Barack Obama reportedly advocated against Democrats nominating then-Vice President Kamala Harris in the wake of former President Joe Biden dropping out of the 2024 presidential election — because he didn’t think Harris could win, according to an upcoming book.
The 44th president reportedly argued for an open convention rather than anointing Harris as the nominee after Biden’s shocking drop-out, despite her having support from other Democrats, according to reporter and co-author of “FIGHT: Inside the WIldest Battle for the White House,” Jonathan Allen.
New details emerged that former President Barack Obama was working against former Vice President Kamala Harris after former President Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 race.Getty Images
“President Obama absolutely did not think that Joe Biden should continue, according to our sources close to President Obama and he also didn’t want Kamala Harris to be the replacement for Biden,” Allen said in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Tuesday.
“He didn’t think that she was the best choice for Democrats, and he worked really behind the scenes for a long time to try to have a mini-primary, or an open convention, or a mini-primary leading to an open convention. [He] did not have faith in her ability to win the election,” Allen said.
“He was really working against her,” he emphasized.
Allen further revealed that on a phone call with the veep on the very day Biden “passed the baton” to Harris, Obama refused to endorse her candidacy as the nominee.
Obama’s reticence was apparently known amongst other Democrat power-players.
Reporter and author Jonathan Allen told MSNBC, “President Obama absolutely did not think that Joe Biden should continue,” while also mentioning, “he also didn’t want Kamala Harris to be the replacement for Biden.”REUTERS
“In one moment, he had set up a phone call with Congressman [James] Clyburn from South Carolina on the day that Joe Biden handed off the baton to Kamala Harris, and Obama had set up a call with Clyburn for like 5:30 that afternoon. And Clyburn thought to himself, this guy is going to try to rope me into the open convection thing, I better get my endorsement of Harris out there fast so this is a short conversation,” Allen relayed of the backroom power dynamics.
Both the former president and former first lady Michelle Obama eventually did lend their support to Harris, but only five days after Biden announced he was no longer running.
“We told her we think she’ll make a fantastic President of the United States, and that she has our full support,” Obama said in his endorsement posted to X at the time, accompanying a video of a staged phone call.
Elon Musk on Tuesday called for the arrest of leaders of “fake” organizations that receive federal funds — saying they represent a politically connected “uniparty” that’s engaged in “money laundering” of taxpayer resources.
Republicans recently have highlighted a $2 billion environmental grant awarded last year by the Biden administration to a consortium of organizations linked to Stacey AbramsFOX News
“With respect to the non-governmental organizations, these sort of fake NGOs, I think there needs to be a number of arrests,” Musk said in an interview on Fox News’ “The Five.”
“These are fake charities [run by] mostly Democrats… there’s sometimes a little bit of Republican in there, because they sometimes throw the Republicans a bone to say, ‘Hey, be quiet about this.’ So that’s where you start getting the uniparty thing going on,” Musk said.
Elon Musk said Tuesday he wants authorities to arrest “fake NGO” leaders who took federal funds.REUTERS “But it is overwhelmingly to Democrats, and they give these billions of dollars to NGOs run by Democrats that then go through a whole network of additional NGOs — it’s a giant money laundering scheme. Really at this point, I think the word NGO and money laundering are almost synonymous.”
The term “uniparty” is commonly used by President Trump’s supporters to describe politicians of both major parties who hold similar thinking on government operations, spending and foreign policy — generally in opposition to Trump’s populist agenda.
Musk does not have the power to order criminal investigations, but his immense influence could elevate the idea among Trump’s appointees at the Justice Department and in US attorney offices.
Musk gave the interview as he urged viewers to vote in a Wisconsin judicial race.FOX News
“The wheels of justice turn slowly, but surely,” Musk said. “I have a maniacal sense of urgency.”
The Tesla and SpaceX CEO and owner of X, who is leading DOGE as an unpaid government employee, did not mention any specific NGO or allegedly corrupt operator.
Republicans recently have highlighted a $2 billion environmental grant awarded last year by the Biden administration to a consortium of organizations linked to former Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who advised on the effort to win the funds.
Musk did not name any particular NGOs or leaders whom he believes should be arrested.FOX News
Abrams maintains she did not personally benefit financially, including because the money has not been disbursed and she has left her job at one of the partnering organizations.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin tweeted last week that “[t]he DOJ/FBI are investigating” that award.
Musk also said on “The Five” that he believes that authorities will arrest a person “hopefully this week” for allegedly stealing 400,000 Social Security numbers.
He gave the interview to urge Wisconsin voters to turn out to vote in a state judicial election Tuesday that he says could dictate the fate of the House of Representatives following the midterm elections next year.
If Democratic judges redraw congressional districts there and deliver a win for the party, “the House will then immediately take action to stop the president’s agenda,” he said. “There will be non-stop hearings and subpoenas.”
(Update 2210ET): According to multiple outlets, Democrat-endorsed Susan Crawford has won the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, beating Republican-endorsed Brad Schimel inthe most expensive judicial election in US history.
The campaigns and their supporters spent more than $81 million, and drew the involvement of Elon Musk, Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders, and other political figures.
Crawford's win means that liberals will retain a 4-3 majority in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Today, the voters of Wisconsin go to the polls in what may be the single most expensive and important judicial race in modern history.
Both parties are spending millions with the balance of the state Supreme Court in the balance.
If liberal Susan Crawford wins, the expectation is that she will vote with the Democratic majority to approve a gerrymandering of congressional districts to guarantee the loss of two Republicans and possibly flip control of the House of Representatives to the Democrats.
The raw political pitch in the election is disturbing. It assumes that both candidates will blindly support the objectives of their respective parties. The real reason to cast a vote today should be on judicial ideology. Ironically, the United States Supreme Court made that plain in an important Wisconsin case argued just the day before the state election.
The case is Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission.
In the decision below, the Democratic-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities could not benefit from a religious exemption to the state’s unemployment tax because its charitable work was not sufficiently religious.
Catholic Charities is one of the world’s oldest and most respected charities. However, the church believes that it has a duty to help people of every faith who are in need. Thus, the church does not proselytize in offering such aid and services.
A state labor commission ruled that the charity’s lack of such religious expression and prayer makes it secular, even if it has religious motivations.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed and ruled that the charity is not operated primarily for religious purposes because it does not “attempt to imbue” beneficiaries “with the Catholic faith nor supply any religious materials to program participants or employees.” In other words, the fact that Catholic Charities helps everyone and does not proselytize worked against it. The Wisconsin Supreme Court essentially argued that it needs to pray more to offer such charity as a church.
It is a disturbing ruling that would allow the state to choose between religions in weighing their relative manifestations of faith.
Even liberal justices cried foul over the standard.
Justice Elena Kagan suggested it was “pretty fundamental that we don’t treat some religions better than others. And we certainly don’t do it based on the content of the religious doctrine that those religions preach.”
Kagan noted, “Some religions proselytize. Other religions don’t. Why are we treating some religions better than others based on that element of religious doctrine?”
She noted that the standard “basically puts the state on the side of some religions with some doctrine versus other religions with a different doctrine.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that the Wisconsin Supreme Court was asking the wrong questions about what it means to be an organization “operated primarily for religious purposes.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch virtually mocked the standard of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, asking if Catholic Charities have to require the people receiving their services to “repent.” He then asked: “is mandatory church attendance versus optional church attendance, that’s the line?”
Gorsuch then delivered the haymaker:
“Isn’t it a fundamental premise of our First Amendment that the state shouldn’t be picking and choosing between religions, between certain evangelical sects, and Judaism and Catholicism on the other, for example?”
The case shows that there are far more important issues dividing these candidates on judicial philosophy that should drive this election. I am not a fan of state elected judges and justices precisely because of the raw political element to these contests.
The Catholic Charities case shows that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is divided along more than just a party line.
Arctic LNG 2, the processing and export facility that was billed as Russia’s flagship LNG project, has gradually resumed gas processing after months of hiatus, Reuters reported on Tuesday, citing industry sources and satellite images.
Arctic LNG 2 has been under U.S. and EU sanctions since last year, and the project hasn’t been able to sell any cargo because of the sanctions.
The first production train at the plant was shut in early October over the project developers’ inability to secure buyers amid the Western sanctions on Arctic LNG 2, according to one of Reuters’ sources.
The plant continues has now slowly resumed gas processing and keeps it at low rates as Russia expects what the Trump Administration would do with the sanctions.
Russian LNG developer and exporter Novatek, the majority owner of Arctic LNG 2, is looking to rebuild relations with the U.S. with the help of lobbyists, sources with knowledge of the matter told Reuters in December.
Hit heavily by sanctions, Arctic LNG 2 was put on ice last year and Novatek has struggled to sell any cargo to a buyer.
Located in the Gydan Peninsula, Arctic LNG 2 was considered key to Russia’s efforts to boost its global LNG market share from 8% to 20% by 2030-2035.
But the project has come under intensifying sanctions from the United States, which have put off any buyers that were previously considering buying cargoes from Arctic LNG 2.
The project has seen months of delays after the initial U.S. sanctions in November 2023 upended the company’s plans for production start-up and export timelines.
In August 2024, the U.S. State Department intensified efforts to derail Arctic LNG 2 exports by targeting companies involved in the development of the project and vessels found to have loaded LNG from the facility.
The U.S. designated multiple companies related to Arctic LNG 2 to further disrupt the project’s ability to produce and export LNG, as well as the project’s ability to procure critical LNG carriers.
Leaders of a trucking advocacy group are sounding the alarm, claiming that the American Trucking Association (ATA) advised the federal government during the Biden-Harris administration to issue hundreds of thousands of non-domiciled commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) to non-citizens—many of whom reportedly cannot read or write English. Many of these unvetted migrants were funneled into the long-haul trucking sector, which poses national security and public safety risks.
Harvey Beech, a co-founder of American Truckers United (ATU), addressed lawmakers in Arkansas earlier on Monday, warning about migrant truck drivers on the state's highways—and nationwide.
ATU commented on Beech's address to Arkansas lawmakers, stating:
Arkansas Trucking Association's full-on backing of the Biden-Harris Trucking Action Plan is the REAL reason we're seeing a flood of non-citizen truck drivers on Arkansas highways! He's not holding back—this move has unleashed chaos, and HB1745? It's doing NOTHING to pump the brakes! Are we just handing over our roadways to Non-Citizens? Sound off below and spread this like wildfire—America needs to know
The National Transportation Research Board recently ranked Arkansas fourth for fatalities involving large trucks. Earlier this month in Texas, a migrant truck driver killed five people and injured 12 others.
This is shocking!
ATU co-founder Beech and another co-founder, Shannon Everett, provided more color about their fight at the Arkansas State Capitol Building to get non-domiciled CDLs off America's highways.
ATU Everett also warned Arkansas lawmakers how non-English speaking migrants pose a significant danger to all Americans.
Flooding the nation with non-English-speaking migrants holding non-domiciled CDLs and operating 80,000-pound semi-trucks poses a serious national security and public safety risk
Leftists base a lot of their sales pitch for tyranny on emotional appeals that are long on feelings and short on facts. Their 2,000-year-old “new” ideas sound good to those who are — shall we say — somewhat naïve in their thinking. Somehow, for the first time in human history, a leftist like AOC has stepped forward with the “brilliant” plan of simply making everything “fair” by “spreading the wealth around.” For some astounding reason, some must that no one has ever thought of this before and that all we have to do is put it into place, and it will be a “worker’s paradise” and a utopia for all. That has to be the song and dance from the left, because no sane person would fall for the lie that “socialism has never really been tried before.”
But of course it has, with disastrous results every time. So how do you reach the terminally naïve, who ignore the entire history of mankind, and specifically the past four centuries that have seen collectivist schemes come and go with the same tired sales pitch every time? One way is a short video with host Franklin Camargo that sarcastically sends up the 21st-century socialism of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, going through its wondrous “benefits”:
1. Socialism leads to a sharp reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Follow the lead of Venezuela if you want to “save the planet.” That used to be a big priority for the far left, as global cooling was an “existential threat.” But now they’re running around firebombing Teslas and threatening their owners, so we must have missed the memo that it’s no longer an issue.
Nevertheless, Venezuela used to be a leading oil and gas producer 25 years ago. Because of the wondrous “benefits” of socialism, Venezuela’s oil and gas industry barely functions, keeping those pesky greenhouse gas emissions at bay.
What do you do when you have too many people who want to immigrate to your country? The answer is easy: You destroy the economy by implementing a collectivist ideology. When you are “successful” in doing so, no one wants to live there, and people start leaving. Problem solved.
4. Socialism provides an excellent incentive to lose weight.
They don’t call it the Maduro Diet for nothing. Perhaps it’s demeaning for people to have to wait in line all day to get basic staples or rummage through garbage to find something to eat, but for some reason, they never tout the fact that Venezuelans have lost 19 pounds on this infamous diet.
5. Socialism provides free health care.
But it’s not all doom and gloom! The people get “free” health care; they just have to wait a long time, and it’s substandard. But did we mention it’s “free”?
Yes, as the host mentions in the short video, there are all kinds of “benefits” to socialism — just don’t ask leftists that pesky question of whether it’s been done before, because Venezuela proves it, and they can’t have that.
As the host mentions, they have “free” college. Just don’t criticize the Great Leader, or you’ll get expelled. They also have very effective gun control, after the government confiscated all the guns from the people. They just don’t have any safe streets, so don’t ask anything about the crime rate or the colectivos. All with plenty of political continuity in having the same party in charge and only two presidents in the last quarter-century. All of that should sound wonderful to leftists, and all they have to do is give up their freedom and prosperity. The video could have also reported on the depopulation efforts that were always a “feature” of the USSR, NSDAP, and other national socialist regimes of the left, but for some reason, these are unmentioned by collectivists.
All of these “benefits” to humanity never seem to make the headlines. It’s almost as if the anti-liberty left is ashamed of them. But perhaps AOC, in her infinite wisdom, will see their “value” and feature them in her campaign appearances. We can only hope. It would definitely be good for a laugh or two.
D Parker is an engineer, inventor, wordsmith, and student of history, former director of communications for a civil rights organization, and a long-time contributor to conservative websites. Find him on Substack.
