Random

    Opinion

    Home Opinion Page 39

    Supreme Court Discrimination Ruling Undermines Corporate Wokeness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Republican Governor Crowns Kamala The Winner Of ABC Debate

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    5
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) called Vice President Kamala Harris the clear winner of Tuesday night’s presidential debate.

    “Oh, Kamala definitely won the debate,” Sununu said during a Wednesday morning appearance on CNN. “There’s no question about that. So the question is, what does it mean, right? And it’s not just, what does it mean to everybody? What’s going to do that 10 percent of swing voters?” 

    “I think if you poll those swing voters, they want results,” he said. “They’re results-driven. It’s the cost of living, it’s the border, it’s public safety, those types of issues, you can be the change agent to make that better in their lives.” 

    The outgoing New Hampshire governor, who considered a presidential run of his own, praised Harris’s debate strategy Tuesday night.

    “She kind of talked confidence in her answers, and then she took the last 30 seconds of almost every question and hit him with a personal attack, knowing that that would get under his skin,” Sununu said. “It was a very effective measure, and I give her a lot of credit on that. It kept him on the defensive, to be sure, and it’s ultimately, definitely, stylistically, why she openly won the debate.” 

    Sununu said the debate would move the needle “a little bit,” but argued neither candidate explained to voters how they would help lower costs for average Americans. The GOP governor added Trump failed to take advantage of openings to go on the offense over the economy.

    Tough conservatives are running for Senate in MUST-WIN campaigns across the country. WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT! Help us win back the Senate in November.

    “He should have talked about price controls,” Sununu said. “He should have talked about the cost of living more. I think he went like an hour, not even talking about inflation and those are real issues.” 

    Sununu said the ex-president should also draw a bigger contrast on foreign policy with Harris, saying on CNN there “was clearly more peace when”  he was in office. 

    “That is a strength that he has, that he has not exploited in this campaign,” he said. “There is chaos in Ukraine, chaos in Israel. You know, there’s a lot of pressure going on in Taiwan. Let’s not forget about that. Let’s not forget about Afghanistan.”

    Anti-War GOP Rep Gaetz Joins Forces with Far Left ‘Squad’

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    1
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    ANALYSIS – Bad idea. It was just a matter of time before the conservative Republican populists ranting against defending Ukraine and America’s so-called ‘forever wars,’ would join forces with the far left. 

    Echoing Donald Trump’s language, Gaetz has said: “I sometimes feel as though I’m waging a forever war against forever wars.”

    In this case, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida suggested left-wing Democrats and populist Republicans might join forces in opposing U.S. support for defending Ukraine against Russian conquest and ending U.S. military involvement in securing Somalia from ISIS.

    But this doesn’t mean just allying with any left-wing congressional Democrats, it means radical members of “the Squad,” partly led by none other than Alejandra Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), the Socialist Democrat from New York.

    While his War Powers measure proposed to remove U.S. troops from Somalia was rejected by a 219-vote margin in the House of Representatives on April 27, Gaetz said that he appreciated the contributions of several Democrats who backed his bill, including members of “the Squad.” 

    It also means befriending Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, the infamous antisemitic Democrat from Minnesota.

    As reported by The Daily Caller:

    “[W]hile we disagree strongly on a variety of issues, I think there should be greater connectivity between the anti-war right and the anti-war left,” said Gaetz, naming Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna, Jamaal Bowman, and Ilhan Omar as his advisers on his recent measure. “I am grateful for the advice that I’ve gotten from [them on] war powers bills,” he said. He declined to say whether the two camps would unite to form a formal caucus in the House.

    The mention of Omar as a confidant on a foreign policy issue comes despite Gaetz’s earlier positions. In February of this year, Gaetz voted “Yea” to remove Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the chamber’s chief panel on foreign policy issues, for statements that were allegedly antisemitic and trivialized the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, according to the text of the resolution.

    It is doubtful Gaetz will win much support for his efforts. His resolutions to remove troops from Syria and Somalia were rejected by consistently large margins (165 GOP members voted against the recent resolution), and he hasn’t introduced any bills in this Congress to reform the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

    But it’s not just allying on ‘war powers.’  They have already allied elsewhere.

    Earlier, Gaetz and AOC co-sponsored a bill to restrict members of Congress from owning or trading stocks.

    Unlike military resolutions, this is something I may be able to support.

    The New York Post reported: “When Members have access to classified information, we should not be trading in the stock market on it,” said Ocasio-Cortez. “It’s really that simple.”

    “Members of Congress are spending their time trading futures instead of securing the future of our fellow Americans,” Gaetz said. “We cannot allow the Swamp to prioritize investing in stocks over investing in our country.”

    I generally support restrictions on members of Congress trading stocks. But this bill may go a bit far, not allowing representatives to own any individual stocks. 

    Prohibiting trading stocks while in office should be enough.

    Still, this unsettling new left-right alliance may signal something else. 

    Gaetz, Omar, and Ocasio-Cortez are in their 30s and 40s and seemingly want to burnish their reputations as lawmakers who are a new generation of politicians outside the Beltway.

    What else might these folks start to agree on? When the young far left in America starts to join the far right, what comes next?

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

    ‘Deranged’ Leftist NY Judge Declares Trump Guilty of Fraud Before Trial Begins

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    15
    Gavel via Wikimedia Commons Image

    ANALYSIS – In what is only the latest weaponized, partisan legal action against former President Donald Trump, the far-left Democrat New York state attorney Letitia James and her leftist cohort Justice Arthur Engoron have just found Trump guilty of civil fraud before his trial even began.

    Never mind that the case is obscene to begin with and should not even exist. And the law it is based on is obscene as well and should not exist either. Andrew McCarthy explains in National Review:

    James, an ambitious progressive authoritarian who campaigned for office on a vow to weaponize the Empire State’s legal processes against Trump, decided to package the scraps [of leftover fraud charges no one else could prosecute] into a lengthy civil complaint. After all, she had a secret weapon: New York’s Executive Law 65(12), which empowers an abusive prosecutor to put partisan enemies out of business without having to prove anything. Although this provision purports to outlaw “repeated” and “persistent” “fraud” and/or “illegality,” in reality, as I explained last week in a column for The Messenger:

    “The law doesn’t require a showing of harm. The state need not prove the defendant even intended to defraud anyone, much less actually defrauded someone. It need not be established that any creditor or financial institution even relied on the defendant’s misrepresentations, that those misrepresentations were material, or that anyone was actually fooled by them. The state just has to show that a defendant made false claims with enough “persistence” and “repetition” that at least two persons were “affected” — which, whatever it means, is not a synonym for ‘harmed.’”


    Claiming Trump significantly overvalued his properties and assets when presenting his company’s financials to banks and lenders and that this somehow “affected” someone, James is seeking at least $250 million in penalties, a ban against Trump and his sons Donald Jr. and Eric from running businesses in New York, and a five-year commercial real estate ban against Trump and the Trump Organization.

    The accusations are that Trump inflated the value of assets by $1.9 billion to $3.6 billion annually between 2011 and 2021 to save hundreds of millions on loans and insurance.

    This, even though no one has been claimed to have been harmed, and all financial institutions take self-declared valuations like those made by Trump, with a grain of salt when making loans and other major financial decisions.

    Bankers and insurance executives have a fiduciary obligation to conduct their own due diligence to determine what they believe are fair market valuations of assets. And they always do.

    And as McCarthy further explains, everyone involved knew Trump exaggerated just about everything:

    …this was for political consumption and the burnishing of celebrity. In the league of sophisticated financial actors in which Trump plays, where corporate departments are dedicated to valuation analysis because that’s the bread-and-butter of finance, nobody took this nonsense seriously. Indeed, Trump even included a “worthless clause” in his SFCs which, in so many words, warned that they were apt to be, you know, somewhat less than perfectly accurate. Many of the financial institutions that did business with Trump did so for years, and knew exactly the cat they were dealing with. They made loans and indemnified Trump because they knew, based on their own expertise and experience with him, that he was quite wealthy (even if not as wealthy as he claimed) and that he would pay up.

    But that didn’t stop Justice Engoron, who ruled preemptively on September 26 that James had proven Trump and his co-defendants fraudulently inflated his assets. 

    Engoron, in his ruling, ordered the cancellation of certificates that 10 of Trump’s business entities need to operate some of his marquee properties — including Trump Tower and his golf clubs in New York — and said he would appoint independent receivers to oversee their “dissolution.”

    The judge thus essentially imposed the corporate death penalty on Trump’s businesses BEFORE the trial even began.

    Trump responded in a post on his Truth Social platform the day of the ruling, calling accusations that he committed fraud “ridiculous and untrue,” and hit back, calling Engoron a “DERANGED” judge.

    In this case, I must agree with Trump’s wording. The judge is deranged, but he is also a partisan hack and embarrassment in what is already a highly partisan and embarrassing New York judicial system.

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

    State Department Hosted ‘Therapy Cry Sessions’ For Employees Following Trump Victory

    By
    Seijah Drake
    -
    7

    Secretary of State Antony Blinken is facing backlash after reports surfaced that the State Department organized therapy sessions for employees distressed by President-elect Donald Trump‘s victory in the 2024 election. According to sources who spoke to The Washington Free Beacon, the Biden administration’s State Department hosted the sessions for its staff to help them cope with the emotional fallout from the election results raising concerns about professionalism and the Department’s competency.

    An internal email sent out by the Department’s Bureau of Medical Services encouraged staff to attend a one-hour webinar on “managing stress during change.” The session offered “effective stress management techniques” to help participants navigate the uncertainty they felt in the wake of the election.

    It then invited employees to join a discussion on how to handle their feelings about the outcome of the election. The focus of the session, according to the email, was to “provide tips and practical strategies for managing stress and maintaining your well-being.”

    While the initiative was likely well-intentioned in its goal to support mental health, the idea of government workers receiving taxpayer-funded therapy to cope with a political defeat has sparked fierce criticism. Among the most vocal detractors is Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Issa called the sessions “unacceptable,” emphasizing that government employees should not expect to be “soothed” over the results of a democratic election, especially when their salaries are funded by American taxpayers.

    Issa lambasted the State Department for tolerating what he described as a “personal meltdown” from its employees. In a letter to Blinken, Issa noted that the U.S. government champions free and fair elections around the world, and that it was “disturbing” to see U.S. government officials struggling to cope with the results of a legitimate, democratically held election. He went on to question the appropriateness of taxpayer-funded therapy sessions for civil servants who, according to Issa, should be able to handle political change without resorting to emotional support services.

    “It is unacceptable that the Department accommodates this behavior and subsidizes it with taxpayer dollars,” Issa wrote. “The mental health of our foreign service personnel is important, but the Department has no obligation to indulge and promote the leftist political predilections of its employees and soothe their frayed nerves because of the good-faith votes of—and at the personal expense of—the American taxpayers.”

    Issa’s letter raised broader concerns about the State Department’s ability to effectively carry out its duties in a time of political transition. Given the stark policy differences between the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration, Issa questioned whether the personnel involved in these therapy sessions would be able to effectively implement the policy priorities of the new president.

    “The mere fact that the Department is hosting these sessions raises significant questions about the willingness of its personnel to implement the lawful policy priorities that the American people elected President Trump to pursue,” Issa wrote.

    The idea that a portion of the U.S. government workforce may struggle with accepting a Trump victory—despite the fact that elections are a regular and democratic part of American life—raises questions about the professional competence and political neutrality of federal employees.

    The controversy over these therapy sessions underscores a growing sense of frustration among conservatives who believe that the federal government has become too politicized, particularly in agencies like the State Department, which often take progressive stances on global issues. Critics argue that such therapy sessions are emblematic of a broader trend within the federal bureaucracy, where employees may prioritize their personal political beliefs over their professional duties to serve the American people impartially.

    Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News.

    NYC to Pay BLM Rioters Nearly $14 Million for Mass Arrests – What About Jan 6 Rioters?

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0
    Elvert Barnes, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – In what is again an egregious example of disparate treatment for rioters with different political views, New York City has agreed to pay violent Black Lives Matter (BLM) rioters $13.7 million after being sued over the mass arrests in 2020. 

    If approved by a judge, it would reportedly be one of the most expensive payouts ever over mass arrests.

    Each BLM rioter can receive a payout of nearly $10,000 ($9,950 to be exact) as part of the settlement, whether they were arrested or not if their First Amendment rights were found to have been suppressed or infringed on by police.

    The settlement applies to protestors at 18 marches or demonstrations in Brooklyn and Manhattan between May 28 and June 4 of 2020.

    Meanwhile, many nonviolent Jan. 6 Capitol rioters are still in jail pending trial after a massive nationwide FBI manhunt. And others are receiving outrageous prison terms.

    The message here is – if you are a left-wing rioter in a left-wing city you can expect to be rewarded, but if you are a conservative rioter in the ‘People’s Republic of DC,’ and Joe Biden’s Department of Justice (DoJ) oversees prosecutions, you will get fried.

    Attorneys from the left-leaning National Lawyers Guild accused the NYPD of violating rioters’ First Amendment rights by being excessively violent and making illegal arrests.

    However, the riots in NYC were far more violent, and damaging, and lasted far longer than the few hours-long Capitol riot in DC.

    During the two years of litigation, NYC attorneys argued police tactics had been appropriate to the situation and noted that rioters had thrown projectiles at police and torched police cars.

    As the Daily Wire reported:

    In New York, police arrested just over 2,000 people between May 28, three days after Floyd’s death, and June 7, according to the New York State attorney general’s office.


    Thousands of people protested in New York City, some violently. Rioters injured dozens of police officers, damaged dozens of police cars — setting some of them on fire and graffitiing them — and looted or damaged at least 450 businesses.

    In one instance, two NYPD officers in Brooklyn were shot and one was stabbed in the neck as they tried to prevent looting during a protest.

    The mayor placed the city under a curfew for the first week of June, the city’s first curfew in 75 years, but the curfew was frequently violated by protesters.

    Overall, at least 10,000 people were arrested across the country during the summer 2020 BLM riots. They caused nearly $2 billion in damages, the largest from riots in U.S. history.

    According to court documents, the NYC did not admit fault in the lawsuit, but settled to avoid rehashing the events at trial and “resolve the issues raised in this litigation without further proceedings.”

    On a positive note, violent BLM rioters who were arrested for trespassing, property destruction, assaulting police, arson, weapons charges, and perhaps those who blocked police from arresting other rioters, will not be eligible for a payout.

    The settlement must still be approved by a judge. 

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

    Amanda Head: Shocking Poll Results On School Gun Violence

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    6

    The latest results from this poll may surprise you…

    As Americans seek answers on the best way to keep kids safe in schools it may surprise you what is really concerning parents in 2023.

    Watch Amanda explain the controversy below:

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

    Potential Trump Arrest a ‘Manufactured Circus’ by ‘Weaponized’ Prosecutor

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    3
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    ANALYSIS – Former President Donald Trump announced on his Truth Social media Saturday that he was going to be arrested on Tuesday, March 21. 

    He also urged his supporters to protest.

    So far no other news media has confirmed his claim and Trump remains untouched.

    It appears that this announcement citing illegal leaks in the Manhattan DA’s office was Trump’s successful attempt to get ahead of the story.

    In part, he wanted to mobilize the GOP.

    Still, if or when, this does happen, an arrest of a former president, and current candidate, would be an unprecedented event in U.S. history.

    It would look like third-world criminalization of politics, and can only further alienate many of the 70 million Americans who voted for Trump in 2020.

    Most Republicans will see it as a politicized witch hunt. It would also only deepens the belief that there continues to be a years-long conspiracy to bring down Trump.

    It will seem that the Russia collusion hoax, the ‘resistance’ inside and outside of government, lawsuits, and two highly partisan, manufactured, and failed, impeachments against Trump by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn’t suffice.

    Provoking a reaction from potential GOP primary opponents was also a Trump goal. 

    And Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who has not announced he is running for president, had a few things to say about the issue, even while claiming he wasn’t “going to be involved.”

    DeSantis called the whole prosecution a ‘manufactured circus.’

    The conservative governor focused on how the George Soros-backed New York City prosecutor Alvin L. Bragg, has seen major crime skyrocket in Manhattan while focusing on a relatively petty alleged crime to go after the former president.

    The petty prosecution is over alleged hush money payments to adult performer Stormy Daniels to, as DeSantis said dismissively, “secure silence over some type of alleged affair.”

    But it’s not even about the alleged payments made on his behalf by his then-attorney Michael Cohen (which wouldn’t be too different from the numerous illicit ways Bill Clinton tried to hide his many affairs while in office from the public. 

    This case is expected to actually focus on Trump’s role in recording the reimbursements he made to Cohen in the internal records of his company, the Trump Organization, which were entered as “legal expenses.”

    That’s even pettier. The DA calls it “fraud.” Others might call it “sloppy bookkeeping.”

    According to the Epoch Times (ET), DeSantis said:

    We are not involved in this. We won’t be involved in this. I have no interest in getting involved in some kind of manufactured circus by a Soros-funded DA. He’s trying to do a political spectacle. He’s trying to virtue signal for his base.

    He added: “I can’t spend my time worrying about things of that nature. So, we’re not going to be involved in it in any way.”

    Well, DeSantis is correct, even if he is getting somewhat “involved.”

    And DeSantis does know a thing or two about ideologically motivated, Soros-backed prosecutors.

    As ET reports:

    DeSantis removed Hillsborough County District Attorney Andrew Warren from office last year for stating he wouldn’t prosecute certain crimes. DeSantis’s action has so far survived a review by a federal judge.

    DeSantis added: “He [Bragg] is a Soros-funded prosecutor and, like other Soros-funded prosecutors, they weaponize their office to impose a political agenda on society at the expense of the rule of law and public safety.”

    The governor continued: “He has downgraded over 50 percent of felonies to misdemeanors. He says he doesn’t want to even have jail time for the vast majority of crimes. And what we’ve seen in Manhattan is, we’ve seen the crime rate go up and we’ve seen citizens become less safe,” DeSantis said.

    But it’s not just DeSantis who sees this as a politically motivated vendetta that could cause far more harm to the American system than good. The New York Times reported that some Democrats and legal experts have their own doubts as well:

    Charging former President Donald J. Trump in connection with a hush-money payment to a porn star would catapult Mr. Bragg onto the national stage. Already he faces second-guessing, even from putative allies, about the strength of the case and the wisdom of bringing it. 

    The Times continued:

    …Bragg has been in a difficult situation. Rebecca Roiphe, a professor at New York Law School and a former prosecutor in Manhattan, said that even though investigators do not target individuals for political reasons, politics does come into play in that “there is always a question of whether it is [in] the public interest to bring a certain charge or not.”

    If he does not bring a case even though there is clear evidence to prove it, Ms. Roiphe suggested, he could violate the longstanding principle that no person is above the law. But if he does indict Mr. Trump, who has begun a third presidential campaign, the choice could also be “incredibly destabilizing and harmful,” Ms. Roiphe said.

    Meanwhile, many Republicans will be getting very “involved” in this potential outrage. Speaker of the House, Rep. Kevin McCarthy has already accused Bragg of “abusing his office to target President Trump.”

    He also is threatening to defund Bragg and is investigating whether federal funds were used by Bragg to pursue Trump.

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

    Ben Carson Reflects on Time within the Trump Admin

    By
    Matt Whitaker
    -
    4
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Matt Whitaker and Dr. Ben Carson discuss their time together in the Trump Admin and the future of the United States…

    per Matt Whitaker:

    Dr. Benjamin S. Carson, Sr., M.D., is Founder and Chairman of the American Cornerstone Institute, a new think tank / do tank whose mission is to promote the 4 founding principles which are cornerstones of our country: faith, liberty, community and life as well as pursue common sense solutions that challenge conventional groupthink.  He most recently served as the 17th Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

    For nearly 30 years, Secretary Carson served as Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, a position he assumed when he was just 33 years old, becoming the youngest major division director in the hospital’s history. In 1987, he successfully performed the first separation of craniopagus twins conjoined at the back of the head. He also performed the first fully successful separation of type-2 vertical craniopagus twins in 1997 in South Africa.

    Dr. Carson received dozens of honors and awards in recognition of his achievements including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor. He is also a recipient of the Spingarn Medal, the highest honor bestowed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and has been awarded over 70 honorary doctorate degrees. Dr. Carson authored nine books, four of which he co-wrote with his wife Candy. The U.S. News Media Group and Harvard’s Center for Public Leadership named him among “America’s Best Leaders” in 2008.

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

    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.

    1...38394041Page 39 of 41
    © Great America News Desk 2022