Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

International

Major Dem Donors Freeze $90 Million Until Biden Drops Out: REPORT

Published

3 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By ROBERT SCHMAD

 

Major Democratic donors have paused contributions totaling roughly $90 million to the largest pro-Biden super PAC, opting to hold their money unless the president drops out of the race, the New York Times reported on Friday.

Donors have frozen multiple eight-figure donations they had promised to Future Forward PAC — the committee designated by the Biden campaign as its leading super PAC — amid worries that the president is in a uniquely weak position ahead of November’s election, two individuals familiar with the situation told the NYT.

Democratic donors are also planning on diverting money away from the presidential election and toward down-ballot elections to hedge against what they view as increasingly likely defeat in the race for the White House.

“I think that the dam has broken and that more and more people will come out publicly,” long-time Democratic donor Whitney Tilson said in early July. “There is basically no — almost no support remaining for him as a candidate.”

In the weeks following the June 27 presidential debate where President Joe Biden appeared disoriented and struggled to articulate, 19 Democratic members of Congress and numerous liberal pundits have called on the president to drop out of the race, according to the NYT. Even Biden’s reelection operation seems to be testing the waters, with the president’s campaign reportedly testing Vice President Kamala Harris’ viability against Trump, according to the New York Post.

“He needs to drop out,” one Biden campaign official told NBC News. “He will never recover from this.”

The blow to Biden’s campaign finance operation follows former President Donald Trump’s campaign erasing the president’s fundraising lead in May. Trump and the Republican National Committee had $171 million in cash on hand as of the most recent campaign finance reports, compared to the just $157 million held by the Biden campaign and the Democratic National Convention, The Hill reported.

The primary super PAC supporting Trump, MAGA Inc., had $93.7 million in cash reserves as of May while Future Forward PAC had a slightly smaller war chest of $92.3 million, according to Federal Election Commission records. Much of the funds taken in by MAGA Inc., however, are being diverted to cover Trump’s legal expenses, according to CNN.

One Future Forward advisor told the NYT they believe the donations will return once the current uncertainty regarding the Democratic presidential ticket is resolved. The PAC has announced $250 million in advertisement reservations following the Democratic National Convention in August.

Despite mounting pressure, the president has repeatedly asserted that he will not drop out.

“I am firmly committed to staying in this race, to running this race to the end, and to beating Donald Trump,” Biden wrote in a letter to congressional Democrats on Monday.

Future Forward PAC could not be reached for comment.

(Featured image credit: Screen Capture/CSPAN)

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Economy

Trump’s Wakeup Call to Canada – Oil & Gas is Critical to our Economy

Published on

From EnergyNow.Ca

By Jim Warren

On the bright side, at least President Donald Trump’s threat to impose 25% tariffs on Canadian oil and gas, might have alerted some Central Canadians to the critical importance of oil and gas to the national economy. Trump’s tariff pronouncements may also have forced the Laurentian Elite to rethink the wisdom of allowing anarchy to reign in our immigration system and border management.

Any nation hoping to be a serious player in the areas of international trade and diplomacy needs to meet several critical criteria. Without them a country can have difficulty marketing its goods and services to the world and in retaining meaningful economic and political sovereignty. One of the key criteria is for a country to have a good measure of control over its borders. But there are other elements critical to having effective sovereignty and independence. Having access to versatile, readily transportable energy commodities like oil and gas is one of those essentials. Accordingly, oil and gas are considered strategically important industries.

Lacking any of the major building blocks of strategic economic sovereignty, like the steel and aluminum industries and a thriving manufacturing sector, as well as highly developed transportation sector and the energy industries needed to support all the other sectors can leave a country vulnerable to domination by others. The vulnerabilities can lead to economic and political crises for a country during trade wars, international disputes leading to trade sanctions and embargoes, shooting wars and big natural disasters. A lack of strong trade and military alliances can make matters even worse.

It’s not like there wasn’t a mountain of evidence underlining the strategic importance of oil and gas in the last few years. How smart was it for Angela Merkel to allow Russia, a state run by a psychopath and his team of criminal oligarchs, to control a major portion of its energy supplies? The Ukraine gets it. After its war with Russia began, the Ukrainian government allowed Russian gas to be piped across its territory to Eastern Europe for nearly two years. This was because they realized messing with a commodity critical to bordering states such as Hungary, Slovakia and Romania was politically hazardous.

It is true that a country can still have a thriving economy even if it is missing one or two items from the basket of strategically important industries. Singapore, for example, needs to import fossil fuel but is still considered one of Southeast Asia’s economic tigers. But this is only possible because Singapore is so good at most everything else. It has several other economic engines that perform exceptionally well.

Looking back several decades reminds us that Japan risked entering a World War to obtain the petroleum they needed. To get it, the Japanese concluded they needed to conquer parts of Indonesia. (Similarly they wanted Southeast Asia for its rubber.) They knew these were actions the US wouldn’t tolerate, but they decided they had to do them anyway.

While we’re on the topic of World War II, it is instructive to recall Hitler fought it with one hand tied behind his back. Germany had no oil of its own and gasoline refined from coal and the oil available from their Romanian ally were never enough. That’s why the German’s placed such great hopes in capturing Russia’s Caspian oil fields in 1943. Similarly, Hitler invaded Norway to ensure access to Swedish iron ore—another strategic commodity Germany lacked.

Canada’s oil revenues along with the taxes and royalties collected from those revenues are derived almost entirely from the oil we export to the US. Our export revenues for 2022, following the worst of the covid years, were $123 billion. They accounted for 15.8% of all Canada’s exports and 6.6% of GDP. The following year saw exceptionally high oil prices globally. That year the value of oil Canada’s oil production hit $139 billion and accounted for 7.1% of GDP. Pull even half of those revenues out of the Canadian economy for very long and we’re in economic depression territory.

So, thanks for the wakeup call president Trump. The fact Trump has indicated he will postpone his final decision until February 1, is of some comfort. Danielle Smith has met with him at Mar-a-Lago to make the case against tariffs on Canadian crude. Smith is among the most knowledgeable and capable people there are when it comes to oil and gas production and trade. We couldn’t hope for a better advocate for the producing provinces. She’s certainly a cut above Justin Trudeau and anyone else in his cabinet. Let’s hope Smith she managed to convince Trump how imposing tariffs would harm the economies of both countries.

There is an obvious way to prevent being in this sort of situation in the future – diversify our export opportunities by building more pipelines to tidewater. In my last column I focused on the difficulties involved in getting a pipeline built to the Atlantic coast. The challenges identified focused on the barriers thrown up by Quebec’s politicians and environmentalists. Trump’s ongoing tariff pronouncements suggest it would be in Canada’s national strategic interest to use whatever legal measures are required to sweep those barriers aside in both Quebec and British Columbia to get new tidewater pipelines built.

There is plenty the federal government can do to override the demands of municipalities, special interest groups and provincial governments in support of high national purposes and in emergencies. Section 91 of the constitution gives parliament broad, albeit somewhat vague, powers to do what needs to be done “to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada” in all matters not exclusively the jurisdiction of the provinces. And, you would think that if the heavy hand of the Emergencies Act can be used to prevent horn honking and traffic snarls in Ottawa, it could be employed to prevent the environmentally sanctimonious from blocking projects critical to our economic and political sovereignty. Of course doing any of this will require voting the Liberals out of office.

Sorry premier Ford, retaliatory tariffs and export taxes can’t be the only tools employed; especially when they cause self-inflicted wounds.  Unfortunately, until we have more export opportunities for oil and gas we may need to limit our counter attacks on Americans to misleading travel directions and poor restaurant service.

Continue Reading

Business

Alaska, Florida and Louisiana Purchase show US offer to pay for Greenland makes sense

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Stephen Moore

The media and the intelligentsia are laughing at President Donald Trump’s idea of the United States acquiring Greenland from Denmark. At first hearing of what seemed to be an outlandish idea, I guffawed too.

Trump’s argument is that Greenland is of strategic military and national security value to the United States. He is also betting this giant island has other rare and undiscovered assets. There is no question that it would serve as a strategic buffer between the United States and Russia and perhaps other hostile nations, including China.

This would be a purchase, not a conquest. But does it make sense? Let’s turn back the clock.

Anyone who paid attention to their U.S. history class in high school has heard of “Seward’s Folly.” This was the American acquisition of Alaska in 1867 by then-Secretary of State William Seward. The price tag was $7 million. That would be the equivalent of less than $1 billion today — or less than what Washington spends every day. Alaska is more than twice the size of Texas, so Russia practically gave it away to us.

The purchase of Alaska was showered with widespread criticism; it was an “icebox” that was viewed as uninhabitable and more suitable for polar bears than people.

How wrong the skeptics were. Alaska was soon discovered to have vast quantities of gold in the Yukon and played a strategic role during World War II. Then, of course, the North Slope of Alaska was discovered to have massive deposits of oil and gas. No doubt, Putin would love today to have Alaska in his portfolio.

Thank God for William Seward.

The idea of purchasing land in order to expand freedom and America’s manifest destiny predates the purchase of Alaska. In the first hundred years of our country’s history, we repeatedly acquired land to expand America’s reach. Most famously, was Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase — which roughly doubled America’s land area from the original 13 colonies/states. That purchase was criticized as a “land grab” as well. But it was the gateway to the development of the West.

Florida came shortly thereafter — a virtual gift from Spain. The “Republic of Texas” was an independent territory and joined the U.S. voluntarily and we gladly and wisely brought the Lone Star state into the fold.

Needless to say, none of these acquisitions or additions was “folly.”

Which brings us back to Greenland. Why does Denmark need it? It is hard to imagine anything that would add more income, wealth and security to the less than 100,000 people living in Greenland than to plant the American flag there and make it a U.S. territory. The residents of Greenland would be able to bequeath to their children one of the greatest assets on the planet — a U.S. passport.

While we are on the topic of acquisitions, if Trump is really thinking big, he should also consider offering to bury from Mexico a 50-to-100 mile stretch of coastal land stretching from San Diego down the Pacific coast. If Mexico were to sell that land to us, this idyllic beachfront property might instantly become some of the most valuable land in the world — inflating in price by perhaps 10- to 20-fold.

Here is another thought experiment. Imagine how rich Cuba would be today, if it were an American territory. Cuba could and would be the Hong Kong of the western hemisphere if it detoured from its near seven-decade long excursion into communism.

Trump is not an imperialist. He wants to spread freedom, prosperity and peace to much of the rest of the world. The old joke about Greenland is that it is neither green nor land.

It is a vast sheet of floating ice. Plant the American flag on that ice and suddenly it becomes a hot property.

Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a co-founder of Unleash Prosperity. His latest book is “The Trump Economic Miracle.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X