EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: MTG Warns NATO Is Planning WW3 In DC Now
Republican Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene joined The Alex Jones Show Tuesday to break exclusive insight on the NATO summit in Washington, D.C.
Share on X:
EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: MTG Warns NATO Is Planning WWIII In D.C. Now@RepMTG pic.twitter.com/hufS2N7bSP
— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) July 9, 2024
This week, globalists are swarming the Cannon building, where my DC office is located, to celebrate the 75th anniversary of NATO at their annual summit.
— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene?? (@RepMTG) July 9, 2024
The White House declared purpose of the summit: Force Ukraine in as a member and usher in WW3.
Their goal this week is to… pic.twitter.com/4bOqp6F7EY
Don’t miss:
White House Whistleblower: Biden Blackmailing Obama Over Gay Lifestyle and Michelle’s Biological Gender
Joe Biden is blackmailing Barack and Michelle Obama by threatening to expose the skeletons in their closet, according to a White House whistleblower who alleges that elite Democrats are desperate to keep Barack’s homosexual lifestyle […]
The post White House Whistleblower: Biden Blackmailing Obama Over Gay Lifestyle and Michelle’s Biological Gender appeared first on The People’s Voice.
Schumer Vows to Classify Trump’s ‘Election Subversion’ as Unofficial Acts Not Subject to Immunity
Actions taken by former President Donald Trump in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 debacle may not be protected by SCOTUS’ recent presidential immunity ruling if Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer gets his way.
In an announcement on the Senate floor Monday, Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he’s working with fellow Dems on a bill to classify Trump’s “election subversion” as “unofficial acts,” thereby leaving the former president vulnerable to criminal prosecution.
SCOTUS “incorrectly declared that former President Trump enjoys broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions he took while in office,” Schumer said.
“They incorrectly declared that all future presidents are entitled to a breathtaking level of immunity so long as their conduct is ostensibly carried out in their official capacity as president.”
“I will work with my colleagues on legislation classifying Trump’s election subversion acts as unofficial acts not subject to immunity,” Schumer said. “We’re doing this because we believe that in America no president should be free to overturn an election against the will of the people, no matter what the conservative justices may believe.”
The New York Senator, recently blasted on social media for putting cheese on a raw hamburger patty, went on to say Justices had “effectively placed a crown on Donald Trump’s head,” and had made him above the law and “in many ways untouchable.”
“I will work with my colleagues on legislation classifying Trump’s election subversion acts as unofficial acts not subject to immunity,” Schumer proceeded. “We’re doing this because we believe that in America no president should be free to overturn an election against the will of the people, no matter what the conservative justices may believe.”
According to legal scholar Jonathan Turley, Schumer’s argument doesn’t pass the smell test.
Democrats are pushing legislation to reverse the presidential immunity decision. https://t.co/7nFWtFUqon The move is more politically than legally compelling. The decision is based on constitutional law and simply declaring whole areas “unofficial” will not negate the ruling.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 8, 2024
Schumer’s renewed commitment to going after the former president illustrates how the left is confident they can wield the courts and the corrupt justice system to hinder their political opponent and possibly sentence him to multiple years in prison, a desperate last-ditch effort to hamper Trump’s re-election bid.
CIVIL WAR: Democrat Revolt to Oust Biden COLLAPES After ‘Intense’ DNC Meeting Splits Party
A bloc of battleground House Democrats who’ve coalesced to oust Joe Biden as the party’s Democratic presidential nominee are seeing their rebellion “crumbling” after the Biden camp “outflanked” their effort, according to reports.
Axios reported Tuesday that many Democrats have fallen in line to back Biden after a contentious meeting at the DNC headquarters, much to the dismay of skeptical Democrats in imperiled swing state districts.
SCOOP: Just before House Democrats’ “come-to-Jesus” meeting today on President Biden’s path forward, a smaller group of swing-district Democrats held what sources described as a despondent gathering with “actual tears.” https://t.co/Nsl0qkbBON
— Axios (@axios) July 9, 2024
The pocket of Democrats who were “pretty much unanimous” in wanting Biden to step down had huddled for a separate meeting earlier that lawmakers present described as having “actual tears.”
From Axios:
One shell-shocked lawmaker who was present at the meeting would offer only one word to characterize it: “Intense.”
Another described the mood as “pretty much unanimous” that Biden has “got to step down,” adding, “There were actual tears from people, and not for Biden.”
Democrats’ full caucus meeting was far less unanimous, with lawmakers both defending Biden and airing concerns about his ability to take on former President Trump, attendees told Axios.
One House Democrat who was in both meetings said: “Most of our caucus is still with him … meaning he’ll stay in. Which sucks for our country.”
Going in and out of the meeting, several House Democrats who have previously raised concerns about Biden said they are now with him: “Whether or not I have concerns is besides the point. He is going to be our nominee, and we all have to support him,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.).
But other reports claim there still is no final consensus about what to do about Biden.
“The House Democratic Caucus meeting about President Joe Biden’s political standing is starting to empty out. One House Democrat supportive of Biden told me it ‘felt like a funeral,’” Punchbowl News founder Jake Sherman reported.
“There is definitely no consensus on Biden. Lots of talk about how difficult the situation is for Dems. Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.) said that putting Harris atop the ticket would be setting her up for failure. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) said he saw a poll recently that had Biden losing in his district. Biden won his district with 62% of the vote last time.”
INSIDE THE ROOM — The House Democratic Caucus meeting about President Joe Biden’s political standing is starting to empty out.
— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) July 9, 2024
One House Democrat supportive of Biden told me it “felt like a funeral.”
There is definitely no consensus on Biden. Lots of talk about how difficult…
But ahead of Tuesday’s meeting, one House Democrat wanted Biden to step down claimed other Democrats were “folding all over the place” and “becoming resigned to Biden holding all the cards here, and us having no real say in the matter.”
“As someone who wanted the reckoning and is really disappointed that it’s over, trust me: it’s over,” the lawmaker said.
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) one of the nine House Democrats who had publicly called for Biden to step down over the weekend, said ahead of the meeting that his colleagues must “recognize” that Biden “can’t win” against Trump.
Dem Rep. Mike Quigley says Biden “just has to step down because he can’t win” pic.twitter.com/euewhMfi80
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 9, 2024
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) likewise said as he left the meeting that Democrats “are not even in the same book” let alone on the same page when it comes to agreement on Biden’s political future.
Dems exiting their meeting on Biden saying not only are they not on the same page, ‘we are not even in the same book’ pic.twitter.com/n2QEeJinzE
— Jon Michael Raasch (@JMRaasch) July 9, 2024
But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries reiterated his support for Biden when leaving the meeting, saying his position “has not changed.”
Democrats perpetrated a FRAUD on the American people by denying — and lying about — Crooked Joe Biden’s obvious cognitive impairment.
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 9, 2024
Now, they have no choice but to go down with the ship. pic.twitter.com/L9ZFSn5tbh
Socialist lawmakers like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) also doubled down on their support of Biden on Monday.
“The matter is closed,” AOC told reporters. “He had reiterated that this morning. He has reiterated that to the public. Joe Biden is our nominee. He is not leaving this race. He is in this race, and I support him.”
All in all, Democrats still appeared divided on what to do about Biden ahead of the meeting.
Outside of DNC Headquarters House Dems are sharing their thoughts on if Pres. Biden should stay in the race. pic.twitter.com/kgCuTiHgpk
— Reshad Hudson (@ReshadHudson) July 9, 2024
But Axios reported that the Biden camp managed to “galvanize lawmakers” to support him after moving quickly Monday with a letter defying their calls to step down.
“When there’s this kind of show of force, it’s hard to imagine people are going to speak up against him,” said one disaffected House Democrat, with another admitting the Biden camp “outflanked us.”
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), the first House Democrat who publicly urged Biden to drop out, also conceded, “He clearly did a preemptive effort to try to discourage any questions…with his letter.”
Meanwhile, GOP leadership excoriated the Democrats and media Tuesday for perpetuating the “coverup” of Biden’s cognitive decline for years and called for him to be removed via the 25th Amendment after demonstrating that he’s “unfit” for office during his disastrous debate performance.
Election In Jeopardy as 10% of Illegals Admit They Are Registered To Vote in November
A real-world survey conducted by the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project found that 10% of illegal aliens and non-citizens admitted that they are registered to vote in November’s election. The Heritage Foundation sent survey makers into […]
The post Election In Jeopardy as 10% of Illegals Admit They Are Registered To Vote in November appeared first on The People’s Voice.
It Is Time to Treat Higher Education as the Business It Is
So many of the problems with higher education stem from the involvement of government in the market.
Not a day goes by without a TikTok video surfacing of unhappy Gen-Zers or millennials lamenting their career choices that stemmed from college education. On top of this, student debt has become a hot-button political issue. And nearly every conservative laments the rise of such degrees as “gender studies” or “sociology” that seem to be little more than proxies for progressive ideological indoctrination with a price tag. Higher education has become a mess.
Though the above issues may only seem loosely connected by their relation to higher education, they share a more specific point of connection: government funding of universities. From direct funding to student loans, the United States federal government has acted in a way that divorces the customers from the producers of higher education, and the result has been one problem after another. Chief among those problems is ideological bias and the unmarketable degrees mentioned above.
The growing problem of a left-wing intellectual orthodoxy is particularly concerning. In an academic setting, left-wing aligned professors outnumber their right-wing counterparts five to one. Conservative students are often afraid of expressing their views, being regularly outnumbered by liberal-leaning students. A study on the University of North Carolina system found that liberal students dominated with a three to one ratio to conservative students and that conservatives faced the bulk of pressure to not express their views. Gone is the age of valued debate in the “marketplace of ideas.”
Sadly, many of the proposed “solutions” by conservatives are lacking. They likely will only make things worse than they already are.
The Core of the Problem
As mentioned above, the government has fundamentally divorced the consumer-producer relationship that should exist in higher education. If conservative students are among the customers, then surely their viewpoints should be reflected in universities, no? Discrimination is expensive, as you either alienate productive employees or potential customers. Some universities might find value in discriminating against certain viewpoints, but that is true of every market good. It might be costly to discriminate against effective conservative professors or eliminate a consumer base, thus they will tend to cost more. Most universities will realize this is a poor business decision and thus cater to all their customers.
But are students truly the customers?
Figure 1: Percentage distribution of total revenues for degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by control of institution and source of funds (2020–21)
Source: National Center for Educational Statistics.
According to the Center for Educational Statistics, in the fiscal year 2020–21, over 40 percent of public-university revenue was provided by government grants, contracts, and appropriations. That compares to just 16 percent coming from student tuition. If one looks at even that small revenue amount paid for by tuition you might spot evidence of government money. Economics Data Initiative reported in 2021 that over 92 percent of student loan debt is federal student loan debt—meaning it is taxpayer money fronted to new students to pay their college tuition and costs. Seeing as there have not been any significant, if any, changes to the federal student loan system, the percentage of tuition coming from student loans is likely still overwhelming.
The Core Applied: Ideological Bias
Conservative as well as many libertarian students have lamented the fall of higher education. It has become a liberal hegemon as evidenced above. This stems from the fundamental divorce in consumer-producer relations.
The revenue stream that colleges rely upon is not from the pockets of their own customers. They rely upon a flow of money from the government. If conservative students remove themselves, who cares? They have no reason to adjust their business model as their customer base was never really the student body but rather government bureaucrats who offer them grants, endowments, and the like.
Traditionally, providing professors who have potentially controversial points of view with a secure job was the role of tenure. However, the tenure system relies upon the consent of one’s colleagues and likely one’s provost. With an overdominant liberal orthodoxy, there is little reason for them to allow a professor who doesn’t fall in line unless the professor manages to conceal their views.
The government stepping between the consumer (the students) and the producers (the universities) changes who is catered to. The divorced college appeals to the entrenched bureaucrat rather than students who may have different social or political views. This is in terms of free speech policy and in its staffing policies.
The Core Applied: Unmarketable Degrees
If one has paid attention to any amount of news related to universities, especially Harvard as of late, they are aware of the power of donations. Revenue from students isn’t the only source for money and operations of a university. Donors play a large role in the shaping of policy. Reliance on donors might provide an insight into how unmarketable degrees might be eliminated.
Only successful alumni can donate to universities. A college who wants the most revenue from their alumni must create those alumni. Successful alumni rarely come from those with the unmarketable degrees above. They must cut the chaff, removing the degrees that aren’t conducive to a return on their proverbial investment.
Is There a Solution?
If one asks Ramesh Ponurru, a columnist for the Washington Post, the solution is simply to spend more money on universities. Primarily, he suggests that the government fund centers that promote more diverse points of view. This may work for specific universities, but to tackle all the problems one might offer a different solution. Dumping more money rarely solves a problem caused by the government.
If one removes government spending on universities, it will force their revenue stream into the hands of students and donors. Conservative students revoking their funds will have a much more significant impact on university revenue, meaning that as a business higher education would be forced to cater toward them or face losses.
If one returns power to the customers, the students, then it is far more likely for this process to receive an overhaul that results in more diversity of thought amongst the educators. Colleges as a business will have a vested interest in providing this diversity, as their bottom line relies upon it.
Ousting students over their political views also becomes unprofitable. Preventing students who deviate from liberal thought from expressing their views, and actively punishing that, will result in a loss of revenue. Thus, shifting to a consumer-funded model would go a long way toward alleviating the problem that is a lack of diversity of thought in higher education.
The solution, as is often the case, for many of the problems facing higher education is to get the government out of it. The government divorces the essential connection between customer and producer in education, meaning that the universities do not cater to the students but rather to the government. When higher education caters to the government for funding, they are more likely to express views the government would like to hear. Research will be manipulated in a way to secure further governmental funding rather than provide actual results. The government’s tentacles spread into the system and pervert it in such a manner that it no longer reflects the values of those who wish to use the service. Instead, it reflects the whims of the government.
One can solve these problems by treating higher education the same as any other business on the marketplace. Universities and colleges should not be given favoritism or protectionism by the government any more than any other business. Competition will improve quality and push down prices, as is the law of the free market. Fixing the problem doesn’t involve spending more on higher education—it involves spending less.
Alex Jones Talks Big Picture In Must-Watch Analysis