Random

    Politics

    Home Politics

    Winner Projected In Wisconsin Supreme Court Race In Blow To Trump

    By
    Patrick Houck
    -
    0

    The high-stakes Wisconsin Supreme Court race shaped up to be competitive as predicted, with control of the court—and potentially the future of election law, redistricting and abortion access in the battleground state—hanging in the balance.

    However, the end result saw Susan Crawford, a liberal-leaning Dane County Circuit Court Judge, defeat Brad Schimel, a conservative Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge, preserving the court’s 4-3 liberal majority until at least 2028.

    As The Hill reports, Tuesday night’s outcome comes as a blow to President Donald Trump and Elon Musk:

    The election offered the first big test for both parties since the November elections and came after record-breaking amounts of money poured into the race. In particular, the race was seen as a test of Musk’s political sway, as his super PAC, America PAC, alone spent more than $12 million to support Schimel. He also traveled to Wisconsin the Sunday before the election, where he handed out $1 million checks to voters who had signed his petition against “activist judges.”

    Musk’s involvement sparked controversy, with Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul unsuccessfully suing to block his actions as potential vote-buying.

    Musk’s unpopularity may have played a role in the election, though it’s not the sole factor in Crawford’s victory. Economic uncertainty, a declining stock market and sweeping cuts to government programs with little congressional oversight seems to have motivated Democrats and independents.

    Trump also waded into the race, repeatedly urging voters to go to the polls and support Schimel.

    The race will also be a bitter disappointment for Wisconsin Republicans, who lost a chance to keep their conservative majority after Justice Janet Protasiewicz defeated conservative candidate Dan Kelly in 2023.

    This year’s race, which shattered the 2023 race’s fundraising records by tens of millions of dollars, received outsized national attention not just because it determined the partisan tilt of the court, but also because it comes less than three months into Trump’s second term as president, making it the first critical referendum on the president.

    Turnout was significant in key battleground counties, with Schimel performing worse than Trump in urban, suburban and rural areas.

    According to projections from Decision Desk HQ, Crawford is expected to receive 54.5% of the vote, while Schimel is projected at 45.6%, giving Crawford a decisive 8.9-point margin of victory.

    For context, Trump won Wisconsin in the 2024 presidential election by approximately 0.9%.

    With national implications in a perennial swing state that will help decide control of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections, all eyes will remain on the Badger State as next year’s election cycle gets underway.

    Stacey Abrams’ Group Gave Millions to Law Firm Run by Her Campaign Chair

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2
    Office of U.S. House Speaker, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams is in hot water once again.

    New reports indicate Abrams’ voting rights group Fair Fight Action has funneled millions of dollars to a law firm led by the chairwoman for Abrams’s gubernatorial campaign.

    According to The Washington Examiner, Fair Fight Action spent $9.4 million in 2019 and 2020 with Lawrence & Bundy, a boutique Atlanta law firm that counts Abrams’s campaign Chairwoman Allegra Lawrence-Hardy, a close friend of the candidate, as one of its two partners, according to the nonprofit group’s 2019 and 2020 IRS tax filings.

    There are no definitive reports to show how much Lawrence-Hardy’s firm has received from Fair Fight Action in 2021 and 2022. The organization has been involved in a legal fight against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) for the past years. Fair Fight Action filed the lawsuit after Abrams lost her 2018 gubernatorial bid to Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, whom she is currently running against, claiming the secretary of state engaged in voter suppression. In September, U.S. district judge Steve Jones ruled against Abrams and found no evidence of voter suppression.

    “This is a win for all Georgia election officials who dedicate their lives to safe, secure and accessible elections,” Raffensperger said at the time. “Stolen election and voter suppression claims by Stacey Abrams were nothing but poll-tested rhetoric not supported by facts and evidence.”

    “Judge Jones’ ruling exposes this legal effort for what it really is: a tool wielded by a politician hoping to wrongfully weaponize the legal system to further her own political goals,” Kemp said in a statement celebrating the ruling.

    The $9.4 million that Lawrence & Bundy received accounts for over 37% of the roughly $25 million in legal fees that Fair Fight Action has racked up in the past two years, according to Politico, which first reported on the payments to Lawrence-Hardy’s law firm.

    Fair Fight Action raised over $61 million in 2019 and 2020 after being founded in 2018. At least one-third of that money has gone toward the lawsuit against Raffensperger, while $20 million has been put in cash reserves, tax records show. While there are eight separate law firms that worked on the case against the secretary of state, Lawrence & Bundy has earned the most in fees.

    Abrams and Lawrence-Hardy were classmates together at Georgia’s Spelman College, and Abrams graduated from Yale Law School three years after Lawrence-Hardy.

    Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for the left-wing think tank Public Citizen, says that Abrams’s years-long friendship with Lawrence-Hardy represents a clear conflict of interest.

    Despite Abrams’s accusations of rampant voter suppression in the Peach State early voting data reports Georgians to have already broken records for early turnout. According to The Hill, Saturday’s turnout surpassed the 2020 election’s sixth day of early voting by 20 percent.

    The 79,682 voters who cast ballots on Saturday also marked a 159 percent increase from the first Saturday of early voting in the 2018 midterm elections, according to the Georgia secretary of state’s office.

    Georgia also smashed early voting on the first day polls opened last week, when 131,318 ballots were cast in-person, far above the 70,849 reported in 2018 and close to the 136,739 mark in 2020.

    “Early Voting is strong because Georgia’s voter registration system is strong,” said Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in a statement. “Every eligible Georgian who wants to be registered to vote is registered to vote.”

    However, despite the record-breaking data Abrams is still claiming voter suppression is underway in Georgia.

    “In 2018, we had record turnout,” Abrams said in a press conference Monday. “We had record turnout that shattered records for Democrats among communities of color and in that same election … we know that 85,000 Georgians were denied their right to vote due to voter suppression tactics that shut down their precincts. We know that 50,000 voters had their right to vote held hostage by the exact match process which was proven to be voter suppression tactics. We know that thousands of people stood in lines for hours because of voter suppression tactics.”

    Mike Pence Team Refutes Presidential Campaign Rumors

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Former Vice President Mike Pence did not file campaign paperwork for a 2024 White House run.

    On Monday, Pence spokesperson Devin O’Malley quickly tried to dispel reports after a Statement of Candidacy form was submitted to the Federal Election Commission in Pence’s name.

    “Former Vice President Mike Pence did not file to run for President today,” O’Malley said in response to a reporter who tweeted Pence had entered the race.

    “Someone filed a Pence filing. But it wasn’t Pence, his spokesman says, suggesting it was a prank,” tweeted New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman.

    Despite the Pence team’s attempts to contain the fake news story, it wasn’t long before multiple outlets mistakenly reported the FEC submission.

    While Pence is not responsible for the latest 2024 rumor the former Vice President has hinted at a presidential run in the near future. Last month, Pence told reporters he’s giving “prayerful consideration” to a 2024 bid.

    If Pence ultimately does announce a 2024 White House run he would be facing off against his old boss on the debate stage, teeing up an intense primary battle.

    Trump Addresses Reports He Will Name New White House Ballroom After Himself

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    3

    President Donald Trump on Friday dismissed media reports suggesting he planned to name the new White House ballroom — which will replace the outdated East Wing — after himself.

    The report, published by ABC News, claimed the 90,000-square-foot facility would be called “The President Donald J. Trump Ballroom.” But Trump quickly set the record straight.

    “I don’t have any plan to call it after myself, that was fake news,” Trump told reporters. “We’re probably going to call it the presidential ballroom or something like that. We haven’t really thought about a name yet.”

    Trump’s comments come as construction continues on what is expected to be a major modernization of the White House complex — a project the administration says will better serve official state events and visiting dignitaries.

    A Vision for Renewal and National Pride

    According to ABC News, roughly $350 million has been raised for the ballroom’s construction, exceeding the projected $300 million cost. President Trump suggested that surplus funds could support another ambitious initiative: an iconic arch to be built at the entrance of Washington, D.C., near the Lincoln Memorial.

    “You know, we’re going to be building the arc,” Trump said. “And we’ve raised a lot of money for the ballroom, so maybe we’ll put — the arc is going to be incredible for Washington, D.C. So maybe we use it for the arc.”

    The administration expects the ballroom to be completed before the end of Trump’s term in 2029. Supporters say the project symbolizes renewal and the continuation of America’s tradition of strength and elegance at its seat of power.

    Demolition Meets Predictable Backlash

    Earlier this week, crews finished demolishing the East Wing — a move that drew predictable criticism from establishment voices and Democratic allies. A YouGov poll found about half of Americans disapprove of the demolition, while many others see it as a step forward for modernization and security.

    Among the most vocal critics was USA Today, which published an opinion piece by Chelsea Clinton condemning the construction. She claimed it represented “a reflection of how easily history can be erased when power forgets purpose.”

    Former White House aide Michael LaRosa, who worked for Jill Biden, echoed the sentiment, calling the demolition “sad” and “heartbreaking.” Still, even he admitted, “I don’t think that there’s any question a ballroom is probably needed.”

    The East Wing: History Meets Modern Necessity

    While some opponents point to the East Wing’s historical roots, Trump’s supporters argue that progress and preservation are not mutually exclusive. The East Wing dates back to the early 1800s, when Thomas Jefferson added colonnades that were criticized even then as “aristocratic.”

    Over the years, the space evolved — from Teddy Roosevelt’s renovations to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s additions, including a movie theater and a bunker used during national emergencies. That bunker, known as the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, was used by George W. Bush’s cabinet on 9/11 and by President Trump during the 2020 unrest.

    Being a Trump is about more than just a name. It’s about tenacity, bravery and putting America first! Complete our October Presidential Survey TODAY.

    Why GOP Red Wave Failed in 2020 But is More Likely in 2024

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    ANALYSIS – After the disappointing ‘Red Ripple’ last week the Republican questioning and blame game quickly began. 

    I wrote that the GOP failed to win more seats because it did not forcefully address the abortion issue by countering the left’s hysteria over the Dobbs decision. 

    I also argued that former President Trump didn’t help Republicans by continuing to obsess over the 2020 election and making the 2022 election all about loyalty to him.

    And I still believe those were major factors.

    However, conservative commentator Mark Levine provides an added perspective as to why (mathematically) 2022 could never have been a ‘Red Wave’ midterm election.

    And also explains why a congressional ‘Red Wave’ is far more likely in 2024.

    His point is that the electoral map simply favored Democrats over Republicans this year as far as how many seats were up for grabs in Congress.

    And how many were Democrats vs Republicans?

    As Fox News reported:

    “I noticed that many of the same people who were wrong about a red wave are now telling us what to think about a non-red wave. The experts, the consultants, the ruling class, the media, the politicians. We need to think for ourselves, enough of the static,” the host said over the weekend. “I said before the election, and I said repeatedly here and on radio: Forget about the red wave. Forget about a red tsunami. Forget about Armageddon and vote.”

    In the Senate, Republicans had to defend 20 of the 34 seats up for re-election. To win the majority, Republicans would have had to “tap into” the 14 Democrat incumbent seats, the host explained.

    “That was a tall hill to climb. And this is one of the reasons I wasn’t on this red-wave bandwagon so fast,” he said. “I needed to think about it. 2024. This is the key. The next election cycle, 33 seats are up. Now, listen to this. Two-thirds of them are Democrat seats. So the Democrats have to defend 23 Senate seats. The Republicans have to defend only ten.”

    “So,” he continued, “the math in 2022 never really led to a red wave possibility and the math in 2024, it does lead to a red wave possibility. Does that mean there will be one? Of course not. But I’m just explaining the math, the simple math. We had about 60% of the seats up. They have almost 70% of the seats up in the next round. So what does that mean? Democrats needed to have some serious gains in the Senate last week to stave off a disaster in 2024. They failed miserably.”

    So, while the congressional ‘Red Wave’ never materialized in November, because it likely never could, the GOP and conservatives are now very well positioned to make big gains in 2024.

    And that includes retaking the Senate. Fox News continued:

    Looking ahead to 2024, Levin said Republicans have a much higher chance of pulling off a true “red wave” than they did in last week’s midterms.

    “In 2024, [Democrats are] in a horrendous situation when two-thirds of the Senate seats that are up are Democrat seats, and they’re [now] celebrating that they only lost the House by a relatively few votes, but they lost the House. And the GOP can now block these radical kook programs that Biden’s pushing. They can conduct investigations. They can do what they need to do, and they damn well better.

    But this will only happen if the GOP picks the right candidate at the top of the ticket in 2024, and also makes its case in a far better way than it did just now. 

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

    Marjorie Taylor Greene Reportedly Prepping For 2028 Presidential Run

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    4

    Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is reportedly considering a run for president in 2028 — a move that, if realized, could reshape the Republican Party’s post-Trump era and test the staying power of the “America First” movement.

    According to a new report from Notus, Greene has privately expressed interest in following in Donald Trump’s footsteps to the White House. The outlet cites four sources familiar with her thinking, saying Greene believes she represents the “real MAGA” faction — the core conservative movement that has reshaped the GOP since 2016 — and that many Republican leaders have drifted away from those grassroots values.

    One source told Notus that Greene feels confident she has built the national donor network and grassroots support needed to mount a serious primary campaign, especially as the GOP’s base remains loyal to Trump’s populist agenda.

    Building a National Brand

    While Greene has long been a lightning rod for criticism from the left, she’s also gained national recognition for her unapologetic defense of conservative causes — from border security to religious freedom, from cutting wasteful spending to standing up against what she calls the “weaponization” of government against political opponents.

    In recent months, Greene has sought to expand her reach beyond the hardcore MAGA base. She’s made high-profile appearances on Bill Maher’s “Real Time” on HBO, The View, and CNN, signaling an effort to engage audiences outside of conservative media. Her willingness to enter unfriendly territory underscores her confidence and desire to make the case for conservative principles in front of skeptics.

    As one GOP strategist told Notus, “She’s trying to take the MAGA message to a national stage — not just to Republicans, but to all Americans who feel Washington is broken.”

    Criticizing the GOP’s Lack of Direction

    Greene has also been unafraid to criticize her own party when she believes it has lost focus. On Real Time, she expressed frustration with Republicans who, after years of campaigning to repeal and replace Obamacare, “still don’t have a plan.”

    “I’m angry about that,” Greene said on the show, adding that conservatives need to deliver tangible results, not just rhetoric.

    In recent weeks, she has also called out male Republican members of Congress as “weak” for caving to establishment pressure, blasted the GOP for having “no plan” to avoid government shutdown chaos, and criticized the party’s leadership for not pushing harder to release Jeffrey Epstein files, saying Americans deserve transparency and truth.

    A Populist in the Trump Mold

    Those close to Greene describe her as both fiercely loyal to Donald Trump and equally committed to ensuring his populist movement survives beyond him. She was one of Trump’s earliest and most vocal defenders during both impeachments and remains one of his strongest allies in Congress.

    At the same time, Greene has worked to develop her own national voice, one that emphasizes restoring American sovereignty, rebuilding manufacturing, reducing foreign entanglements, and protecting traditional values that she argues have been under assault from both the left and establishment Republicans.

    The 2028 Question

    When asked directly about a presidential run during an appearance on comedian Tim Dillon’s podcast last October, Greene laughed off the speculation — but didn’t shut it down entirely.

    “Oh my goodness. I hate politics so much, Tim,” she said. “People are saying that, and I’ve seen a few people saying ‘she’s running’… What I’m doing right now is I very much want to fix problems. That’s honestly all I care about.”

    Still, those familiar with her thinking say Greene’s ambitions go beyond her congressional seat. With her growing national platform, fundraising power, and ability to command headlines, she could emerge as one of the most influential Republican figures in the post-Trump era — whether she runs in 2028 or not.

    In August, President Donald Trump made his clearest endorsement yet for a future Republican presidential candidate, declaring that Vice President JD Vance is “most likely” to carry the MAGA torch after his second term ends.

    Trump described Vance as “probably the favorite” to lead the Republican Party into the next election cycle.

    “He’s most likely the heir,” Trump said, referring to Vance. “He understands the movement, he understands the people, and he’s doing a phenomenal job as Vice President.”

    Trump also praised Secretary of State Marco Rubio, calling him “somebody that maybe would get together with JD in some form,” suggesting Rubio could play a key role in a future Vance-led administration or campaign.

    Rubio, for his part, echoed Trump’s praise of Vance during a recent interview with Lara Trump on Fox News.

    “I think he’s doing a great job as Vice President. He’s a close friend, and I hope he intends to do it,” Rubio said of Vance.

    Although recent polling has shown Rubio with some early support among Republican voters for a potential 2028 run, conventional political wisdom indicates he wouldn’t start publicly signaling interest in running for president until much closer to the election.

    “You never know what the future holds,” Rubio said. “But if I’m able to finish this term strong and we accomplish what we’ve set out to do, I’ll be satisfied with that as the apex of my public service career.”

    John Reid isn’t just fighting for Republicans, he’s fighting for EVERY Virginian. This election is about more than just politics. Virginia NEEDS your help! [Chip in today]

    Trump’s Voter Citizenship Requirement Blocked By Federal Judge

    By
    Seijah Drake
    -
    5

    In a controversial decision that critics say undermines basic electoral integrity, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction Thursday blocking the Trump administration from implementing key provisions of its election reform order — including a requirement that individuals provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.

    The Trump administration’s order, signed in March, sought to address the widespread public concern over election security by aligning U.S. registration standards with those used by many developed nations — where proof of citizenship is a basic requirement to cast a vote. Yet, in her ruling, Judge Kollar-Kotelly sided with Democratic operatives and partisan groups, granting their request to halt implementation of what should be a commonsense safeguard.

    It’s already a felony for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. So why oppose a mechanism to verify that voters are, in fact, eligible citizens? The administration’s proposed policy simply sought to enforce existing law, not change it. But for activists and partisan lawyers, that’s apparently too much.

    Critics of the ruling argue that it demonstrates a disturbing disconnect between legal theory and electoral reality. While the plaintiffs claimed the executive order infringes on the “Elections Clause” of the Constitution — which delegates much of the authority over elections to the states — the Trump order targeted the federal voter registration form, which is a product of federal law and administered by a federal agency.

    Among the more absurd arguments presented during the case was the suggestion that requiring proof of citizenship would complicate voter registration drives at grocery stores and public venues. In other words, ensuring that only citizens vote is too inconvenient for activists looking to register voters en masse.

    But this framing reveals the central issue: voter registration is being treated like a political campaign tactic, not a civic responsibility. If accuracy and integrity are seen as barriers to convenience, something is deeply wrong with the system.

    If the courts won’t even allow the federal form to be updated to reflect current law, critics argue, how can Americans have confidence that elections are fair and secure?

    Ironically, while liberal groups celebrate the decision as a “victory for voters,” many Americans see it as a victory for loopholes and ambiguity. The same people who insist elections are sacred and democracy is under threat are now openly opposing the most basic eligibility checks used around the world.

    Meanwhile, Trump’s other proposed reforms — including tighter mail ballot deadlines and review of voter rolls against immigration databases — were allowed to stand. But with the citizenship requirement blocked, many worry that the core vulnerability in the system remains unaddressed.

    When noncitizens can easily register to vote — intentionally or accidentally — and the federal government is barred from checking, who exactly benefits?

    This article originally appeared on American Liberty News. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It is republished with permission.

    READ NEXT: President Trump Signs Executive Order Requiring Proof Of Citizenship To Vote In Federal Elections

    BBC Chiefs Quit After Accusations Of Deep-Rooted Bias

    By
    Patrick Houck
    -
    1
    The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    LONDON — The BBC’s top two executives are stepping down amid mounting pressure over editorial credibility, shaking confidence in the U.K.’s national broadcaster just as it faces critical decisions on funding and governance.

    On Sunday, BBC Director-General Tim Davie and BBC News chief Deborah Turness announced their resignations. The dual departure follows weeks of mounting backlash over allegations of systemic bias in the network’s coverage — from President Donald Trump and the war in Gaza to debates over transgender rights.

    Pressure Built After Leaked Memo

    The tipping point came with a leaked internal memo from former BBC adviser Michael Prescott. The memo accused the broadcaster of “serious and systemic bias” across a range of politically charged topics.

    Chief among them: an episode of Panorama that aired selectively edited footage of Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, speech. Critics said the edits gave the false impression that Trump directly called on supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol. The full version of the speech did not support that claim.

    Controversy also surrounded the BBC’s coverage of the Gaza conflict. Accusations included overreliance on anti-Israel voices, sourcing from extremists on its Arabic service, and distorted portrayals of children and wartime suffering.

    In a separate thread of concern, BBC staff raised red flags over the network’s handling of trans-related issues, arguing its reporting often lacked balance and downplayed the contested nature of the debates.

    Davie and Turness Respond

    In a message to BBC staff, Davie acknowledged the broadcaster’s imperfections.

    “Like all public organisations, the BBC is not perfect,” he wrote. “While not being the only reason, the current debate around BBC News has understandably contributed to my decision.”

    Turness, while taking responsibility for the news division, rejected claims of structural bias.

    “While mistakes have been made,” she wrote, “I want to be absolutely clear: recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong.”

    BBC Chairman Samir Shah called it a “sad day,” affirming the board’s support for Davie but conceding the strain he had been under.

    A Deeper Governance Crisis

    The BBC, funded by the public through license fees, is required by charter to deliver impartial journalism. The resignations expose a deeper institutional crisis at a time when the broadcaster’s mandate and funding model are under review.

    The current Royal Charter is set to expire in 2027. Debates about the future of the license fee, the role of public media, and political interference are already in motion. The timing of this leadership vacuum could have significant downstream effects.

    What Comes Next

    The BBC board now faces the task of finding replacements for two of its most senior posts. The outcome will shape the editorial tone and strategic direction of the broadcaster for years to come.

    Internal reviews are expected, especially around how the Panorama episode was handled and whether internal warnings were ignored. Broader investigations may follow, probing the extent of bias across the BBC’s output.

    In the near term, the corporation faces reputational damage. With over 100 BBC employees and 200 industry professionals having signed an open letter last year criticizing Gaza coverage, pressure is mounting not just from the public but also from within.

    Regulators and government officials may push for increased oversight, new editorial controls, or funding reforms as part of the charter renewal debate.

    Looking Ahead

    Davie, who took over in 2020, exits during one of the BBC’s most fraught moments in recent history. His successor will inherit a broadcaster under siege — from all sides — and with a shrinking window to restore public trust before the next charter review begins in earnest.

    What happens next at the BBC won’t just shape a news organization — it will help define the future of public broadcasting in a divided media landscape.

    Calling all patriots! President Trump is fighting for America’s future but he NEEDS your help! Democrats want to erode the GOP but we are standing strong. [Chip in TODAY]

    Amanda Head: Unabomber Treated Better Than Today’s Conservatives By FBI

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has become increasingly politicized and instead of targeting dangerous criminals and terrorists, it seems conservatives are their prime suspects.

    Listen to what Amanda has to say below.

    Liberal Congresswoman Accuses Trump Of Stoking ‘Civil War’

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    11
    By Elvert Barnes from Silver Spring MD, USA - MaxineWaters1.CFPB.WDC.10February2025, CC BY-SA 2.0,

    Radical Congresswoman Maxine Waters is igniting controversy once again…

    While addressing the Congressional Black Caucus on Thursday, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) claimed that President Donald Trump as on the verge of starting a civil war.

    “I’m worried that Trump is on the edge of creating a civil war,” she claimed. “He alluded to it more than once. He alluded to the fact that if he did not get reelected, that there could be a civil war.”

    She claimed that this idea placed a major responsibility on Democrats to “live and do, like Doctor Martin Luther King told us to do.”

    “He taught us to organize and to protest, but he taught us nonviolence,” she said. “He taught us nonviolence. That was the center. That was the core of his message. And we live with that all the time. No matter how upset we can get, no matter how angry we can get. We live with what we’ve been taught.”

    Waters claimed that Trump was putting people “in a position where hungry people are going to be on the street, where nonprofits who were waiting for their checks are not going to get them, where seniors waiting for their Social Security check will not get it – where poor families with children will not get what they believe the government has agreed to do.”

    “And so when that happens, what does Trump expect? Oh, I believe he expects violence,” she claimed. “I believe he expects confrontation. I believe he’s working toward a civil war.”

    123...47Page 1 of 47
    © Great America News Desk 2022