Featured

Home Featured
Featured posts

Marjorie Taylor Greene Says Home Was ‘Swatted’

    3
    Marjorie Taylor Greene -Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, via Wikimedia Commons

    Georgia Congresswoman and loyal Trump supporter Marjorie Taylor Greene claims her home was “swatted” around 1 am Wednesday.

    The term swatting refers to a dangerous prank where someone calls in a false threat to authorities, saying they need to get to the intended target’s home right away. Police tend to arrive with a heavily armed response or a SWAT team. The dangerous trick has led to fatalities in the past.

    “Last night, I was swatted just after 1 am. I can’t express enough gratitude to my local law enforcement here in Rome, Floyd County. More details to come,” she tweeted.

    The conservative firebrand said more details of the incident are forthcoming.

    A spokesperson for Rep. Greene told The New York Post that the Congresswoman was the victim of a “political attack” but refrained from disclosing any more information.

    “Right now, Congresswoman Greene’s safety is our number one concern,” a spokesperson for the Congresswoman told The Post. “Late last night, she was a victim of a political attack on her family and home. Whoever who committed this violent crime will face the full extent of the law.”

    Rep. Greene received an outpouring of support and calls for those who made the call to immediately be held accountable following the incident.

    This story has been updated to reflect new information as it has become available.

    One day after, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s home was swatted once again, prompting an armed response to her residence.

    The National Pulse reports:

    “After we cleared the call and went back in service, Rome-Floyd 911 received a call from the suspect, claiming responsibility for the incident and explaining his/her motives,” the report stated. “It was a computer generated voice. They explained they were upset about Ms. Greene’s stance on ‘trans-gender youth’s rights,’ and stated they were trying to ‘swat’ her.”

    The report also stated caller said they are connected to a website, which police stated supports cyberstalking, and gave the police their user name on the site.

    “Right now, Congresswoman Greene’s safety is our number one concern,” Greene’s spokesperson Nick Dyer said Wednesday. “Late last night, she was a victim of a political attack on her family and home. Whoever committed this violent crime will face the full extent of the law.”

    Amanda Head: This is How You Buy an Election

      1

      President Joe Biden knows he doesn’t have the charisma, intellect, or command to win over the American people so he’s resorted to trying to buy us off.

      See exactly what Amanda means below.

      Senate Democrats Introduce Bill to Block Trump From Putting Face on Dollar Coin

      2
      President Donald Trump signs Executive Orders, Thursday, April 17, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

      Democratic Senators Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.) introduced legislation Tuesday aimed at preventing President Trump—or any sitting or living former president—from appearing on U.S. currency. Their proposal, titled the Change Corruption Act, comes as the U.S. Treasury considers issuing a commemorative $1 coin featuring Trump’s image in recognition of America’s 250th anniversary.

      The bill, cosponsored by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), states plainly: “No United States currency may feature the likeness of a living or sitting President.” The lawmakers argue that the measure reflects historical practice, noting that U.S. currency has traditionally featured only deceased presidents and statesmen.

      A Preemptive Strike on a Potential Semiquincentennial Honor

      The U.S. Mint is reportedly close to announcing whether it will release a limited-run Trump coin as part of the nation’s celebration of the 250th birthday of the United States in 2026. Commemorative coins—distinct from circulating coins—are historically used to honor major anniversaries, public achievements, and historic figures. Past presidents, including Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, have been featured posthumously on such special-issue coins.

      A draft image circulating within the Treasury Department shows Trump’s profile above the word “Liberty,” a standard placement for American coinage.

      Democrats Frame the Coin as a Threat to Democratic Norms

      In unusually heated language for a discussion about commemorative currency, Merkley compared Trump’s potential appearance on a coin to the behavior of authoritarian regimes:

      “President Trump’s self-celebrating maneuvers are authoritarian actions worthy of dictators like North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, not the United States of America,” Merkley said in a statement.

      He argued Congress must take action to limit the executive branch’s influence over commemorative designs:

      “We must reject his efforts to dismantle our ‘We, The People’ republic and replace it with a strongman state by demanding strong accountability to prevent further abuse of taxpayer dollars.”

      Cortez Masto echoed Merkley’s claims, asserting that any depiction of a living president on U.S. coinage would resemble an outdated monarchical tradition:

      “While monarchs put their faces on coins, America has never had and never will have a king.”

      She added:

      “Our legislation would codify this country’s long-standing tradition of not putting living presidents on American coins. Congress must pass it without delay.”

      Democrats Attempt To Label Trump’s Venezuela Operation ‘Impeachable Offense’

      5

      Democrats and Republicans have split sharply over President Donald Trump’s decision to carry out strikes in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, with a growing number of Democratic lawmakers calling the operation unconstitutional and some openly urging impeachment.

      Progressive Democrats have led the backlash, accusing the administration of launching an illegal military action without congressional authorization. Several lawmakers argue that the operation amounts to an invasion of a sovereign nation and violates both the Constitution and the War Powers Act.

      “Many Americans woke up to a sick sense of déjà vu,” Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) a member of the House’s progressive “Squad,” wrote on X over the weekend. “Under the guise of liberty, an administration of warmongers has lied to justify an invasion and is dragging us into an illegal, endless war so they can extract resources and expand their wealth.”

      Ramirez called for Congress to pass a War Powers Resolution introduced by Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., aimed at blocking further military action against Venezuela, and said Trump “must be impeached.”

      Omar’s resolution seeks to reassert Congress’ constitutional authority over war-making and would require the administration to halt hostilities unless lawmakers explicitly approve them.

      Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) echoed those concerns, criticizing Trump for bypassing Congress to launch what he described as a war with Venezuela. Goldman said the administration failed to provide lawmakers with “any satisfactory explanation” for the strikes.

      “This violation of the United States Constitution is an impeachable offense,” Goldman said in a statement. “I urge my Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives to finally join Democrats in reasserting congressional authority by holding this president accountable.”

      Other Democrats struck a more cautious tone. Rep. April McClain Delaney (D-Md.) stopped short of naming Trump but wrote on X that “invading and running another country without a congressional declaration of war is an impeachable offense,” while also questioning whether impeachment is the most effective strategy. “Whether it makes sense to pursue impeachment as the best strategy to end this lawlessness is a tactical judgment that our Caucus needs to seriously deliberate,” she wrote.

      In California, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) a gubernatorial hopeful, said he would not rule out supporting impeachment when asked by reporters, according to the Pleasanton Weekly.

      Progressive candidates running for office also weighed in. Kat Abughazaleh, a Democrat seeking an open House seat in Illinois, called Trump a “war criminal” in a post on Bluesky and demanded Congress “halt this conflict and impeach” the president.

      Still, Democrats are not unified in their opposition. A number of more centrist lawmakers have either defended the administration’s actions or argued that the removal of Maduro serves U.S. national security interests. Some Democrats have described the operation as a targeted effort to remove a destabilizing authoritarian leader rather than the start of a broader war, while others have said the administration should now work with Congress to define limits and next steps.

      Republicans, for their part, have largely rallied behind Trump. GOP leaders characterized the operation as a decisive blow against a longtime adversary of the United States and a win for regional stability.

      Senior Republicans have also pushed back on claims that the administration violated the Constitution, arguing that the action was a limited law enforcement or counterterrorism operation rather than a traditional military engagement requiring prior congressional approval.

      While impeachment calls are growing among progressives, Democratic leadership has so far stopped short of endorsing that approach

      Biden DOJ Wants Even Harsher Sentences for Key Jan. 6 Rioters

      3
      Elvert Barnes, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

      ANALYSIS – First, let’s be clear. I was at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, as a security contractor for a foreign TV news crew. I witnessed the chaos firsthand and was not happy about it. 

      I strongly condemned those who violently rioted there in an article the very next day.

      In my piece, I even said they should go to jail, just like any other violent rioters.

      And they should. But Joe Biden’s DoJ isn’t content with ‘hard time’ for some of these rioters. They want a much longer time.

      To also be clear, at the Capitol that day I saw tens of thousands of peaceful protesters before the riot. And saw many ‘rioters’ who weren’t violent.

      Meanwhile, I have written about how many peaceful Jan. 6 protesters have been persecuted unfairly, and how harshly many violent rioters have been treated compared to equally violent Black Lives Matter (BLM) rioters.

      Some of it is due to the Biden Department of Justice (DoJ) being hyper-political and overzealous, and part of it is the fact that these folks are getting tried and sentenced in the ‘People’s Republic of DC.’

      When I first read of the case of Stewart Rhodes, head of the Oath Keepers, I thought he was one of the few who should get serious jail time. He and his gang were part of an organized, violent cadre that went to the Capitol to create violent chaos.

      This is why they were charged and convicted of ‘seditious conspiracy’ – the only ones to be found guilty of that serious charge.

      But when I heard he had gotten 18 years, I was floored. Child molesters get less time. Repeat violent offenders get less time. Even convicted spies sometimes get less time.

      Eighteen years is a lot of time.

      Even so, federal prosecutors are not satisfied with the severity of the jail terms delivered by the federal judge overseeing the case.

      In the case of Rhodes, they wanted 25 years.

      U.S. District Court Judge, and Barack Obama appointee, Amit Mehta sentenced Rhodes, and his colleagues, harshly due what he characterized as a dangerous criminal conspiracy aimed at violently derailing the transfer of presidential power.

      But even if you believe these knuckleheads were intent on blocking the certification of the Electoral College vote, their chances of ‘derailing the transfer of presidential power’ two weeks later, on Jan 20, were little to none.

      This is why Mehta’s sentences, while harsh, were still less than the prison terms prosecutors recommended and years below an agreed-upon “guidelines range” based upon their charges.

      Of the others convicted of seditious conspiracy, Florida Oath Keeper leader Kelly Meggs received a 12-year term instead of the 21 DOJ wanted. Roberto Minuta of New York was sentenced to 4.5 years instead of 17. Joseph Hackett of Florida got a 3.5-year sentence; DOJ sought 12 years. 

      Ed Vallejo of Arizona was sentenced to 3-years, while DOJ wanted 17. And David Moerschel of Florida was sentenced to three years instead of the 10 DoJ wanted.

      All of these are significant sentences in federal prison. A few might be deserved, but Biden’s DoJ isn’t happy with that. They want these folks to suffer even more. 

      If only DoJ was that zealous with other political crimes, and criminals, Hunter Biden might actually be in jail.

      Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

      Trump Files $5B Defamation Lawsuit Against BBC

      2
      Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

      President Donald Trump has filed a $5 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC over its deceptive editing of a speech delivered by Trump on Jan. 6, 2021.

      The lawsuit was filed in a federal court in Miami. In the 46-page filing, Trump’s team argues the edit gave the “mistaken impression” he called for violence on that day.

      “This instance of doctoring–in the form of distortion of meaning and splicing of entirely unrelated word sequences–is part of the BBC’s longstanding pattern of manipulating President Trump’s speeches and presenting content in a misleading manner in order to defame him, including fabricating calls for violence that he never made,” the lawsuit states.

      “The BBC, faced with overwhelming and justifiable outrage on both sides of the Atlantic, has publicly admitted its staggering breach of journalistic ethics, and apologized, but has made no showing of actual remorse for its wrongdoing nor meaningful institutional changes to prevent future journalistic abuses,” it continues.

      The footage used in the broadcaster’s Panorama documentary spliced together two separate clips, creating the impression Trump told supporters: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”

      The two clips are separated by 55 minutes in Trump’s original speech, and the documentary also left out Trump’s explicit calls for supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically.”

      Speaking in Washington DC, the president accused the broadcaster of “putting terrible words in my mouth that I didn’t say” and claimed the BBC “may have used AI” in its investigative Panorama show. He later added: “They actually have me speaking with words that I never said, and they got caught… Let’s call [it] fake news.”

      In a statement to The New York Times, Trump’s legal team said: “The formerly respected and now disgraced BBC defamed President Trump by intentionally, maliciously and deceptively doctoring his speech in a brazen attempt to interfere in the 2024 presidential election.”

      The fallout has already triggered resignations at the top of the BBC, including director general Tim Davie and BBC News CEO Deborah Turness.

      The BBC later issued an apology to Trump for his portrayal in the documentary:

      “[W]e accept that our edit unintentionally created the impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech, and that this gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action,” the statement said.

      “The BBC would like to apologize to President Trump for that error of judgement. This programme was not scheduled to be re-broadcast and will not be broadcast again in this form on any BBC platforms,” it added.

      Trump’s latest lawsuit follows a string of high-profile legal battles against U.S.-based media outlets, including The New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

      Appeals Court Panel Upholds Nearly $1M Sanctions Against Trump

        1

        A federal appeals court has upheld almost $1 million in financial penalties imposed on President Trump and his attorney Alina Habba for filing what a lower court labeled “frivolous” lawsuits connected to the long-running Russia-collusion controversy—an episode many conservatives continue to view as a politically motivated attempt to damage Trump’s presidency.

        The case centers on Trump’s 2022 lawsuit alleging that Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), former FBI Director James Comey, and more than two dozen other political and government figures conspired to falsely tie his 2016 presidential campaign to Russia. Trump argued that this network of Democratic operatives and intelligence officials sought to “discredit, delegitimize and defame” him through misleading documents and coordinated political attacks—what he has consistently referred to as the “Russia, Russia, Russia” hoax.

        Appeals Court Agrees With Lower Court’s Penalties

        On Wednesday, Chief Judge William Pryor Jr. of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals—appointed by President George W. Bush—affirmed the lower court’s decision, concluding that Trump and Habba engaged in “sanctionable conduct.”

        Pryor wrote that the pair “give us no reason to reverse the district court’s ruling that these claims were frivolous,” a position supported by the full appellate panel, including Circuit Judges Andrew Brasher (a Trump appointee) and Embry Kidd (appointed by President Biden).

        Their decision leaves in place the original sanctions imposed by District Judge Donald Middlebrooks, an appointee of former President Clinton, who ruled in January 2023 that the lawsuit “should never have been brought.” Middlebrooks ordered Trump and Habba to pay nearly $1 million in legal fees to the defendants—many of whom were high-profile Democratic figures or Trump rivals.

        Trump Legal Team Vows to Keep Fighting

        In response to Wednesday’s ruling, a spokesperson for the president’s legal team told The Hill that Trump “continues to fight back against all Democrat-led Witch Hunts, including the ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ hoax and un-Constitutional and un-American weaponization of our justice system” by the Biden administration.

        The spokesperson added that the president would “continue to pursue this matter to its just and rightful conclusion,” signaling that his team may take further legal steps, potentially including an appeal to the Supreme Court.

        Harris Campaign Accused Of Using Hacked Trump Campaign Info

        0

        On Wednesday, the FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies disclosed alarming developments regarding Iran’s alleged interference in the 2024 presidential election. The joint statement, released by the FBI, Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), confirmed that Iranian cyber actors attempted to share stolen information from the Trump campaign with the Biden-Harris campaign.

        The report indicated that Iranian hackers sent unsolicited emails containing nonpublic Trump campaign data to individuals connected to the Biden-Harris campaign in late June and early July. While the agencies found no evidence that the recipients responded to the emails, the incident has sparked concerns about foreign interference in the U.S. election.

        The Biden-Harris campaign condemned the Iranian cyber activity, emphasizing its cooperation with law enforcement since being informed of the phishing attempts. Campaign spokesperson Morgan Finkelstein stated that the emails targeted the personal accounts of staff members rather than official campaign addresses, adding, “We condemn in the strongest terms any effort by foreign actors to interfere in U.S. elections.”

        Meanwhile, the Trump campaign accused Iran of trying to help the Harris-Biden ticket and demanded clarity on whether the stolen material had been used. Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt questioned, “What did they know, and when did they know it?”

        Karoline Leavitt speaking with attendees at the 2022 Student Action Summit at the Tampa Convention Center in Tampa, Florida. [Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore ]

        The matter has now drawn attention on Capitol Hill, with House Intelligence Committee members weighing in. Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) noted that there was no evidence the Biden campaign responded to the unsolicited emails, while praising Harris and Biden for recognizing that foreign election interference is unacceptable.

        Iran, for its part, has denied any involvement. The Iranian Mission to the United Nations issued a statement rejecting the accusations, calling for the U.S. to provide substantiated evidence.

        This revelation follows reports last month of internal communications from the Trump campaign being hacked, including emails that were allegedly leaked to Politico. The leaked documents included a 271-page dossier on Trump’s running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance, detailing potential vulnerabilities in his political record.

        The developments have intensified concerns regarding foreign influence and interference in the 2024 election, as well as the need for investigations and safeguards to ensure the integrity of the electoral process.

        READ NEXT: Top Union’s Shocking Decision After Kamala’s Move Sparks Major Controversy

        Pennsylvania Man Charged For Allegedly Threatening To Kill Trump

        2
        President Donald Trump participates in a welcome ceremony with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman Al Saud at the Royal Court Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Tuesday, May 13, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

        A 22-year-old Pennsylvania man is facing federal charges after allegedly making violent threats against President-elect Donald Trump just days before he was set to take office.

        According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Jacob Buckley of Port Matilda posted several alarming threats on TikTok under the username “Jacob_buckley” on January 16. His posts included, “I’m going to kill Trump” and other comments targeting MAGA supporters.

        He also wrote on the TikTok account, “I’m going to kill Trump,” and, “Bro we going into a literal oligarchy in 4 days and im going to kill Trump,” according to prosecutors. 

        Federal prosecutors confirmed that Buckley was charged by criminal information for threatening Trump as the incoming President. The investigation was led by the U.S. Secret Service.

        “The maximum penalty upon conviction on the Information is 5 years’ imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, a fine, and the imposition of a special assessment,” the office added. 

        If convicted, Buckley could face up to five years in prison, along with fines and supervised release.

        This case comes just weeks after another man—37-year-old Carl Montague of Rhode Island—was charged for allegedly threatening to kill Trump and members of his incoming administration on Truth Social. Montague’s posts included violent threats aimed at Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.

        Trump Walks Out Of Court During Closing Arguments

          3
          Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

          Trump is out!

          Donald Trump walked out of the Manhattan courtroom just after a lawyer for writer E. Jean Carroll had begun issuing closing remarks Friday.

          Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan is overseeing the ongoing sexual abuse defamation trial against the former President. Carroll is suing the former President for defamation over his 2019 denials that he sexually abused her decades earlier. The former Elle columnist secured a verdict last year finding Trump liable for sexual abuse and awarding her $5 million.

          Now, she’s seeking some $10 million in damages for Trump’s denials.

          According to The Hill, it’s unclear why Trump left the courtroom, though it occurred shortly after Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan said the former president “has tried to normalize conduct that is abnormal.”

          After Trump left, Judge Lewis Kaplan directed the defense — and, by name, adviser Boris Epshteyn — to remain seated, CNN and ABC News reported.

          “The record will reflect that Mr. Trump just rose and walked out of the courtroom,” said Kaplan, who is not related to Carroll’s lawyer.

          Earlier Friday morning, Kaplan called out Trump’s attorney Alina Habba for continuing to talk when he told her she was finished.

          “You are on the verge of spending some time in the lockup. Now sit down,” the judge told Habba.