Did Trump just stop the Great Reset?



The elite-driven Great Reset has been moving along with little resistance under the Biden administration, but Donald Trump’s election may be throwing a wrench in their plans.

“There’s been this massive movement amongst global elites to seize increasingly more power, to centralize power and ownership and wealth. That’s what the Great Reset is all about,” Justin Haskins, director of the Socialism Research Center at the Heartland Institute, tells Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable.”

“The Biden administration is all for it, they’ve been actively involved in it, they’ve been supportive in a variety of different ways,” Haskins continues, noting the Biden admin’s been working with the World Economic Forum, which he calls “the Great Reset people.”


“The Biden administration is actively working against us, never mind fighting in our favor. So the Trump administration is our only hope of solving that problem. We’re not going to be able to fix it without someone aggressively pushing back against the European Union and the U.N. and the World Economic Forum,” he explains.

This is why it was so essential that Donald Trump win this election, because what would happen to not just American citizens, but the world, had Harris continued Biden’s reign — it would have changed everything.

“A lot of the American elites, John Kerry’s been involved in this, Al Gore’s been involved in this, the Clintons, the Obamas, who have pushed this climate change agenda that they are hoping is part of what you’re calling a reset,” Stuckey responds, noting that the “reset” part is what’s most concerning.

“By a reset, kind of like starting from zero. Rebuilding a society where progressive elites are in charge. But how they’re selling it is an equitable society, an equal society where there’s no difference in income, no one is oppressed, no one is a victim of injustice,” she continues.

“So a lot of this has critical race theory tenets, even gender ideology, abortion plays a role in this. Like their vision of a kind of utopia or heaven on Earth where they have all the power and all of us underlings are just doing what we’re told,” she says.

Trump, who Stuckey calls a “disruptor,” is one of the major obstacles standing in their way.

“It’s not just that he’s not going to go along with it, it’s that his policies have been very proactive in trying to stop that sort of thing from occurring,” Haskins agrees. “There’s no question about it, what Trump wants to do is put individual liberty at the forefront of this.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Argentina's 'chainsaw' president tells the UN to shove its 'socialist' 'Pact for the Future'



Javier Milei, Argentina's self-proclaimed "anarcho-capitalist" president, took office in December 2023. In the months since, he has taken a "chainsaw" to his predecessors' failed leftist policies as well as to some critics' doubts.

This week, he shredded globalist hopes that the Argentine Republic would be party to the United Nations' "Pact for the Future," telling the General Assembly, "Argentina will not back any policy that implies the restriction of individual freedoms or trade, nor the violation of the natural rights of individuals."

Milei — whose debut address to the U.N. took place within hours of reports indicating that Argentina's economic activity beat estimates, growing 1.7% in July — invited other nations to join him not only in "opposing this pact, but in the creation of a new agenda for this noble institution: the freedom agenda."

After noting that the U.N. served a noble purpose in the wake of World War II, Milei stated it has since "stopped upholding the principles outlined in its founding declaration and begun to mutate" — from an organization that once defended human rights to "one of the main drivers of the systematic violation of freedom."

Milei dragged the U.N. for its support of "global quarantines during the year 2020," which he suggested qualify as crimes against humanity, as well as its appeasement of "bloody dictatorships," such as Venezuela, and criticism of Israel.

According to the Argentine president, the U.N. was created "as a shield to protect the realm of men" but has "transformed into a multi-tentacled leviathan that seeks to decide not only what each nation-state should do but also how all the citizens of the world should live."

'It is basically an attempt to build a totalitarian system of conformity across the business sector.'

Milei suggested that instead of seeking peace, the U.N. now seeks to impose an ideology on its members.

Distinguishing himself from a great many onlookers as a "libertarian liberal economist" rather than a politician, Milei warned of the threat posed by "collectivist policies" baked into the U.N.'s doomed 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The U.N.'s 2030 agenda includes 17 interlinked global goals designed to "transform the world."

Paul Tice, an adjunct professor of finance at the Leonard N. Stern School of Business at New York University, indicated in his recent book, "The Race to Zero: How ESG Investing Will Crater the Global Financial System," that:

Climate action (SDG #13) provides the intersectional glue for the entire progressive agenda embedded in the UN's sustainability program, with each individual cause drawing strength and further validation from the moral imperative of saving the planet from fossil fuels because, in the UN's telling, climate change also affects global health, poverty, hunger, and national security, and 'its adverse impacts undermine the ability of all countries to achieve sustainable development.

Tice emphasized that sustainability is part of a broader anti-capitalist campaign that "borrows elements from both the totalitarian and reformist approaches of the past."

"It is basically an attempt to build a totalitarian system of conformity across the business sector based on moral suasion, thereby avoiding the administrative cost and public sector responsibility associated with outright state ownership or direct government intervention," wrote Tice.

'[The sustainability agenda] is nothing more than a super-national socialist government program.'

The professor noted further that "it embraces both state and progressive priorities but is mainly the fabrication of a permanent supranational bureaucracy of technocrats residing at multilateral agencies led by the UN and international NGOS such as the WEF, which effectively insulates it from accountability at the ballot box."

Sharing similar concerns about the U.N. agenda and its broader sustainability push, Milei suggested that the U.N. is now effectively a model of "super-national governance by international bureaucrats who intend to impose a certain way of life on the citizens of the world."

According to Milei, the "Pact for the Future," which 143 countries approved Sunday, is par for the course.

The pact overlaps with the 2030 sustainability agenda, laying out objectives for a multilateral approach to addressing changing weather patterns, so-called reproductive rights, and digital cooperation.

"Although well-intentioned in its goals, [the pact] is nothing more than a super-national socialist government program that aims to solve the problems of modernity with solutions that undermine the sovereignty of nation-states and violate the right to life, liberty, and property of individuals," said the Argentine president. "It is an agenda that aims to solve poverty, inequality, and discrimination with legislation that only deepens these issues."

Milei suggested that the pact is another poorly conceived utopian program that will not withstand or tolerate humans' incompatible nature and choices.

"We want to officially express our dissent regarding the 'Pact of the Future' signed on Sunday," said Milei, concluding with a version of a quote from Thomas Paine: "Those who wish to reap the blessings of freedom must, as men, endure the fatigue of defending it."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Leftists CRUSHED in European Elections | What You NEED to Know

Leftists CRUSHED in European Elections | What You NEED to Know

Globalists’ 3-pronged attack plan to END our sovereignty



Under the direction of the World Health Organization, the United Nations, and the European Union, the largest globalist power grab in history is currently underway.

“We have threats on multiple fronts,” Glenn Beck warns, adding, “The stakes couldn’t be any higher. Everything is under attack. Free-speech, private property, faith, liberty, children, our families, everything is at stake.”

And the time has never been more ripe, as over 60 countries are facing elections this year.

“So, what does that mean for the New World Order? Well, they have to win. They have to make their major moves now. The time to seize control or at least to have the building blocks in place is right now,” Glenn says.

Glenn believes that if you reflect on the trends of the past decade, there are “three main events” that the globalists could invoke as a crisis in order to seize the control they want — and need.

“One, a major geopolitical risk. These are things like, oh I don’t know, war with Russia, or an economic disruption. Both of those are very likely to happen,” Glenn says.

“The next one is a health emergency. This one can be several things: a pandemic, the threat of a possible pandemic, guns, the climate, you use your imagination on this, but they already have a plan in place for all of them,” he warns.

“Climate change. This is how a government will seize control of food, energy, and water. They will also force private businesses into partnerships through mechanisms like ESG, and they can pull this trigger for almost anything. Forest fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, high temperatures in the summer.”

After these crises have been set in motion, that’s when the global institutions step in to declare their power by imposing mandates.

“What we saw with COVID,” Glenn recalls, “the World Health Organization takes the leading role. We all remember how that went.”


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The WHO didn't get its pandemic treaty through. Critics say it still managed to consolidate 'unchecked authority.'



WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and other globalists have campaigned feverishly in recent months to promote an international pandemic agreement, lashing out at those who dared to suggest the legally binding pact would undermine American sovereignty and burden U.S. taxpayers with yet more financial obligations, as well as at those who noted that the WHO is an untrustworthy, corruption-prone, and Chinese communist-compromised organization.

Ghebreyesus, who leaned on concern-mongering about "Disease X" to move the needle, sought a successful vote on the globalist pact at the 77th meeting of World Health Assembly from May 27 to June 1 in Geneva, Switzerland. His hopes were dashed as the Assembly couldn't agree on the wording or passage of the pact.

Blaze News previously reported that the WHA did, however, manage to adopt a package of amendments to the International Health Regulations allegedly aimed at strengthening "global preparedness, surveillance and responses to public health emergencies, including pandemics."

Critics have expressed concern that the amendments, adopted by "consensus" contra an actual vote, might not be as advertised or even be legal under the WHO's own rules.

American biochemist Dr. Robert Malone claimed Monday that the "hastily approved IHR [amendments] consolidate virtually unchecked authority and power of the Director-General to declare public health emergencies and pandemics as he/she may choose to define them, and thereby to trigger and guide allocation of global resources as well as a wide range of public health actions and guidances."

'The WHO's failure during the COVID-19 pandemic was as total as it was predictable and did lasting harm to our country.'

The IHR make up a legally binding international instrument authorized under Article 21 of the WHO Constitution to which all 194 member states of the WHO, including the U.S., are parties. While amendments submitted to the WHA can be advanced by consensus, decision-making by vote "is a legally available option."

WHO member states agreed in January 2022 to consider potential amendments to the IHR. This decision was prompted, in part, by concerns over "the negative effects of discrimination, misinformation and stigmatization on public health emergency prevention, preparedness and response as well as unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade, and recognizing the need for strengthened coordination."

The amendments were negotiated parallel to the so-far unsuccessful pandemic pact but crafted in the same spirit.

According to Liberty Council, the proposed amendments took "major steps in the wake of COVID-19 to conform and integrate each nation's pandemic responses by directing them to develop 'core' capabilities in areas of Surveillance (vaccine passports/digital health certificates), Risk Communication (censoring misinformation and disinformation), Implementation of Control Measures (social distancing/lockdowns), Access to Health Services and Products (greater sharing of resources and technologies between countries), and more."

The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that the Biden administration was actively engaged in the negotiations despite the urging of Republican lawmakers, such as Sens. Dr. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), to spike the amendments, noting they would "substantially increase the WHO's health emergency powers and constitute intolerable infringements upon U.S. sovereignty."

Cassidy, Johnson, and the entire Senate Republican Conference told President Joe Biden in a May 1 letter, "The WHO's failure during the COVID-19 pandemic was as total as it was predictable and did lasting harm to our country. The United States cannot afford to ignore this latest WHO inability to perform its most basic function and must insist on comprehensive WHO reforms before even considering amendments to the International Health Regulations."

'We consider any such agreement to be a treaty requiring the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate under Article II Section 2 of the Constitution.'

Like Dr. Malone and the Heritage Foundation, the Republicans indicated that the adoption of new IHR amendments at the 77th WHA would be in violation of the WHO International Health Regulations, specifically Article 55, which states, "The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration."

"As the WHO has still not provided final amendment text to member states, we submit that IHR amendments may not be considered at next month's WHA," wrote the Republican lawmakers. "Should you ignore this advice, we state in the strongest possible terms that we consider any such agreement to be a treaty requiring the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate under Article II Section 2 of the Constitution."

Extra to facing potential congressional pushback, the Biden administration negotiated the amendments with the foreknowledge that the U.S. might not be bound by them depending on the results of the 2024 election. After all, President Donald Trump is expected to once again move to withdraw America from the WHO.

'The final version of the IHRs significantly enhances the WHO’s authority.'

The WHO said in a statement Saturday that the WHA and its 194 member countries "agreed [on] a package of critical amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR), and made concrete commitments to completing negotiations on a global pandemic agreement within a year, at the latest."

"The amendments to the International Health Regulations will bolster countries' ability to detect and respond to future outbreaks and pandemics by strengthening their own national capacities, and coordination between fellow States, on disease surveillance, information sharing and response," said Ghebreyesus. "This is built on commitment to equity, an understanding that health threats do not recognize national borders, and that preparedness is a collective endeavor."

Despite the insinuation of consent among member nations, the Sovereignty Coalition suggested that roughly 30% of member states were present and Ghebreyesus declined to conduct a roll-call vote.

The amendments ultimately adopted by 77th WHA include a new definition for "pandemic emergency"; another "equity"-driven international wealth redistribution mechanism; the creation of a new bureaucracy to oversee the implementation of the other half-measures; and the creation of IHR authorities for member countries to "improve coordination of implementation of the Regulations within and among countries."

While acknowledging that the language of the amendments was weakened during the negotiations, Liberty Counsel indicated that "the final version of the IHRs significantly enhances the WHO's authority."

The U.S. State Department claimed the amendments will "make the global health security architecture stronger overall while maintaining full respect for sovereignty of individual states."

The Kaiser Family Foundation indicated that if "approved at the WHA, the [IHR] revision does not require further Congressional approval or ratification in the U.S."

The British government indicated that each member state has the right to evaluate "each and every amendment before making a sovereign choice of whether to accept or opt out of each — or all of — the amendments."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Globalists suffer big upset in Geneva; WHO chief urges aggressive crackdown on 'global pandemic agreement' skeptics



WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and other globalists were met with failure at the May 27-June 1 World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland. Rather than win over critics with reassurances ahead of the next stage of his campaign to promote the failed scheme, Ghebreyesus instead doubled down, urging a crackdown on skeptics.

Road to failure

Ghebreyesus has spent several months promoting his "global pandemic agreement."

In his Feb. 12 Dubai address, entitled, "A Pact with the Future: Why the Pandemic Agreement Is Mission-Critical for Humanity," Ghebreyesus said, "We cannot allow this historic agreement, this milestone in global health, to be sabotaged by those who spread lies, either deliberately or unknowingly."

The critics whom Ghebreyesus branded liars and conspiracy theorists include those who reckon the pact would undermine national sovereignty as well as those skeptical of the WHO's competence. In the latter case, the WHO did itself no favors in recent years, particularly during the pandemic.

After all, the organization reportedly aided the Chinese communist regime in its cover up of COVID-19's origins; told the nations of the world not to restrict travelers from China or close their borders even though China had domestically; granted Beijing a veto over the WHO's COVID-19 origins report; and it endorsed vaccines that were not nearly as safe or as effective as advertised, including the blood clot-inducing Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine whose developer now faces a class-action lawsuit over injuries in the United Kingdom as well as a recent lawsuit in Utah. Prior to the pandemic, it also courted controversy with its sexual abuse scandal, wasteful spending, and corruption.

Evidently, it was not enough for the WHO director to demean opponents of his grand scheme to see it through.

'I know that there remains among you a common will to get this done.'

"Of course, we all wish that we had been able to reach a consensus on the agreement in time for this health assembly, and cross the finish line," Ghebreyesus said in his opening remarks at the 77th World Health Assembly. "I remain confident that you still will, because where there is a will, there is a way. I know that there remains among you a common will to get this done."

In the days that followed, the assembly failed to cross the finish line or even come close. As the result, Ghebreyesus has sought to transform the race into a marathon.

New deadline for a desired result

Desperate to keep the dream alive after two years of futile negotiations, the WHO had countries agree to continue negotiating the proposed globalist pact. A package of half-measures have apparently been accepted to tide over pandemic treaty supporters in the meantime.

The WHOsaid in a statement Saturday that the World Health Assembly and its 194 member countries "agreed [on] a package of critical amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR), and made concrete commitments to completing negotiations on a global pandemic agreement within a year, at the latest."

The half-measures compromise amendments to the IHR that will supposedly "strengthen global preparedness, surveillance and responses to public health emergencies, including pandemics."

These include a new definition for "pandemic emergency"; another "equity"-driven international wealth re-distribution mechanism; the creation of a new bureaucracy to oversee the implementation of the other half-measures; and the creation of IHR authorities for member countries to "improve coordination of implementation of the Regulations within and among countries."

"The amendments to the International Health Regulations will bolster countries' ability to detect and respond to future outbreaks and pandemics by strengthening their own national capacities, and coordination between fellow States, on disease surveillance, information sharing and response," said Ghebreyesus. "This is built on commitment to equity, an understanding that health threats do not recognize national borders, and that preparedness is a collective endeavor."

Clampdown on vaccine critics

After negotiators failed to produce a draft deal for approval by the WHO annual assembly, Ghebreyesus gave a speech promoting health initiatives and vaccines.

'I think they use COVID as an opportunity and, you know, all the havoc they're creating.'

Toward the end of his remarks, he noted, "You know, the serious challenge that's posed by anti-vaxxers and I think we need to strategize to really push back because vaccines work, vaccines affect adults, and we have science, evidence on our side."

"I think it's time to be more aggressive in pushing back on anti-vaxxers," continued the WHO director. "I think they use COVID as an opportunity and, you know, all the havoc they're creating. Maybe that's one of the messages I'd also like to include to whatever I have [to] say."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

WHO director is upset 'conspiracy theories' may derail his global pandemic treaty



WHO director general Tedros Ghebreyesus traveled to Dubai last week to hype "Disease X," the yet-to-be-released sequel to COVID-19 that is supposed to scare nations around the world into embracing an internationally binding pandemic treaty.

Although Ghebreyesus has fear-mongered about the hypothetical pestilence for several weeks, it appears he has finally let questions and concerns over his proposed remedies get under his skin.

In his Feb. 12 address, entitled, "A Pact with the Future: Why the Pandemic Agreement Is Mission-Critical for Humanity," Ghebreyesus lashed out at critics who have suggested his proposed "collective action" amounts to an affront to national sovereignty, suggesting that "conspiracy theories" put "the health of the world's people at risk."

Ghebreyesus painted himself as a prophet in the speech, noting that years ahead of the pandemic, he warned that the world would be ill prepared should a virus sweep the land.

"Six years ago, I stood on this stage and said the world was not prepared for a pandemic and expressed my concern at the time that a pandemic can happen any time," said Ghebreyesus. "Less than two years later, in December 2019, COVID-19 pandemic struck. And indeed the world was not prepared."

The WHO general director glossed over how the world was unprepared and in the dark largely on account of his organization and China. While Beijing covered up the spread of the virus, putting the world behind in taking action, Ghebreyesus reportedly provided smoke cover for Beijing's deceit at the outset; told the nations of the world not to restrict travelers from China or close their borders even though China had domestically; and then later granted Beijing a veto over the WHO's COVID-19 origins report.

In his address, Ghebreyesus noted that some "progress" has been made since the pandemic in the way of internationalist schemes and collective action, such as "improvements in surveillance, pandemic fund, and also the establishment of the pathogen sharing app and building capacities in vaccine production. ... Still the world is not prepared for a pandemic."

"History teaches us that the next pandemic is a matter of when, not if. It may be caused by an influenza virus or a new coronavirus," continued the bureaucrat.

Blaze News reported last month that amidst elites' talk of "Disease X," Chinese scientists crafted a coronavirus variant called GX_P@V that kills humanized mice 100% of the time, usually with late-stage brain infections. The scientists from the country on which Ghebreyesus has lavished much praise and little criticism said their mutant virus "underscores a spillover risk of FX_P2V into humans."

"Or it may be caused by a new pathogen we don't even know about yet or what we call 'Disease X,'" said Ghebreyesus, whose largely American-funded organization warned of an "infodemic" or a "an overabundance of information" in 2020.

The WHO leader suggested "Disease X" is not a novel term but indicated it has instead been used as a placeholder term since 2018 to describe pathogens that have yet to be discovered.

"COVID-19 was a Disease X," said Ghebreyesus. "There will be another Disease X or a Disease Y or a Disease Z. And as things stands, the world remains unprepared for the next Disease X."

The bureaucrat's preferred solution to this viral alphabet is the WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty: a legally binding pact "under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response."

Ghebreyesus is scrambling to get the treaty finalized ahead of a May 27 vote by the World Health Assembly. In the meantime, critics are pointing out the treaty's apparent flaws.

Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) noted at a press conference earlier this month that the so-called pandemic treaty suffers from "a slew of significant issues surrounding the proposed treaty — including lack of transparency, the back-room negotiations, WHO overreach and infringement on U.S. sovereignty, unknown financial obligations for U.S. taxpayers, threats to intellectual property rights and free speech, funding for abortion, and how the treaty will benefit China at the expense of the United States."

"Throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic, the WHO caved to the Chinese Communist Party rather than following the science," said Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus. "Now, the WHO wants to infringe upon our national sovereignty with their proposed 'pandemic treaty.'"

At the same press conference, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, suggested, "This is a global power grab using any future emergency as a justification to use that power."

Ghebreyesus claimed in Dubai that a "major barrier" to the successful implementation of his pandemic treaty is "the litany of lies and conspiracy theories about the agreement — that it's a power grab by the World Health Organization; that it will cede sovereignty to WHO; that it will give WHO power to impose lockdowns or vaccine mandates on countries; that it's an attack on freedom; that WHO will not allow people to travel; and that WHO wants to control people's lives."

"If these lies weren't so dangerous, these lies would be funny," said Ghebreyesus. "But they put the health of the world's people at risk, and that is no laughing matter."

"These claims are utterly, completely, categorically false," added the WHO head.

After suggesting that the internationalist scheme bolstered individual nations' sovereignty and would not empower the WHO to intervene in the domestic choices of various countries, Ghebreyesus underscored, "We cannot allow this historic agreement, this milestone in global health, to be sabotaged by those who spread lies, either deliberately or unknowingly."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Stellantis, which recently fired thousands of Americans and moved plant to Mexico, just recalled  354,000 Jeeps because of vehicle defects



Stellantis is recalling over 354,000 Jeeps worldwide because they run the risk of crashing due to defects.

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration revealed Tuesday that 2022 and 2023 Grand Cherokee and 2021 to 2023 Grand Cherokee L SUVs "were built with a rear coil spring that may not be correctly installed, allowing the coil spring to come out of position."

According to the recall report, an estimated 13% of 331,401 vehicles have the defect.

Detachment of the improperly installed rear coil springs "may result in a hazard to operators and occupants of other vehicles which can cause such vehicles to crash without prior warning and/or may result in injury to vulnerable road users."

Stellantis will begin formally notifying dealers and owners about the issue on July 28. The company's proposed remedy is an inspection and potential repair of the rear coil spring assembly on all recalled vehicles.

The company claimed that since April 5, 17 warranty claims, two customer assistance reports, and two field reports related to this issue have come to its attention.

USA Today reported that these same vehicles were recalled in May because an incorrectly assembled steering column intermediate shaft could disconnect from the U-joint, thereby jeopardizing drivers' steering control of the vehicle. Ultimately, 53,965 Grand Cherokee and 35,407 Grand Cherokee L SUVs were recalled.

2014-2020 Jeep Grand Cherokee models and 2014-2019 Dodge Ram 1500 trucks with 3.0l diesel engines were also recalled this week because the "crankshaft position sensor tone wheel may delaminate, causing the engine to lose its ability to synchronize the fuel injector pulses and cam shaft timing, possibly resulting in an engine stall."

Stellantis appears to have a revolving door when it comes to recalls.

For instance, 62,909 plug-in hybrid Jeep Wrangler 4xe models were recalled in December over a software issue that could result in power failure.

Stellantis recalled 280,000 Ram heavy-duty diesel trucks for fire risks in November after receiving 16 reports of fires fed by transmission leaks and learning of at least one injury, reported Reuters.

TheBlaze previously reported that Stellantis shut down its Belvidere Assembly Plant in Illinois, which produced the Jeep Cherokee, on Feb. 28, putting 1,350 Americans out of work.

The company blamed the decision on the pandemic and the global microchip shortage, but stressed that the "increasing cost related to the electrification of the automotive market" was a significant factor.

Vehicles are presently being assembled by a workforce of 2,598 souls in a factory in Toluca, Mexico.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump lambastes Florida governor as 'RINO GLOBALIST'



Former President Donald Trump blasted Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis as a "RINO GLOBALIST" in a post on Truth Social.

"The real Ron is a RINO GLOBALIST, who closed quickly down Florida and even its beaches. Loved the Vaccines and wasted big money on 'Testing.' How quickly people forget!" Trump wrote on Wednesday, using an acronym that stands for "Republican in name only."

Trump also shared posts from other Truth Social users who had criticized DeSantis.

"DeSantis has never been America first, he is faking it trying to build his conservative credentials until he is elected president. Jeb Bush, Karl roves, Paul Ryan they are hiding in the background pushing him. Governor is as far as he goes," someone declared in one of the posts that Trump shared.

DeSantis, a Republican governor who secured reelection last year, is widely viewed as a potential 2024 presidential contender, though he has not announced plans to run — if the governor does throw his hat into the ring, he would need to defeat Trump in order to secure the GOP presidential nomination — Trump announced in November that he is seeking another term in the White House.

Trump has said that DeSantis would not have become the 2018 GOP gubernatorial nominee or won election without his support — Trump said that when he hears that DeSantis may run, he views that prospect as "very disloyal."

Trump has repeatedly referred to DeSantis as "Ron DeSanctimonious."

He said that he voted for DeSantis during the 2022 governor's race.

Former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley, who served during a portion of Trump's White House tenure, is reportedly planning to announce a presidential bid later this month.

"Nikki has to follow her heart, not her honor. She should definitely run!" Trump said in a post on Wednesday. Trump's post included a 2021 clip of Haley saying that she would support Trump if he were to run in 2024 and that she would not run if he ran.

"I would not run if President Trump ran," she said when asked if a Trump presidential run would preclude her from running. During her comments in 2021, Haley went on to say that the issue is one they would discuss if that choice needed to be made, though that portion of her comment was not included in the clip Trump shared in his post.

\u201cI asked @NikkiHaley if she would support Donald Trump if he runs again in 2024.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d she told me.\n\n\u201cI would not run if President Trump ran, and I would talk to him about it,\u201d she added. \u201cThat\u2019s something that we will have a conversation about, at some point.\u201d\n\nStory upcoming\u201d
— Meg Kinnard (@Meg Kinnard) 1618253504

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Senior UN official decries meritocracy, demands inclusion of made-up term 'povertyism' in antidiscrimination laws



This week, a United Nations special rapporteur will propose to the general assembly his remedy for tackling wealth inequality.

While the West has significantly reduced absolute poverty in recent decades and the world has cut absolute poverty by over 58% since 1990, Olivier De Schutter's radical new proposal is not that we improve upon or sustain the underlying technologies, capitalist systems, or trends that made these monumental strides possible. Instead, his recommendation to the international community is that it embrace a new legal term: "povertyism."

Another -ism to save the day

In March 2020, Belgian legal scholar Olivier De Schutter was appointed the U.N. special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights by the Human Rights Council, the same council that recently voted against discussing the Uyghur genocide being committed by the Chinese communist regime. He began his three-year mandate in May 2020.

In an exclusive report, the Guardian detailed the conclusions at which De Schutter has arrived and will present them to the U.N. General Assembly on Friday. De Schutter wants "povertyism" — prejudice against the poor — to be included in antidiscrimination laws, which already include various other -isms, such as "sexism," "racism," "ageism," and "ableism."

"Povertyism" is De Schutter's preferred alternative to "aporophobia," a neologism denoting fear of the poor that was hyped in 2017 by the Spanish publication El Pais. He is convinced that "poverty will never be eradicated while povertyism is allowed to fester."

De Schutter will tell the U.N. that the "world is finally waking up to the injustices of racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination, and putting laws in place to stop them from destroying people's lives. Povertyism ... must be treated just as seriously."

While various socioeconomic strata are permeable, particularly in the West — where a poor person can become rich and a rich person can become poor — the other protected identities De Schutter wishes to group the poor with are inflexible. For instance, a woman subjected to sexism cannot become a man, and an elderly man subjected to so-called ageism cannot transform into his younger self.

The Guardian indicated that De Schutter is fully aware that poverty is not similarly a fixed class. Nevertheless, he contends that poverty is "a trap from which individuals may find it difficult to escape."

Just as there are presently penalties for sexism and racism, particularly for businesses, anti-povertyist laws, if adopted, would inevitably subject offenders to various consequences.

HR class warfare

"Humiliation and exclusion" will allegedly remain unless they are criminalized. No more will offenders be able to suggest to an indigent that, given their individual circumstances, they might benefit from adopting certain virtues and qualities, such as industriousness, diligence, self-control, and perseverance.

According to De Schutter, a landlord who refuses to rent to welfare beneficiaries would qualify as an offender, as would an educator who tailored advice to a student on the basis of their socioeconomic status.

It is unclear whether such laws would also entail censorship. For instance, the Bible states that in John 12:8, Jesus Christ said, "You will always have the poor among you." Would this passage constitute hate speech for positing a socioeconomic reality contrary to the aim of De Schutter's "pro-poor affirmative action"?

While De Schutter may answer such questions later this week, it is clear that he holds meritocracy in contempt, reckoning it to be a way for elites to "confirm their sense of superiority."

"We have many studies showing that the belief in meritocracy is highest in those more unequal societies, and the U.K. is not faring very well in this regard for the moment, nor is the U.S. in fact," he said.

De Schutter anticipates backlash from "the fringe of the politicians" who are captive to the "quasi-pathology that if you succeed in life, it is because you deserve [it]. And so if you fail, it's because somewhere you've [made] a mistake."