(WND)—GOP presidential nominee President Donald Trump is seeking the White House in the November election and has made clear his intention is to win the race.
But his opponent now apparently is Kamala Harris, instead of incumbent Joe Biden, who had promised for years that he would seek another term. And he had been doing that actively until he wasn’t.
His poor performance in a debate with Trump, along with his multiple public displays of cognitive decline, preceded his abrupt announcement that he was dropping out.
But how it happened makes the Democrats look bad, Trump said.
According to a report by the Daily Signal, he said, “I’m no Biden fan, but I’ll tell you what, from a constitutional standpoint, from any standpoint, they took the presidency away.”
He charged that powerful Democrats literally decided to throw Biden out, and he was pushed out of the race.
“People were saying he lost the debate. I don’t know that that is true necessarily. But whether he could win or he couldn’t win, he had the right to run. And they took it away. They said they were going to use the 25th Amendment. They were going to hit him hard. Either we can do it the nice way or do it the hard way. And he said alright. What they’ve done is pretty incredible.”
Actually, Biden already had accumulated commitments from enough delegates to the party convention coming up in a few days that he would have won the nomination.
The report explained, “Biden has said he left the race voluntarily to pass the torch to Harris. However, a recent story by Pulitzer-winning journalist Seymour Hersh said that leading Democrats threatened to forcefully remove Biden through the 25th Amendment if he did not drop out.”
Further, Trump said no matter the winner, he expects a peaceful transfer of power following the November election.
The report noted that was an apparent reference to the Capitol riot in 2021, when protesters entered the Capitol to protest the certification of Joe Biden’s election and some got out of hand, vandalizing and more.
“Of course there will be a peaceful transfer, and there was last time, and there will be a peaceful transfer. I just hope we’re gonna have honest elections. That’s all,” he said.
Biden, however, was not in agreement on that issue.
Does Biden even know what he just said? When asked if he thinks there will be a peaceful transfer of power in January whether Trump wins or loses:
“If Trump wins, no, I'm not confident at all. I mean…if Trump loses I’m not confident at all.” pic.twitter.com/L5YA1UbnZQ
— WorldNetDaily (@worldnetdaily) August 7, 2024
In an interview to be released this coming weekend, with CBS’ Robert Costa, he was asked, “Are you confident that there will be a peaceful transfer of power in January 2025?”
Biden said, “If Trump wins, no, I’m not confident at all.”
Then he changed his mind, and added, “I mean if Trump loses, I’m not confident at all. He means what he says. We don’t take him seriously. He means it, all the stuff about, ‘If we lose, there’ll be a bloodbath, it’ll have to be a stolen election.’
“Look what they’re trying to do now in the local election districts where people count the votes, or putting people in place in states that they’re going to count the votes, right?”
Biden’s response actually didn’t make much sense either time, as under the first scenario he would be accusing Democrats of failing to let there be a peaceful transfer. Under the second scenario, if Trump loses and Democrats win, would there then be a violent transfer from the Biden-Harris camp to the Harris-Walz camp?
WND reported earlier that Biden supporter U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., promised there would be “civil war” conditions if Trump wins, as he would try to have the GOP nominee declared ineligible to hold office.
He gave the impression he was planning an “insurrection.”
That would be his plans to have Congress deny Trump the presidency should he win in November.
BREAKING NOW: Jamie Raskin claims Congress will STOP TRUMP on J6, 2025 and create “civil war conditions.”
Will use the 14th Amendment..
PAYING ATTENTION NOW.. pic.twitter.com/83KvVxYGkV
— Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) August 5, 2024
He explained his agenda:
What can be put into the Constitution can slip away from you very quickly and the greatest example going on right now before our eye is Section 3 of the 14th amendment which they’re just disappearing with the magic wand as if it doesn’t exist even though it could not be clearer what it’s stating.
And so they want to kick it to Congress.
So it’s going to be up to us on January 6, 2025, to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he’s disqualified and then we need bodyguards for everybody and civil war conditions, all because denying justice is not all of them, but these justices who have not many cases to look at each year, not that much work to do, a huge staff, great protection, simply do not want to do their job.
His argument stems from his own interpretation of that section, which states “no person can hold certain offices under the United States or any state if they have previously taken an oath to support the Constitution but have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against it, or provided aid or comfort to its enemies.”
He has claimed repeatedly that Trump, because others rioted on Jan. 6, 2021, is ineligible for office.
Of course, Trump never has been charged with insurrection, much less convicted. Congress tried twice to impeach and remove him, including once after he already was out of office. And Congress failed both times.
Nonetheless, Raskin has adopted his own interpretation of that provision and insists on its application, to his satisfaction. Raskin is not the only member of Congress who apparently believes that it is within their power to determine a president guilty of a constitutional violation, as Pelosi’s partisan January 6 committee largely spent all of its time and millions of tax dollars trying to assemble a storyline that portrayed Trump as guilty of something on that day when a protest turned into a riot.
Online commenters showed that Raskin’s arguments were not being considered seriously.
“Raskin has a few missing screws!” said one. Another added, “I also know Raskin is a complete moron that nobody takes seriously as he talks out of his *** more than he talks out of his mouth.”
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!
Two Storms, One Harvest
Every food crisis in living memory has been a one-shock event. The 2008 price spike was a commodity bubble. The 2020 shortages were a logistics failure. The 2022 grain scare was a war on one exporter’s ports. Each time, the system bent, adjusted, and recovered, and each time the experts assured us afterward that global markets are simply too big and too diversified to fail.
What nobody in Washington seems eager to discuss is that 2026 is shaping up to be something the modern food system has never actually faced. Two independent shocks, one climatic and one geopolitical, are converging on the same harvest cycle at the same time. Not sequentially. Simultaneously.
Start with the weather. The Pacific Ocean is currently building toward what forecasters now openly call a record event. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center puts the odds of at least a strong El Niño near 88 percent, with roughly two in three odds it reaches “very strong” status, the tier reserved for perhaps three or four events in the entire satellite era. Every major global model now projects a median peak in Super El Niño territory, and most of them project it exceeding the 2015-16 event, which until now held the modern record. Sea surface anomalies were already brushing the super threshold in mid-July, months before these events normally peak. The atmosphere has already shifted into El Niño mode, and the event is forecast to crest in late fall and early winter.
This is not about “climate change.” It’s about the standard cycles of weather, and the cycle we’re currently in is one that has likely devastated societies in the past. We’re better prepared as a society today, but not all Americans are equally prepared.
Serious households have started doing the quiet math on their own. Grocery bills tell part of the story, and the forecast maps tell the rest, which is why long-term food storage has moved from fringe hobby to mainstream line item in the family budget, with established suppliers like Heaven’s Harvest seeing demand from people who five years ago would have rolled their eyes at the idea. That instinct is not paranoia. It is pattern recognition, and the pattern is worth walking through carefully.
Editor’s Note: Heaven’s Harvest IS a sponsor, but the warnings of this article are real and would be written even if we didn’t have a survival food sponsor. With that said, those who take advantage of what they offer can use promo code “Patriot” for 15% off.
The Fertilizer Clock Is Already Running
While the Pacific warms, the second shock has been unfolding in the Strait of Hormuz. The conflict with Iran turned the world’s most important energy chokepoint into a contested waterway, and the consequences reach far beyond the gas pump. Roughly a third of global fertilizer trade moves through Hormuz, and the disruption sent urea prices up 86 percent year over year by March, with a 53 percent jump in a single month.
The World Bank projects energy prices rising about 24 percent in 2026 and fertilizer about 31 percent. By its own accounting, fertilizer prices ran 35 percent higher in the first five months of this year than the same period last year.
Here is the mechanism the nightly news will not explain. Fertilizer is not a grocery item. It is a time-delayed input. The nitrogen a farmer in Iowa or Punjab could not afford to apply this spring does not show up as a problem this spring. It shows up as a thinner harvest six to twelve months later.
The World Bank’s own food security brief concedes that the effects of reduced applications earlier this season “are likely to become visible only later in harvest outcomes.” Translate that from institutional language into plain English and it means this. The damage is already done, it is already in the ground, and we are simply waiting for it to arrive on the shelf.
Now check the calendar. Six to twelve months from the spring planting season lands us squarely in late 2026 and early 2027. Which is precisely when the strongest El Niño in the instrumental record is forecast to peak, bringing its signature droughts to Southeast Asia, Australia, southern Africa, northern Brazil, and South Asia, the very regions that grow the world’s rice, sugar, and oilseeds.
The World Bank warns openly that a strong El Niño “could disrupt multiple crop belts simultaneously” on top of the conflict-driven input costs. Their baseline projection assumes the Middle East disruptions ease by autumn. What in the last two years of Middle East history suggests that assumption is safe?
The System Has No Slack Left
The comfortable answer is that global markets always adjust. But adjustment requires slack, and the slack is gone. Global cereal production is expected to decline from last year’s records even before El Niño does its work. The UN World Food Programme, hardly a den of right-wing preppers, is calling this the most significant disruption to its supply chains since Covid and the invasion of Ukraine, and its supply chain director put the stakes bluntly.
Today’s supply chain challenges are tomorrow’s hunger crisis.
There is also a political dimension that markets cannot price. When food gets scarce, governments do not behave like economists. They behave like politicians. Export bans, hoarding mandates, and panic buying at the national level turned the modest rice shortfall of 2008 into a global crisis, and analysts are already warning that import-dependent nations are the first dominoes.
The 2015-16 Super El Niño, a far weaker event than what is now forecast, threw tens of millions into food stress across Africa and Asia. This one is projected to be stronger, and it arrives with fertilizer already rationed by price and shipping lanes already contested by missiles.
What Joseph Knew
Scripture does not treat preparation for lean years as faithlessness. It treats it as wisdom delivered in advance to those willing to act on it.
Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt: And there shall arise after them seven years of famine; and all the plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt.
Joseph did not respond to that warning with a hashtag or a committee. He stored grain during the years of abundance, and when the famine came, Egypt stood while its neighbors begged. The lesson is not that famine is certain. It is that the time to prepare is precisely when preparation still looks optional.
Nobody who filled a pantry in a year of plenty has ever regretted it, and nobody standing in an empty aisle has ever been glad he waited for certainty.
None of this calls for panic, and panic is the enemy of sound judgment anyway. It calls for the same unglamorous prudence our grandparents considered ordinary. Keep some cash margin, know your local growers, and put real food in deep storage while it is cheap and available, because the entire arc of this story is that cheap and available is a closing window.
Families looking for a straightforward place to start can visit Heaven’s Harvest and use promo code Patriot for 15 percent off long-term storable food. The forecasts may yet soften, the strait may yet reopen, and we should pray they do. But hope is a fine thing to hold and a foolish thing to eat.
