“Harry Potter” actress Helena Bonham Carter has landed herself in hot water after speaking out against liberals’ favorite weapon of choice: cancel culture.
Watch Amanda explain the controversy below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Totally tone deaf. Just a little reminder of how ridiculously biased, partisan and idiotic our mainstream media has become, including the fluffy fashion forums.
First Lady Jill Biden, the incredibly unstylish, power-hungry, social climbing, faux intellectual with an unserious Doctor of Education (EdD), has again graced the cover of Vogue magazine.
This, her third time, right before the upcoming election. (RELATED: Poor Sign Placement Haunts Jill Biden At Hunter High School)
The New York Post noted how remarkably out of touch the Biden White House is:
After Biden’s horrific debate performance on Thursday, much of the media world reluctantly conceded that our 46th president looks like a lost toddler.
And then there’s Vogue — which literally couldn’t stop the presses. The fashion-bible-turned-Dem-PR-machine was already rolling out its July issue, with cover model Jill Biden in a silk cream Ralph Lauren dress that retails for $4,990.
The magazine landed on the internet Monday morning with a resounding, wincing thud.
It was tone deaf. It was tacky — but this shoot and interview, conducted months ago, would have been messy even if the debate disaster had never happened.
Fox News host Jimmy Failla on X had this to say about the horrible caregiver of the elderly and frail Joe Biden:
Melania Trump is an actual super model who speaks 5 languages but she’s NEVER been on the cover of Vogue. Jill Biden commits vicious elder abuse on the world stage and now has two Vogue covers to show for it. Congrats Jill, you’ll be great in “The Devil Wears Depends.”
Newsweek noted the backlash:
Former NBC senior executive Mike Sington said, “First Lady Jill Biden appears on the cover of Vogue magazine, which seems like a good time to remind you that Melania Trump never appeared on the cover of Vogue when she was First Lady.”
C.J. Pearson, a co-chair of the GOP Youth Advisory Council, said: “Outside of how tone deaf this following Joe Biden‘s disastrous debate performance, it is even more absurd that Jill Biden somehow graced the cover of Vogue and @MELANIATRUMP was never given the opportunity. Asinine even.”
Another user on X noted: “She will NEVER be Melania.”
Dr. Jill, as she insists on being called, first appeared on a Vogue cover in 2021 right after Joe Biden was inaugurated. She later appeared on the cover of the digital Winter 2023 issue.
Meanwhile, Melania Trump, an actual former supermodel who speaks several languages, and was exemplary, and always stylish and immaculately attired, as first lady is still shunned by the fashion world.
Back in 2005, when she was getting married to The Donald, and well before Trump became president, Melania did get her own Vogue cover as Trump’s new bride. But oddly, she never again got a cover for Vogue or any other fashion, or mainstream magazine. (RELATED: Melania Trump Addresses Jan. 6 for First Time)
Newsweek noted the backlash:
Former NBC senior executive Mike Sington said, “First Lady Jill Biden appears on the cover of Vogue magazine, which seems like a good time to remind you that Melania Trump never appeared on the cover of Vogue when she was First Lady.”
C.J. Pearson, a co-chair of the GOP Youth Advisory Council, said: “Outside of how tone deaf this following Joe Biden‘s disastrous debate performance, it is even more absurd that Jill Biden somehow graced the cover of Vogue and @MELANIATRUMP was never given the opportunity. Asinine even.”
Another user on X noted: “She will NEVER be Melania.”
The fact that she never landed a Vogue cover in her White House years was such a point of consternation that the former First Lady Trump criticized Wintour, who also serves as Condé Nast’s chief content officer, for it during a 2022 Fox News interview.
WWD reported:
As Jill Biden‘s role in encouraging President Joe Biden to stay in the presidential race — despite his lackluster performance in Thursday night’s debate with Donald Trump — continues to be hashed over in the media and around the globe, Vogue debuted its August issue with the first lady on its cover.
In this already deeply divided country, the Condé Nast fashion magazine — intentionally or not — has ratcheted up the public dispute about Biden’s full-steam-ahead plans. As of Monday afternoon, Vogue‘s post of the first lady’s cover had 51,960 likes and 5,286 comments. The first lady donned an ivory Ralph Lauren Collection dress for the Norman Jean Roy-shot cover that accompanied Maya Singer’s interview.
Of course, Vogue’s editorial direction is strongly liberal. WWD added:
Requests for comment from Vogue’s global editorial director Anna Wintour and Singer through a Vogue spokesperson were declined. The company spokesperson said, “It’s no secret that Anna has been a supporter of Democratic campaigns for decades. Our August cover story is a look at the tremendous work Dr. Biden has done, and the most urgent issues in 2024 and beyond.”
Meanwhile, a parting comment: Newsmax’s Rob Schmitt wrote, “Nice puff piece on the most valueless person in America and her bid to keep her corpse-like husband into the White House to stay relevant.”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – You would think that a senior U.S. military officer would finally have figured out that they should stay out of the ‘woke wars’
Unfortunately, Lt. Gen. DeAnna Burt, deputy chief of space operations at the U.S. Space Force (USSF), appears to have not gotten the memo.
Even as the Pentagon cracks down on ridiculous Drag Queen shows, and the Congress pushes to eliminate woke policies like taxpayer-funded abortion travel, and ‘diversity’ programs that are more divisive than inclusive, Burt decided now was the time to rail against what she called “anti-LGBTQ+ laws” at the state level.
She made her speech at a Pentagon ‘Pride’ event last week.
Fox News reported that she “claimed that such laws affect her hiring and promotion decisions, sometimes leading her to choose a “less qualified” candidate because of a preferred candidate’s ‘personal circumstances.’”
Yes. She said that.
Fox said that Burt told those attending the event:
Transformational cultural change requires leadership from the top, and we do not have time to wait. Since January of this year, more than 400 anti-LGBTQ+ laws have been introduced at the state level. That number is rising and demonstrates a trend that could be dangerous for service members, their families, and the readiness of the force as a whole.
Fox News explained:
The “anti-LGBTQ+ laws” Burt mentioned appeared to be referencing the legislation passed by more than 20 states restricting or banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, as well as numerous bills limiting the amount of time in which an abortion can be performed during a pregnancy.
Most of these GOP-led state laws are perfectly reasonable, and designed to protect unborn children, and their mothers, as well as protect kids being pushed into irreversible transgender medical procedures.
They are also totally outside her purview, and democratically established by state legislatures.
But to Burt, they are so dangerous she prefers to hire less qualified candidates due to their ‘personal circumstances,’ rather than subject them to these states’ laws.
Fox News quoted her as saying:
When I look at potential candidates, say, for squadron command, I strive to match the right person to the right job. I consider their job performance and relevant experience first. However, I also look at their personal circumstances, and their family is also an important factor.
If the good match for a job does not feel safe being themselves and performing at their highest potential at a given location, or if their family could be denied critical health care due to the laws in that state, I am compelled to consider a different candidate, and, perhaps, less qualified.
Which part of ‘don’t get into partisan politics or the culture wars’ doesn’t she understand. And hiring less qualified people for a job based on ‘personal circumstances’ sounds like discrimination to me.
Not to mention horrible leadership, dangerous to national security, and bad for America.
But it’s not just one senior leader at USSF. According to leaked emails, last month, two Navy officials derided critics of the service’s promotion of LGBTQ+ Pride as “bigots” and “a—holes.”
These two ‘Pride Pushers’ reportedly schemed on how to best post a “rainbow wingtip graphic” for LGBTQ+ Pride Month on the Navy social media accounts.
As I wrote about then, the Navy only had one Pride image up on social media for less than a day on June 1st, the start of ‘Pride Month,’ before removing it.
None of the other services posted Pride imagery this year, a stark difference from last year when ‘Pride Month’ began.
This is hopefully part of a broader Pentagon policy to pull out of the ‘woke wars’ and keep partisan, ideological, racial, and sexual politics out of our military.
I noted earlier: “Only the Coast Guard and the National Guard made posts for Pride Month, but neither service changed its profile pictures or header image. Hopefully, they will soon get the memo.”
Well, now I add – these navy officials and Lt. Gen. Burt should also get the memo, or even better, an invitation to a Congressional hearing to explain themselves.
It’s time to focus on real wars, not woke ones.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
The showdown between former President Donald Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has America hooked.
Have you already made up your mind or are you waiting for a fight?
Watch Amanda below:
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.
Will authorities arrest former President Donald Trump this week?
Watch Amanda explain the controversy below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Last week the world was hit by the purported news of a Russian missile strike into NATO member country, Poland.
And now the award-winning AP reporter who wrote it has been fired.
Based only on a single, unnamed ‘senior U.S. intelligence official,’ the initial Associated Press (AP) story by James LaPorta, a former U.S. Marine who served in Afghanistan, was widely disseminated and quickly caused a barrage of other reporting.
Most of it was alarmist and panic-causing, with many in the news media and blogosphere quickly demanding harsh action against Russia.
As the Blaze reports:
Fox News and the Daily Mail similarly carried the AP reporter’s suggestion, the former running a piece entitled, “Russian missiles cross into NATO member Poland, kill 2: senior US intelligence official,” and the latter stating, “‘Russian bombs’ kill two in POLAND.”
CBS Evening News tweeted “RUSSIAN MISSILE STRIKE: Two Russian missiles crossed over the Ukrainian border into Poland, a NATO country, killing two civilians.”
A Russian attack on Poland could have triggered articles 4 and 5 of the NATO charter, potentially putting the U.S. into direct conflict with nuclear power.
Article 4 requires full consultation at the North Atlantic Council, the alliance’s political decision-making body, while Article 5 requires joint NATO action to repel an attack.
As MSN explains: “Article 5 states that the parties to the NATO treaty ‘agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.’”
Article 5 also states that each NATO member must take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
This of course would make the U.S. a direct combatant in this war and could escalate to a nuclear exchange.
As such, I wrote about the ‘errant’ strike the same day, albeit in more careful ways.
My headline was more matter-of-fact and far less alarming, and it didn’t mention a direct Russian missile strike: “Escalation in Russia-Ukraine War Leads to Emergency Crisis Meeting.”
In the piece I did note the ramifications of any foreign missiles crashing into Poland, writing: “In what might be the greatest (albeit perhaps accidental) escalation since Russia invaded Ukraine, the war just crossed the border into a NATO country.”
And, yes, I like to say ‘albeit.’
I added:
According to a senior U.S. intelligence official, as Russia pounded Ukraine’s energy facilities Tuesday with the largest barrage of missile strikes to date, some reportedly ‘stray’ Russian missiles crossed into NATO member Poland and struck a site in Poland about 15 miles from the Ukrainian border.
The allegedly errant strike killed two persons in the Polish village of Przewodów and provoked an emergency crisis meeting of Poland’s national security team, which will be held Tuesday evening.
While I did refer to a Ukrainian Air Force spokesman who said Russia used X-101 and X-555 cruise missiles in the latest attacks against Ukraine, and reports that expressed the belief that “one or more of these cruise missiles were the ones that struck Poland,” I was very careful in how I reported all this.
Note the extensive use of the words “accidental,” “allegedly,” “reportedly,” “errant,” and “stray” missiles in my report. I also explained that the incident had provoked an “emergency crisis meeting” in Poland.
The rest of my piece focused on the confirmed, massive Russian barrage of missile strikes against Ukrainian energy and infrastructure targets throughout the country.
In the end it appears that the missile that struck Poland was a Russian-made Ukrainian air defense missile that missed its mark and fell back to earth rather than self-destructs.
And even after its country of manufacture was known, outlets like CNN kept calling it a ‘Russian-made missile’ without adding that Ukraine uses lots of Russian-made missiles.
Of course, in my view, Russia is still to blame for this, albeit indirectly, since no one would be firing armed missiles near a NATO country if it weren’t for the unprovoked Russian invasion, and its reckless and dangerous strikes near NATO’s borders.
The Blaze added that:
After having updated the initial report several times, the AP indicated [November 16] that a new assessment from three U.S. officials “contradicts information” in the original article. Shortly thereafter, the article was reportedly taken offline.
The AP issued a retraction later that day…
On Nov. 21, LaPorta was fired.
But let’s use this incident as a teachable moment.
Lesson one – as sophisticated news consumers, be circumspect with the news you read until it is fully verified.
Lesson two – be wary of reports using only one or two anonymous sources.
And lesson three – journalists, and social media posters, should use words like ‘reportedly’ a lot more, and make it clear that there is room for doubt or questions when the reports are still fresh and early.
The most important rule I’ve learned in journalism, and in intelligence, and also during my stint on Wall Street, is that – it’s never as good (or as bad) as first reported.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Their latest stunt isn’t new to the woke ice cream brand…
On the Fourth of July Ben and Jerry’s ice cream released a statement bashing America’s heritage.
Watch Amanda explain the latest controversy below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
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.
.
ANALYSIS – ‘Go woke – Go Broke’ – The saga of Budweiser and Target’s disastrous forays into transgender politics is great for conservatives, and all Americans.
It shows how national grassroots pressure can force giant woke companies to lose billions of dollars in a matter of weeks.
But more importantly, it shows us other ways to fight back. To truly force change we have to effectively leverage these boycotts and go way beyond them.
We need to go after the behemoth investment firms that push and incentivize these corporations to go even more woke.
Elon Musk just hinted at the next battleground – courtrooms.
Referring to Target’s decision to sell LGBT-themed items and clothing aimed at families and kids (including ‘onesies’ for toddlers and books instructing kids on using transgender pronouns), and the ensuing financial backlash, Musk said Friday that it’s just a matter of time before Target faces lawsuits for “destruction of shareholder value.”
“Won’t be long before there are class-action lawsuits by shareholders against the company and board of directors for the destruction of shareholder value,” he tweeted.
Musk made the remarks in response to a tweet by conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who posted about JPMorgan downgrading Target’s stock after suffering its longest consecutive drop in decades.
Kirk replied by saying that shareholders should organize to get politics out of the “hyperpolitical” corporations of today.
And that is exactly what should be done.
Conservatives should also consider buying just one share of each offending company to give them legal rights as shareholders. And then take the companies to court.
These lawsuits won’t just put the offending companies on notice, but their huge investment firm backers too.
A big factor encouraging brands to promote transgender ideologies is an attempt to score points on lefty environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards that are being foisted on organizations all over the country.
And this is a product of leftist political pressures and aggressively activist investment firms.
During an appearance on Fox News, Anson Frericks, an ex-top Anheuser-Busch executive, said that quiet pressure from huge investment firms like New York-based BlackRock and Pennsylvania-based Vanguard is behind many of the controversial decisions by the woke companies they are heavily invested in.
He noted that BlackRock, Vanguard, and another firm, State Street, manage about $20 trillion in capital and use their power to promote leftist political agendas.
However, it’s also not necessarily coming from the investment firms organically, since they too are being pressured by progressive lawmakers overseeing giant government pension funds that the investment firms profit from.
These hyper-politicized monster government pension funds are the ones really calling the shots.
One of the huge investment firms mentioned earlier, manages California’s massive pension fund — the country’s biggest — and California’s leftist politicians have a big say in the corporate governance and politics of the firms the fund invests in, Frericks noted.
“In California, for example, they recently have mandated those large pension funds [sic] that they divest from things like fossil fuels and oil and gas…”
“But they also tell BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard if they’re going to manage their money, they have to commit to things like ESG — diversity, equity, inclusion — and adopt firm-wide commitments that they therefore then force onto all the major companies in corporate America,” he added.
So, we need to find ways to limit the power and influence of these monstrous and highly politicized government pension funds that use taxpayer funds to push radical agendas.
We should also note that this isn’t just a conservative issue. Erin Elmore at Turning Point USA, reported The Epoch Times, argued that calls to boycott Target are “not necessarily conservative.”
Instead, she said, “it’s common sense. Most parents don’t support satanists or little boys wearing girls’ bathing suits,” she tweeted on May 28.
This isn’t a conservative-liberal thing. It’s an American thing.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
