Bad news for Biden.
A new poll provides some chilling details for President Biden’s reelection plan. Will he finally start to listen?
Watch Amanda explain the new development below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
A top Democrat recruit for United States Senate has fallen behind his Republican opponent and is backing out of a Democrat debate after he used a racist slur in a congressional hearing.
A planned April 23 debate between two Maryland Democrat candidates, Congressman David Trone and Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks, was canceled after Trone “refused to commit” in the wake of the incident.
During a March 21 House Budget Committee hearing, Trone asked about tax policy with Shalanda Young, who is both White House Director of the Office of Budget and Management, and black, “So this Republican j-gaboo that, it’s the tax rate that’s stopping business investment, it’s just completely faulty by people who have never run a business.”
Trone says he meant to say “bugaboo,” but instead used a racial slur for black people when speaking to the black official.
The incident could derail Trone, who is leading Alsobrooks in polls ahead of the May 21 primary to see who will succeed retiring three-term Democrat Senator Ben Cardin as the Democrat nominee. Not only is Trone white and Alsobrooks black, in a state whose Democrat primary sees large black turnout.
Trone, a millionaire businessman, has flooded TV with ads featuring black women supporting him.
Trone is still considered the favorite to win the Democrat nomination in the heavily Democrat state.
But Trone’s expected easy win to claim the seat in November was upended when popular Republican former governor Larry Hogan jumped into the race.
Hogan leads Trone by an average of 4.4% in polls of a hypothetical November matchup.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk. Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News.
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.
ANALYSIS – While the Donald Trump classified documents saga is embarrassing in its own right, it appears to be more ego related than anything else.
Trump thought he could take them, and he did – a lot of them.
Not so with Joe Biden’s similar saga, which, while it involves less volume, could involve his son Hunter Biden and Communist China.
While in no way excusing him, Trump doesn’t seem to have had any other motive than ego.
That doesn’t change the potential damage to national security they may have caused.
However, despite unhinged partisan commentary at the saga’s outset speculating that Trump was selling these documents to foreigners, it appears there was absolutely no truth to that nonsense whatsoever.
While an Intelligence Community (IC) damage assessment is ongoing, as it is with Joe Biden’s unsecured classified documents, and now Mike Pence’s as well, there is no reporting of anything being compromised by Trump.
At least not yet.
Meanwhile, Biden’s mishandling of highly classified documents brings more realistic speculation and concerns, especially due to Hunter Biden’s potential access to these documents and his close ties to the Chinese communist regime.
This is why Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is now asking that the FBI search all locations, residences and offices Hunter has used or is now using.
I would add that the same be done for all homes and offices used by Joe Biden as well, especially his Rehoboth beach house.
The FBI’s failure to search that beach house borders on criminal negligence and professional malpractice.
But back to Hunter.
As Newsmax reported:
“It seems he [President Biden] leaves classified documents wherever he goes. And we also know that Hunter Biden at times was — declared his residence to be those very same places,” Cruz said on Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures.”
“I also believe it is critical for the FBI to search Hunter Biden’s homes, home and office residences to make sure there are no classified documents there, given all the evidence that’s piling up. We need to ascertain who’s had access to what and when.”
Cruz also was asked about an email allegedly written by Hunter Biden to a business partner that contained information about Ukraine seemingly taken directly from classified information given to senators before they travel overseas.
“Well, the one thing we know for sure is Hunter Biden didn’t write that. Hunter Biden is not an expert on Ukraine, he’s not an expert on Eastern Europe, he’s not an expert on Russia, but that email did help get him on the board of Burisma,” Cruz said. “It did help him get paid $83,000 a month because it showed a level of expertise, not coming from him, but he got it somewhere.”
While the wild speculation aimed at Trump selling secrets to the highest bidder was pure left-wing ranting, and some residual Russia collusion delusion, the concerns about Joe and Hunter, and dangerous liaisons with China appear more grounded in facts and evidence.
Hunter had intimate business relations with agents of the Chinese regime, and access to all the locations Joe may have stashed highly classified documents.
It’s not a stretch to see the links and risk.
It is time the FBI searches all Biden homes and offices, including everywhere Hunter has been, and Joe Biden’s beach house.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Will Kellyanne Conway return to Team Trump? As Kamala Harris, who recently stole the campaign from her boss, Joe Biden, basks in her current sugar high glory, some in the Trump campaign are wondering if his team needs a reboot.
Or maybe an injection of a 2016 winner.
And who better to revitalize Trump’s campaign, than his winning campaign manager from 2016, Kellyanne Conway.
At least Donald Trump’s wife, Melania, reportedly thinks so.
And a recent post on X showing pics of Conway and Trump together in New Jersey has fueled the speculation that a return to the campaign is in the works.
In 2016 the brash flaxen haired pollster-turned campaign chief swooped in after the campaign’s failing start with its B Team and is rightly credited as helping to get Trump across the finish line to victory against Hillary Clinton.
According to the Daily Beast:
Donald Trump is looking to bring in Kellyanne Conway to shake up his faltering campaign, according to a new report.
The outspoken adviser is seen as a trusted confidante by both the former president and, importantly, by Melania Trump who is “pushing” for Conway to return because she sees her as “a familiar face amid a sea of relative newcomers,” says Tara Palmeri in the online magazine, Puck.
Lara Trump, co-chair of the Republican National Committee and wife of Trump’s son, Eric, is also said to be pushing for Conway to be brought on board to reignite campaign stalwarts taken by surprise by Kamala Harris’ fast start after Joe Biden’s sudden departure.
One adviser told Puck that Trump listens to powerful women, more than men. “He listens to Hope Hicks. He listens to Brooke Rollins,” they tell Puck. “Ironically, he likes powerful women. If you’re a sharp woman, he will listen to you. Hope and these people could tell him the hardest shit. He may not have done anything, but at least he listens.”
While she was a key player in Trump’s 2016 win, eight years ago, she could still be the spark that relights the fire of a campaign still unsteady after Harris’ surprising Democrat Party coup and subsequent rise.
Puck notes:
…it may also be fair to question whether his brain trust is living in the past. Chris LaCivita, who famously ran the Swift Boat Veterans campaign against John Kerry, has spearheaded an attack on Walz’s military record, but it’s yet to have the same impact as it did in 2004, when the U.S. had recently invaded Iraq. Other Trump allies are wondering if pollster Tony Fabrizio is likewise frozen in carbonite, as he considers a race-baiting strategy against Harris akin to the Willie Horton ads against Dukakis back in 1988.
Team Harris has raised $310 million in July, and another $36 million in the 24 hours after announcing her stolen Valor radical VP choice, Tim Walz.
So far Team Trump hasn’t been able to land any significant blows on his younger female political opponent.
According to Puck, Trump’s campaign team is split in half over whether she should return in a similar role to the one she had in 2016.
Meanwhile, Conway is smoothing over any ruffled feather with JD Vance after openly suggesting Marco Rubio as Trump’s VP.
As part of her mending relations effort, Conway recently tweeted “Brilliant” to Vance’s stunt when he landed at the same airport as Harris and Walz and challenged her to debate.
One big potential drawback to Team Trump is the fact that Conway recently registered as a $50,000- a month foreign agent for a Ukrainian oligarch.
This is already provoking accusations among her critics that it would be a conflict of interest. However, a campaign manager or advisor is not the same as a member of the administration. So, that issue may not matter much in these final three months of the campaign.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk.
Who saw this coming?
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Are Democrats wetting their beds about Joe Biden? As I wrote about earlier, even the New York Times (NYT) is admitting Biden is losing in the polls to Donald Trump in five key electoral states.
And David Axelrod, chief strategist for Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns, and a senior advisor to the former president Obama, is sending a message to the elderly Biden – “this is your last chance – get out now.”
This is one of Obama’s top advisors, so it seems like a veiled message from the ex-president himself to Biden that it’s time to quit. We will likely hear this chorus to grow among Democrat movers and shakers.
As reported by The Hill:
When questioned about his comments Monday, Axelrod told CNN that it’s a good time for Biden to check if he should keep up his campaign. Sunday marked one year before the election.
“As I’ve said for like a couple years now, the issue’s not — for him, is not political, it’s actuarial. You can see that in this poll and there’s just a lot of concern about the age issue, and that is something I think he needs to ponder. Just do a check and say, ‘Is this the right thing to do?’” Axelrod said.
“Is this the best path? I suspect that he will say yes, but time is fleeting here, and this is probably the last moment for him to do that check, and it’s probably good if he does,” the Obama alum added.
By ‘actuarial,’ Axelrod was referring to Biden’s age, calling it is “his biggest liability” and something he cannot change.
“Among all the unpredictables there is one thing that is sure: the age arrow only points in one direction,” Axelrod wrote on X. Meaning, Biden is only going downhill from here.
The NYT poll found Biden being trounced by Trump in five out of six battleground states including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania by margins of 3 to 10 points.
The poll also found that 71 percent of registered voters said they agree to some degree that Biden is “just too old to be an effective president.” 62 percent of participants said Biden did not have the “mental sharpness to be an effective president.”
The Hill added: “Axelrod told CNN that he’s not reacting to one poll with his comments but has had conversations with people and finds 2024 a unique year considering the threat of Trump — who is leading the GOP primary race — on the other side of the aisle.”
The Hill continued:
“Trump is a dangerous, unhinged demagogue whose brazen disdain for the rules, [norms], laws and institutions or democracy should be disqualifying,” Axelrod wrote in a separate post. “But the stakes of miscalculation here are too dramatic to ignore.”
I would add that maybe the growing GOP impeachment inquiry into the Biden family business – ‘influence peddling’ – and the tax fraud and gun indictments against Hunter Biden, are also worrying Democrats.
Echoing the growing talking points about Biden quitting while he still can, a separate Hill piece reported:
Arguing Biden is “justly proud of his accomplishments,” Axelrod said Biden’s poll numbers will “send tremors of doubt” through the Democratic Party.
“Not ‘bed-wetting,’” but legitimate concern, Axelrod wrote…
“Only @JoeBiden can make this decision,” he continued. “If he continues to run, he will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. What he needs to decide is whether that is wise; whether it’s in HIS best interest or the country’s?”
I don’t know about you, but I sense there is a lot of Democrat bed-wetting about Biden going around right now.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
A new major poll finds most Americans are growing more optimistic about the nation’s future – but Democrats are plunging new depths of despair.
The Associated Press reports the latest AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds “overall, the public has become less pessimistic about the state of politics and the system of choosing leaders. In July 2024, 66% were pessimistic about the state of politics in the country. Now 59% of the public are pessimistic. Forty percent are pessimistic about how the country’s leaders are chosen, down from 47% last July.”
“Republicans have grown slightly more optimistic about the future of the Republican Party than they were last summer. In July 2024, 47% said they were optimistic about their party. Now, three months into Donald Trump’s second term, 55% are hopeful about their party’s future,” the AP reports.
“While half of Republicans are pessimistic about the state of politics in the United States, that is down from 73% last July. And they have grown slightly more optimistic about the way our leaders are chosen under the country’s political system,” the AP adds.
But not everyone is happy, with Democrats almost in total despair.
“In contrast, Democrats have become more pessimistic about their party’s future, the state of the country’s politics, and the country’s process for choosing political leaders. Only 35% of Democrats say they are optimistic about the future of the Democratic Party, down sharply from 57% in the July 2024 poll,” the AP reports.
“About 7 in 10 Democrats are pessimistic about the state of politics in this country, up from 60% last summer. And 55% of Democrats are pessimistic about the way our leaders are chosen under our political system, up from last summer when Joe Biden was still in the White House,” the AP adds.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk.
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.
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.
