Opinion

Home Opinion Page 39

Biden Administration Sued Over Scheme To Revoke Trump Q Security Clearance

2
President Donald J. Trump is presented with a 10th Combat Aviation Brigade challenge coin following an air assault and gun rain demonstration at Fort Drum, New York, on August 13. The demonstration was part of President Trump's visit to the 10th Mountain Division (LI) to sign the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019, which increases the Army's authorized active-duty end strength by 4,000 enabling us to field critical capabilities in support of the National Defense Strategy. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Thomas Scaggs) 180813-A-TZ475-010

The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch reports they filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Energy for “records about the retroactive termination of former President Donald Trump’s security clearance and/or access to classified information.”

Judicial Watch reports the lawsuit “cites Trump’s January 12, 2024, motion to compel discovery in his criminal prosecution in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in which the former president asserts that DOE attempted to terminate his security clearance retroactively after his June 2023 indictment by Special Counsel Jack Smith.”

“It looks like the Department of Energy is trying to manufacture a criminal case,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “What are they hiding?”

Judicial Watch reports the lawsuit “points to the February 2024 response to Trump’s January 2024 motion in which Smith acknowledges the existence of a June 2023 memorandum prepared by an Energy Department official regarding the security clearance.”

“The Special Counsel’s office describes the memorandum’s contents and asserts that it had produced the record to Trump,” Judicial Watch reports. “Smith also acknowledges requesting and receiving additional ‘responsive’ records from DOE, including ‘approximately 30 pages of records and eight emails.’ Smith asserts that he was ‘now producing’ the 30 pages to Trump and withholding the eight emails.”

“Trump’s lawyers suggest in the January 2024 motion to compel discovery that Trump had a high-level security clearance as recently as 2023,” Judicial Watch notes.

“Lawyers for Trump say a government document from June 2023 still listed him with a “Q” clearance from the DOE. The document was dated a few weeks after prosecutors indicted Trump in the classified documents case,” Judicial Watch reports. “A ‘Q’ clearance refers to a type of security clearance handled by the Department of Energy, which holds classified information focused largely on nuclear secrets.”

Judicial Watch reports it “filed the lawsuit after the Energy Department failed to comply with a January 18, 2024, FOIA request for its records and communications concerning retroactively terminating Trump’s security clearance and/or access to classified information.”

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

On Twitter Show, Tucker Carlson Blames Ukraine for Attack on Dam

1
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America,

ANALYSIS – In his Twitter Spaces debut Tuesday night, called “Tucker on Twitter,” former Fox News host Tucker Carlson immediately accused Ukraine of being responsible for the catastrophic attack on the Nova Kakhovka dam in Southern Ukraine.

And he may be right.

Ukraine and Russia have routinely accused each other of shelling the dam, the hydroelectric station and the nearby Zaporizhia nuclear power plant.

Both sides have blamed the other for the attack, in what appears to be a war crime. Kyiv blamed Moscow for the “terrorist attack,” but the Kremlin claimed that Ukraine had struck the dam to impact Russian-controlled Crimea’s water supplies.

As Newsweek reported, that is part of Tucker’s claim, too.

And, despite his spotty track record on speculation, in this case, he may be right. Or at least, the assumption that Russia is always the culprit is no longer valid.

Based on recent reporting, which I wrote about here, Ukraine may, in fact, have been responsible for the serious sabotage of the Nord Stream undersea gas pipelines in September 2022, which was long blamed on Russia.

This makes the always-blame Russia crowd look less credible. But that doesn’t mean Tucker’s always-blame-everyone-except-Russia approach is any better.

While on Fox, Tucker repeatedly blamed the United States and Joe Biden for being behind the Nord Stream attack.

On Feb. 24 he said: “So the Biden administration committed the single largest most profound act of industrial terrorism of sabotaging history. They blew up the Nord Stream pipeline …”

And that has always been a stretch. Instead, The Post reporting today reinforces my earlier conclusion that it is “likely, the U.S. was aware but turned a blind eye.”

Thus, as far as we can tell, Biden knew about it beforehand but was unwilling or unable to do anything about it.

Tucker’s claims aren’t helped when he spouts pro-Russian talking points in his video, such as:

The Kakhovka dam was effectively Russian. It was built by the Russian government. It currently sits in Russian- controlled territory. The dam’s reservoir supplies water to Crimea, which has been for the last 240 years home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.

Firstly, the ‘Soviets’ built the dam during the USSR, not the ‘Russians,’ and the USSR no longer exists. Secondly, it doesn’t matter how long Russia’s Black Sea Fleet was based in Crimea; it belongs to Ukraine because that’s what happened when the USSR dissolved in 1991 and Ukraine became independent.

Tucker’s Trumpian personal insults, like describing Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as a “sweaty and rat-like comedian-turned-oligarch,” probably don’t help his credibility much either.

Tucker is on firmer ground when he argues that: “Blowing up the dam may be bad for Ukraine, but it hurts Russia more, and for precisely that reason, the Ukrainian government has considered destroying it.”

Especially when he cites a December report from The Washington Post in which a Ukrainian general spoke of using U.S.-made HIMARS launchers to “test strike” on the Kakhovka dam.

So, what are the facts?

The dam spanning the Dnipro River was breached on Tuesday, flooding swaths of territory and threatening crucial water supplies to Europe’s largest nuclear power plant.

At least 42,000 people and 1,500 square miles of land are at risk from the flooding caused by the destruction of the dam, likely slowing any potential Ukrainian military advance in the Dnipro River delta.

Much of the Dnipro River delta will become inaccessible for land operations, raising suspicions that Russia deliberately sabotaged the dam to prevent an expected Ukrainian counteroffensive.

However, the flooding has disproportionately affected the Russian-occupied side of the river.

The Kakhovka reservoir does supply Russian-occupied Kherson Oblast and the Crimea peninsula with fresh water.

Zelensky has said that the only way to destroy the dam is through mining and explosives and emphasized that Russian forces have now occupied the dam for over a year.

In a statement, Ukraine’s Southern Operational Command said, “Russian occupation troops blew up the dam” at Nova Kakhovka in the Kherson region.

Blaming “Russian terrorists” for the attack, Zelensky said on Twitter that “the destruction of the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant dam only confirms for the whole world that they must be expelled from every corner of Ukrainian land.”

In the end, Tucker may be right. Ukraine could have been behind the attack. 

But he is far more credible when he is less bombastic and emphatic with his theories. Such as when he states:

So really, once the facts start coming in, it becomes much less of a mystery what might have happened to the dam, and a fair person would conclude that the Ukrainians probably blew it up, just as you would assume they blew up Nord Stream, the Russian natural gas pipeline last fall.

Tucker ended his new Twitter show by promising to be back with “much more, very soon.” I’m looking forward to it.

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

Trump Is Right To Reject RNC’s Unpatriotic Demand – But He Needs To Go Further

3
Gage Skidmore Flickr

Former President Donald Trump is right: There’s no reason he should sign a GOP loyalty oath in order to participate in the candidates’ debates.

Such oaths, which the Republican National Committee employed in the 2016 presidential primary – only to see the last remaining candidates, including Trump, abandon it – aren’t just signs of a party’s weakness; they are also profoundly silly and even un-American.

Yes, we swear plenty of legally enforceable oaths – in court cases, for example, or declarations on tax forms and other legal documents. But oaths binding candidates to support someone who they’ve campaigned against, throwing elbows, mud and other rhetorical barbs at them for months to convince voters the guy was a bum?

I’ll defer to what Sen. Ted Cruz said of such an oath back in the 2016 presidential primary:

Cruz has dodged the question of whether the pledge still holds by insisting he will be the nominee. Though on Friday, in an apparent reference to Trump, Cruz said, “I don’t make a habit out of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my family.”

We all know that Cruz eventually did support Trump’s candidacy and became one of his biggest defenders in the Senate (which was amusing).

But the oath? Nah. The 2016 primary should have been instructive to party leaders that such commitments are transactional at best and unenforceable in fact. Which brings us to the state parties.

They have been long-time players in loyalty oaths, often attempting to bind voters to the party’s eventual nominees. While such pledges are even sillier and utterly unenforceable, that hasn’t stopped new ones from cropping up this year. Consider the case of Florida‘s pledge:

Christian Ziegler, the chairman of the Florida GOP, said in an email that the loyalty pledge is an effort to “ensure maximum unity” headed into the 2024 general election.

“The days of outlier party grifters – such as Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger – using Republican Party resources to secure a title and then weaponize that title against our own team must end,” Ziegler said, referring to two former House members, who are among Trump’s most vocal GOP critics.

“Contested primaries are part of the process,” he said, “but we must always remember that the Democrats are the true threat to the America we love and we must be unified to defeat every single one of them.”

The true threat to America is noxious oaths that bind us to men rather than pledges or oaths that bind individuals to uphold the law or tell the truth.

You know, like the only oath that should ever matter for a presidential candidate: the one the Constitution requires:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Every other partisan oath is legally dubious, intellectually suspect and, in the end, not worth the paper it’s printed on.

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.

Biden Defends China’s ‘COVID Freedom’ Protests, But Not U.S. and Canadian Ones 

0
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

ANALYSIS – The massive protests against the communist Chinese dictatorship, and its draconian anti-COVID repression continues.

And so does the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) crackdown.

As these Chinese ‘freedom protests’ grow and spread, hypocritical Western leaders, who until recently pursued their own, less harsh, COVID crackdowns and vaccine mandates, are showing their support.

Among them, is Joe Biden. 

A Monday White House statement in response to anti-lockdown demonstrations that swept through major Chinese cities reads:

We think it’s going to be very difficult for the People’s Republic of China to be able to contain this virus through their zero COVID strategy. We’ve long said everyone has a right to peacefully protest, here in the United States and around the world. This includes the PRC.

Sadly, while he could be far more aggressive in his response to China’s COVID repression, Biden was doing just the opposite with earlier Canadian and American COVID crackdown protests.

Justin Trudeau’s authoritarian overkill in response to Canadian truckers was particularly egregious.

An unquestionably authoritarian move, it received criticism from the left, right, and center.

The leftist Canadian Civil Liberties Association called Trudeau’s actions “unnecessary, unjustifiable and unconstitutional.” 

Reason Magazine’s J.D. Tuccille said at the time that Trudeau had a “bad case of China-envy.”

Yet, Biden wholeheartedly backed Trudeau’s repression.

As Reason explains:

The Biden administration urged the Canadian government to use whatever means it had to reopen border crossings barricaded by the so-called “Freedom convoy” and get a handle on the protests.

That’s according to revelations of an ongoing Canadian inquiry into Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s unprecedented invocation of Canada’s Emergencies Act.

Why was Biden so gung-ho about Trudeau’s crushing of the peaceful trucker freedom protests?

Reason argues that in part:

Biden embraced an expansive view of his executive powers to effectively mandate vaccines for millions of Americans. That contributed to his support for the suppression of Canadian anti-mandate demonstrations. 

REASON added: “The only people who seem to support Trudeau’s use of emergency powers against peaceful protestors are the prime minister himself—and the Biden White House.”

And Biden’s strong backing of Trudeau’s repression makes his current defense of China’s protests all the more laughable.

It also erodes his moral authority to lecture the Chinese government now on the right of the people to peaceful protest.

As Reason concludes: “It’s also a lesson in how restrictions on freedom in one country can damage it everywhere.” 

When America allows the crushing of political dissent at home and promotes repression by its liberal northern neighbor, it not only hurts us, it fuels more repression among our enemies.

This only helps authoritarianism grow globally.

Radical Army Secretary Doesn’t Want White Men from ‘Patriot’ Families

6
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

ANALYSIS – In one of my earlier PDBs I asked if the Pentagon’s ‘Wokeness’ was a deliberate effort to keep straight, white Christian males from joining the military. Of course, I knew the answer was ‘yes.’ 

I even said, “this may be the left’s goal – to deliberately alienate [straight] white Christian men from joining, so they can expand efforts to recruit non-religious, non-white, woke LGBT lefties instead.”

But now Joe Biden’s Army Secretary, Christine Wormuth, a lefty civilian bureaucrat who never served a day in uniform, is saying the quiet part out loud. And she is going even farther. Much farther.

Wormuth doesn’t just want to alienate white Christian men, so they won’t join, she specifically wants to keep out recruits from what I call ‘patriot families’ – those who have a history of serving our country going back up to seven generations. 

Most of these patriot family recruits would be white Christian men. Many of them are from the South.

Since the end of the draft in 1973 at the close of the Vietnam War, notes the Wall Street Journal, the Army has relied “heavily on veterans and military families to develop the next generation of recruits, especially in the region known in the military as the ‘Southern Smile,’ a curving region from the mid-Atlantic and down across the southern U.S.”

But we now also have multi-generational Hispanic service members and a few others. The children of all these military families make up most new recruits in the U.S. military. 

The Journal added:

Today, nearly 80% of all new Army recruits have a family member who has served in uniform, according to the service. That can be a good thing, said Col. Mark Crow, director of the Office of Economic and Manpower Analysis at West Point, because “people who know the most about it stick around.” 

But to the far-left Democrats, including Wormuth, all these patriots are dangerous and must be purged from our fighting forces. That’s what the Pentagon’s wokeness is really about.

As the Wall Street Journal reported:

Depending too much on military families could create a “warrior caste,” Wormuth said. Her plans seek to draw in people who have no real connection to the military and to broaden the appeal of service.

What does that nonsense mean in real terms?

Well, Daniel Greenfield says it very well in Frontpage Magazine:

There is a ‘warrior caste’ insofar as you have families who have fought for this country since the War of Independence. They showed up, they bled, and now they’re to be replaced by drag queens and identity politics quotas.

And Wormuth’s radical plan to replace our ‘warrior caste’ is being finalized. 

According to the WSJ, “Wormuth said she expects within weeks to begin drafting a proposal for a recruiting overhaul so sweeping that Congress might need to pass legislation to enact all of it.”

While not going into details, Wormuth has stated that: “The Army is strategically deploying recruiters to communities across the country based on demographics, ethnicity, race, and gender.” 

How does this translate into policy? 

Greenfield writes in another Frontpage piece that: “Rather than getting the best people or even adequately qualified people, the goal is to match the force to the census data in a completely senseless exercise so that the people they do get are 20% black, 7.2% Asian, and 0.6% American Indian, or develop a plan to get those Asians.”

He adds:

That’s what deciding that the military should “look like America” really means in the ranks. You can’t have too many white men, but too many black men could also become a problem. If the goal is to match the census, then you can’t have too few minorities or too many. Come on in Jiang, we haven’t met our Chinese quota yet, sorry Jose, we have too many Hispanics already.

But as the Pentagon’s annual June ‘Pride’ festivities highlight, it’s not just about racial quotas, it’s also about sexual identity politics. Greenfield concludes:

Who needs a few good men when you can have a few good trans-men of color? And who cares if they speak English? No Habla Ingles? No problemo! Having HIV  is not a problem. Being from an enemy nation is not a problem. Being a man who believes he’s a woman is not a problem.

Being white, especially a heterosexual male, is a very big problem. We need a military that looks like America and white heterosexual men look nothing like America.

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

Forget China, You Can Now Take a Balloon to Edge of Space

0
Image via Pixabay free images

ANALYSIS – Until now, only billionaires could afford to enter sub-orbital space. And it needed to be by high-powered rocket (think Jeff Bezos in his Blue Origin, or Richard Branson in his Virgin Galactic). 

Star Trek actor William Shatner also did a flight on a Blue Origin’s rocket.

But now you too can see the earth from 20 miles high. It will cost you just over $120,000 and it’s by a high-altitude balloon.

And, no, it’s not aboard a Chinese spy balloon. These will be private companies running the trips.

The billionaires in rockets still have one treat we can’t get – they can briefly experience weightlessness. They also go twice as high.

Space officially starts at the Karman line, 62 miles above the earth’s surface. But for most people there won’t be that much of a difference.

And at half the price, no training required, and a much softer, smoother ride, these edge-of-space balloons will be far more accessible and may become popular among the slightly less rich.

And unlike the rockets, these balloons will give you a much longer ride, with luxury amenities, food, and drink.

There now appears at least two companies on the verge of launching these space balloon trips. One is American and the other is French.

Both seem to avoid mention of the 1937 Hindenburg hydrogen-filled dirigible disaster.

The French company Zephalto with its Celeste balloon will provide Michelin-starred fine dining. It is partnered with France’s national space agency.

These balloons filled with helium or hydrogen will depart from France with two pilots on board and six passengers and rise 15.5 miles into the stratosphere.

Once at peak altitude, the balloon, carrying a pressurized capsule, will stay aloft for three hours, giving guests a chance to take in views previously seen only by astronauts. While in the air, passengers will be served high-end French food and wines.

These near-space rides will start at €120,000 ($132,000) per person in 2025, Bloomberg reports.

The other option will be Florida-based Space Perspective, which is testing its own passenger balloon, designed to reach the edge of space.

Eight civilians and a pilot will be able to comfortably travel up 100,000 feet (19 miles) to near space in a reusable pressurized capsule carried by a gigantic hydrogen-filled balloon called Spacecraft Neptune – because Neptune’s atmosphere is predominantly hydrogen.

The company operates out of leased facilities at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, but plans to expand to Alaska and Hawaii, and then possibly to other countries around the world.

Flight will cost about $125,000 per person. And it plans to launch a year earlier than the Celeste.

Neptune’s ride will be similar to the Zephalto balloons, ascending at a sedate 12.5 miles per hour. It will give passengers two full hours to observe 360° views of Earth rotating beneath them and space above.

The overall ride will last six hours – two hours to ascend, two hours to float along the stratosphere, and two hours to descend into the Atlantic Ocean, where a recovery ship will be waiting.

The capsule comes complete with luxury seating, refreshments, a restroom, and Wi-Fi (so you can post to Instagram or live stream on Facebook as you fly – because – of course). The company plans to offer flights for weddings, corporate events, and scientific excursions.

Its flights are scheduled to begin in 2024, but the first batch of 600 tickets is already sold out.

Bon voyage. No smoking aboard.

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

‘Barbie’ Movie Banned in Vietnam as Hollywood Again Kowtows to China

1

ANALYSIS – China’s outrageous claim to almost the entire South China Sea – everything within a “nine-dash line” drawn on Chinese maps – has taken its most recent victim – the movie-viewing public in Vietnam. The Vietnamese government has banned the movie due to a scene with that Chinese-made line on a map.

China takes its illegal claim very seriously and strives to impose its visual representation on maps everywhere, including those appearing in Hollywood movies.

While it’s unclear why the soon-to-be-released film ‘Barbie’ about the iconic doll and her boyfriend Ken would get embroiled in international politics, it has. 

This south China Sea has been a flashpoint between Vietnam and China for years. The artificial line is shown on Chinese maps to mark their claims over the area despite Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia, and Taiwan claiming parts of the same vast expanse of sea.

Chinese warships and fishing vessels routinely operate in these waters to establish de-facto presence, often provoking clashes with neighboring countries.

The Daily Wire (DW) reported:

“We do not grant license for the American movie ‘Barbie’ to release in Vietnam because it contains the offending image of the nine-dash line,” Vi Kien Thanh, head of the Department of Cinema, a government body in charge of licensing and censoring foreign films, was quoted as saying in the state-run Tuoi Tre newspaper.

The movie’s trailer shows Barbie leaving her perfect doll world and to explore the “real world” after becoming disillusioned with her life.

So why did a big Hollywood studio decide to include this ridiculous claim in their otherwise non-political movies?

All I can think of is – in order to please the communists in Beijing. China is obviously a far bigger market than Vietnam. And who knows if Chinese investors were involved in the movie’s production.

DW notes:

“Barbie” isn’t the first film banned for including the nine-dash line. The Vietnamese government also blocked the DreamWorks animated film “Abominable” (2019) and the action-adventure film “Unchartered” (2022) for the same reason. Netflix removed the Australian spy drama “Pine Gap” in 2021 for their inclusion of the line.

Hollywood blockbusters including the Marvel films “Eternals” and “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings” have also been in China after directors or actors involved in the films made comments critical of China.

Another big controversy exploded in 2019 over the Tom Cruise movie ‘Top Gun: Maverick.’ Initially the movie appeared to remove the flags of Taiwan and Japan from Maverick’s flight jacket. The flags were part of historical patches representing prior U.S. naval deployments to the region.

As NBC News reported:

In 2019, the trailer for “Top Gun: Maverick” showed Cruise’s character, U.S. Navy pilot Pete Mitchell, in the same bomber jacket he wore in the original film. But two of its flag patches — representing Japan and the Republic of China, the official name for Taiwan — appeared to have been replaced by other emblems.

The move was criticized at the time as an act of self-censorship to please China’s censors. Beijing sees Taiwan, a self-ruling democracy of 24 million people, as an inalienable part of its territory and lashes out at any reference to it as a sovereign nation.  

In this case Hollywood, or Cruise, had a change of heart and reversed their apparent kowtowing to China. CHinese investors also pulled out of the movie.

NBC News continued:

On the film’s release last month after a two-year pandemic delay, both flags had been restored. At an advance screening in Taipei, the audience broke out in cheers and applause at the sight of the Taiwanese flag on the big screen, local news outlet SETN reported.

Sometimes in Hollywood the good guys do win. Sadly, not in the case of Barbie.

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

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

0
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump Shifts All Blame to Abortion for Midterm Losses

6
Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

ANALYSIS – In typical Trump fashion, the former president just threw all pro-lifer conservatives under the bus to deflect any blame from himself for the weak ‘Red Trickle’ that was the 2022 election. But is he wrong?

On November 9, I wrote about how both issues impacted the 2022 election losses. ‘Abortion and Trump tipped the scales.’

Yes, some pro-life conservatives took the reasonable Supreme Court decision to give abortion decisions back to the states (where they belong), as a green light to push for the most aggressive anti-abortion restrictions they could.

And this was a mistake. It only reinforced Democrat women’s fears and independent women’s doubts, fueling the abortion rights extremists to rally and independents to waver or vote Democrat.

What they should have done is defend Dobbs and the Supreme Court while positioning the GOP as the reasonable party on abortion.

Abortion on demand at all times under any circumstances, until the time of birth (and sometimes even beyond), is the extreme position.

And most Americans oppose that insanity.

“Let states decide. The left is extreme on abortion.” That’s how we should have played it.

Sadly, too many on the right didn’t follow that playbook.

So, when Trump stated on Truth Social on Sunday that it wasn’t his fault that “Republicans didn’t live up to expectations” in the 2022 midterm elections, he may be partly right.

Instead, Trump blamed the “abortion issue,” writing that it was “poorly handled by many Republicans, especially those that firmly insisted on No Exceptions, even in the case of Rape, Incest, or Life of the Mother.”

And that was true. Here I agree with Trump.

When I ran for office in South Florida 10 years ago, I signed the National Right to Life Pledge, but even that staunchly pro-life organization made exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother.

Now, however, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, one of the nation’s leading pro-life groups, which spent tens of millions to mobilize the pro-life vote in the 2022 midterms, stated in response to Trump:

The approach to winning on abortion in federal races, proven for a decade is this: state clearly the ambitious consensus pro-life view on abortion and contrast that with the extreme view of Democrat opponents. We look forward to hearing that position fully articulated by Mr. Trump and all presidential candidates.

Their response was far from convincing. Taking the most extreme counterpoint to the left’s extreme position doesn’t win votes. It only makes you seem more extreme than the other guys.

In an interview with Breitbart News last month, Trump said it best: “I think a lot of Republicans didn’t handle the abortion question properly. I think if you don’t have the three exceptions, it’s almost impossible in most parts of the country to win.”

And even when Republicans were not asking for the most extreme abortion restrictions, the Democrats lied that they were.

And this was also a failure of the GOP.

The Democrats and leftist groups spent $468 million on abortion-related advertisements, whereas the Republican party focused its campaign advertising on inflation.

While some grassroots conservatives were overzealous about rolling back abortion after Dobbs, the GOP establishment was afraid of the abortion issue altogether, ignored it and hoped it would just go away.

But I think Trump is also wrong to take no blame himself. He did play a big part in the 2022 electoral defeat.

As I wrote on November 9:

But beyond the abortion issue, former president Trump likely played an outsized role in the red wave turning to a ripple.

And as someone who has been a strong Trump supporter and voted for Trump twice, I believe this sentiment [Trump was part of the problem] has validity.

Continuous ranting about election fraud in 2020 makes the future about the past.

And forcefully demanding GOP loyalty to one man doesn’t help either.

It also makes everything about Trump rather than conservative ideas, policies, and candidates.

Nothing mobilizes the Democrats, the media and the left like Trump.

Of course, the title of my November piece could have given a clue. It was: “Is It Time for the GOP to Dump Trump?”

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

Republican Governor Crowns Kamala The Winner Of ABC Debate

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.

“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.”