as transgender in a 2013 CNN interview with Anderson Cooper. The interview came after he co-wrote the book “Warrior Princess” with psychologist Anne Speckhard. The book detailed him coming out as transgender. He warned viewers in the interview not to believe anything CNN said about him because he claims they “used [him]” and “destroyed [his] life” over the past decade.

    Beck is also extremely concerned about the trans movement’s damaging effects on children.

    The Blaze notes:

    Beck explained the dangers of medical professionals’ “automatic acceptance” of children who have self-diagnosed themselves as transgender. He added that doctors should require “a minimum number of sessions” before allowing children to undergo life-altering hormone therapy treatment or gender-mutilating surgeries.

    “There’s a lot of complications with these surgeries,” Beck noted. “And that’s a part that they don’t really talk about.”

    Beck told Starbuck that he came on the podcast to take “full responsibility” for promoting gender ideology and stated that, at the time, he was “naive.” He explained that he is concerned that children are “being talked into this.”

    “I don’t want this to continue, and I don’t want these kids to get hurt,” Beck stated.

    And this a growing concern, especially as Team Biden is pushing to have taxpayer-funded transition surgeries for kids.

    The Christian Post reports:

    The United States Department of Health and Human Services says that taxpayer funds should be used to cover the cost of body mutilating “gender transition” surgeries for minors. In written responses to Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra said that the Biden administration supports using taxpayer dollars to cover the costs of elective body-deforming surgeries on youth, such as mastectomies and vaginoplasties. His responses were submitted Tuesday to the U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor.

    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.

    Biden Buddies at DOJ Refused to Help Fellow US Attorney on Hunter Case

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    2
    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 – FBI agent bombshell – Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, now a Special Counsel, was the lead prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden for alleged tax offenses. 

    He is accused of slow-rolling the investigation, and he contrived a sweetheart plea deal that would have essentially given Hunter nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

    That deal blew up in June, as I have written previously, TWICE, thanks to both GOP pressure and an astute judge who questioned the shady deal.

    Now it turns out, his fellow U.S. Attorneys for D.C. and the Central District of California at the Department of Justice (DoJ), also refused to work with Weiss in his investigation of the First Son. 

    This, according to an FBI agent who recently testified before the House Judiciary Committee.

    It is bad timing for Hunter, coming as a Delaware grand jury has finally indicted Biden Jr. on felony gun charges, right before the statute of limitations, like those on two years of tax evasion, ran out (as was previously intended?).

    It also shows that the Hunter buck stopped with Merrick Garland, the Biden Attorney General, not Weiss.

    The FBI agent corroborated IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley’s earlier testimony about how the Hunter investigation was mishandled at DoJ.

    Based on transcripts of his testimony, the agent reportedly stated that Matthew Graves, U.S. Attorney for D.C., and E. Martin Estrada, U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, “refused to work” with Weiss on charges against Hunter Biden in their jurisdictions.

    When asked specifically about Graves, the agent said: “I remember learning at some point in the investigation that Mr. Weiss would have to go through his other processes because the U.S. Attorney’s Offices had, I guess, in that sense, using that terminology, wasn’t going to partner.”

    Both these federal prosecutors were proven partisan Democrats. One was a Biden loyalist.

    Graves was appointed D.C. U.S. Attorney by Joe Biden in November 2021. Previously he worked for Biden’s presidential campaign and donated to it repeatedly as well.

    Estrada was appointed U.S. Attorney for California’s Central District in September 2022. Previously he had made donations to Vice President Kamala Harris’ Democratic Senate campaign.

    This is serious stuff.

    It could also show that Weiss lied to, or at least misled, Congress when he said in written testimony to Senator Lindsey Graham July 10 that “I’ve never been denied the authority to bring charges in any jurisdiction.”

    The blatant ‘obstruction’ by these partisan Democrat hack prosecutors should cause concern and raise questions about the integrity of the Justice Department under Biden.

    It is also adding more damaging evidence of Biden’s corruption as the Hunter prosecution continues, and the House launches its impeachment inquiry of Joe Biden.

    But it says a lot more. By refusing to press charges in their respective jurisdictions, these Biden buddies passed the buck to their boss, not Weiss.

    And who is their boss – Merrick Garland, Biden’s Attorney General.

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

    Trump Indicted Again – This One Could Be Serious

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    3
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    ANALYSIS – Donald Trump has been wrongly persecuted since he was elected president in 2016. From the 4-year long Hillary Clinton-manufactured ‘Russia collusion’ hoax, to corrupt investigations, to ‘deep state ‘resistance’ within his administration, to a partisan impeachment — no president has been so unfairly hounded in U.S. history.

    And now, we have the multiple indictments against him, including the ones for poor bookkeeping in the Stormy Daniels nonsense, and the “I can’t remember exactly when it happened, but Trump raped me 30 years ago” case of E. Jean Carrol.

    We have seen a lot of proverbial ‘stuff’ thrown at this Republican leader. Most of it stinks of political persecution. Few of it has stuck. And I have defended him through much of it.

    But the latest federal criminal indictments are different. Yes, they are, of course, politicized. 

    The Department of Justice (DoJ) under the thumb of a president from the other party, and an opponent in the next election, accusing an ex-president of federal crimes, can’t be anything but political.

    And that will hold a lot of sway, especially with Republican voters.

    Still, these latest indictments are far more serious and dangerous for Trump.

    I have previously argued that Trump brought the Mar-a-Lago classified documents charges onto himself. 

    In part he did this by not turning over the sensitive materials when requested, by bragging about having them, by claiming he declassified them, and by jerking federal investigators around for 18 months.

    Trump basically dared them to come after him. And they obliged. First by raiding his Mar-a-Lago home. Then, by indicting him.

    Neither Joe Biden, nor Mike Pence did these things when they were found to have classified materials in their possession. They just turned them over.

    Note – Trump was not charged for any materials he did return earlier in the process. He could have avoided the entire legal ordeal had he just returned all the classified documents, instead of hiding them in bathrooms.

    Those charges carry real jail time; if they stick, and a Florida jury convicts him. Those are two big ‘ifs.’

    But Donald Trump now faces new criminal charges for the fourth time in five months, arising from efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

    In total, Trump faces 78 criminal counts. Any one of them can land the ex-president in federal prison. 

    The federal crimes with which Justice Department prosecutors have now charged the former president involve three conspiracies; conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct certification of the Electoral College vote and Conspiracy Against Rights.

    Trump was also charged with obstruction. All can carry prison time if convicted.

    Conspiracy to Defraud the United States makes it a crime for two or more people to “conspire either to commit any offence against the United States or to defraud the United States” or any federal agency and for one of them to perform some action that would affect the object of the conspiracy, which carries a fine or maximum prison sentence of five years if convicted.

    Obstruction of an Official Proceeding criminalizes “obstructing, influencing, or impeding any official proceeding” or attempting to do so, which is punishable by a fine or up to 20 years in prison.

    Obstruction charges relate to Trump’s alleged attempts to block Congress from certifying the Electoral College vote. The January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol building postponed the vote count.

    According to the New York Times, he isn’t the only charged in these conspiracies:

    The indictment identified six individuals as co-conspirators in Trump’s effort to overturn the election, but none of those people were charged Tuesday. Though the alleged co-conspirators were not named, the descriptions correspond to a cabal of Trump lawyers who embraced increasingly fringe strategies as Trump’s bid to remain in power faltered. They include Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell.

    Trump is scheduled to appear in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Thursday afternoon for an initial court appearance before a magistrate judge. 

    He is expected to plead not guilty.

    However, unlike the classified materials case in Florida, where a Trump appointed judge is in charge, this time Trump’s case has been initially ‘randomly’ assigned to U.S. District Court Tanya Chutkan, an Obama-appointed judge who has been among the harshest critics of Jan. 6 defendants.

    She appears anything but fair-minded.

    As I said, political, or not – these indictments could be very serious.

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

    123...41Page 1 of 41
    © Great America News Desk 2022