Random

    Opinion

    Home Opinion

    It’s Happening? New Plan In Senate To Eliminate Department Of Education

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    7
    Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    President Donald Trump may now have a chance to deliver on a key campaign promise – eliminating the United States Department of Education.

    U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) has introduced the “Returning Education to Our States Act” which Rounds says “would eliminate the U.S. Department of Education and redistribute all critical federal programs under other departments.”

    “The federal Department of Education has never educated a single student, and it’s long past time to end this bureaucratic Department that causes more harm than good,” said Rounds in a statement announcing the legislation. 

    “The Department was created in 1979 with the goal of collecting data and advising schools across the U.S. on best practices. In the 45 years since then, it has grown into an oversized bureaucracy with a budget that’s 449% larger than it was at its founding,” Rounds noted.

    “Despite the Department spending $16,000 per student per year, standardized test scores have been dropping over the past ten years, further displaying the Department’s ineffectiveness on the quality of education for American students. Any grants or funding from the Department are only given to states and educational institutions in exchange for adopting the one-size-fits-all standards put forth by the Department,” Rounds continued.

    “We all know local control is best when it comes to education. Everyone raised in South Dakota can think of a teacher who played a big part in their educational journey. Local school boards and state Departments of Education know best what their students need, not unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.,” said Rounds.

    “For years, I’ve worked toward removing the federal Department of Education. I’m pleased that President-elect Trump shares this vision, and I’m excited to work with him and Republican majorities in the Senate and House to make this a reality. This legislation is a roadmap to eliminating the federal Department of Education by practically rehoming these federal programs in the departments where they belong, which will be critical as we move into next year,” Rounds concluded.

    Rounds notes that “despite its inefficiencies, there are several important programs housed within the Department. Rounds’ legislation would redirect these to Departments of Interior, Treasury, Health and Human Services, Labor and State:”

    Department of the Interior

    • Native American-Serving Institutions Programs
    • Alaska Native Education Equity Program
    • American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program
    • Indian Education Formula Grants and National Activities
    • Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program
    • Native Hawaiian Education
    • Special Programs for Indian Children
    • Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Education Program
    • Impact Aid Programs

    Department of the Treasury

    • William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program
    • Federal Family Education Loan Program
    • Federal Perkins Loan Program
    • Federal Pell Grant Program
    • Health Education Assistance Loan Program
    • Education Sciences Reform Act

    Department of Health and Human Services

    • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
    • American Printing House for the Blind
    • Helen Keller Center for Deaf/Blind Youth and Adults
    • Federal Real Property Assistance Program
    • Special Education Grants

    Department of Labor

    • All Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education programs
    • National Technical Institute for the Deaf
    • Randolph Sheppard Vending Facility Program
    • Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants

    Department of State

    • Fulbright-Hays Program

    Is ‘The Fix In’ Again? What’s Up With Hunter Biden’s Legal Case?

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    5
    President Joe Biden hugs his family during the 59th Presidential Inauguration ceremony in Washington, Jan. 20, 2021. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took the oath of office on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol. (DOD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II)

    ANALYSIS – Federal prosecutors are seeking a grand jury indictment of Joe Biden’s son, Hunter. And while the investigation is a fresh setback to his father’s 2024 re-election bid, some believe ‘the fix could still be in.’

    It is unclear what charges the U.S. Attorney for Delaware David Weiss plans to file against Hunter. 

    But, according to court papers, the newly named ‘special counsel’ said he expects an indictment before September 29, which is just before the statute of limitations runs out on Hunter’s felony gun charge.

    Of course, the time has almost run out because Weiss took years to complete the hyper simple investigation — and is still stalling.

    And Weiss didn’t have to announce the grand jury indictment is coming. He could have just done it instead.

    The court filing is related to a felony gun charge alleging that Hunter Biden illegally possessed a firearm in October 2018 while he was a drug user. He is also under federal investigation for his business dealings and failing to pay taxes on tens of millions of dollars earned mostly from shady foreign sources in 2017 and 2018.

    In June, Hunter Biden agreed to a sweetheart plea deal where he would plead guilty to misdemeanor tax offences, and separately get a ‘diversion’ program for the gun charge. The plea agreement fell apart after U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika, appointed by President Donald Trump, correctly questioned it during a court appearance in July.

    It turned out Hunter Biden believed the deal would give him blanket immunity from any future prosecution. Federal prosecutors were forced to admit that wasn’t really the case. 

    Weiss didn’t have the authority to give global blanket immunity then. But as ‘special counsel’ appointed by Joe Biden, Weiss does now.

    Due to foot dragging and failures to cooperate by the FBI and other federal agencies, congressional Republicans are considering launching an impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden, alleging that he had played a role in his son’s shady foreign business affairs and influence peddling scheme.

    The inquiry would give the Congress full authority to force the reluctant, partisan bureaucrats to pony up all records requested.

    In July, the House of Representatives oversight committee said bank records showed Joe Biden’s family and associates received $20 million from oligarchs in Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine during his vice presidency from 2009-2017.

    “If you look at all the information we have been able to gather so far, it is a natural step forward that you would have to go to an impeachment inquiry,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy recently said on Fox News.

    That’s why the actions of Weiss are concerning. Many legal experts, and Republican opponents, see Weiss using the gun charge as leverage to get Hunter to renegotiate another, similarly weak, plea deal.

    As the New York Post reported:

    David Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor, told The Post that an indictment on that gun charge is “not that significant” and could be merely “a placeholder” — meaning Weiss could still potentially bring a case against Biden related to any potential illegal foreign dealings or felony tax charges.

    “It’s holding in place the ability to use his leverage — a felony gun charge — in negotiations with Hunter Biden to resolve his global criminal exposure,” Weinstein said.

    Cornell Law Professor Robert Hockett told The Post he agreed that an indictment on the gun charge could be used to bring about a larger settlement to shut all this down.

    Weinstein added that he doesn’t believe Weiss “is going to end up playing hardball” in potential negotiations with Hunter’s legal team.

    But Hockett said that Weiss would be cautious to avoid the appearance of going easy on the president’s son, especially given the barrage of criticism Weiss received on the prior plea deal.

    Still, the GOP-led Congress should move ahead forcefully on an impeachment inquiry. It may be the only way to finally get to the truth about the Bidens’ shady deals.

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

    Amanda Head: My Thoughts on the Speaker Votes

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    1

    It’s been a long week in the House of Representatives. A tumultuous battle for House Speaker has put Congress on hold indefinitely.

    Watch Amanda break down the ongoing situation below:

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

    Black Mom Charged With Same Crime As Hunter Biden Cites His Case In Asking For Leniency

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    0
    President Joe Biden hugs his family during the 59th Presidential Inauguration ceremony in Washington, Jan. 20, 2021. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took the oath of office on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol. (DOD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II)

    A Virginia mother charged with lying about her drug use when purchasing a handgun, which her six-year-old son took to school and used to wound a teacher, is asking a federal court for leniency – citing the light sentence given to President Joe Biden’s adult son Hunter for the same crime.

    “Deja Taylor, 25…has pleaded guilty to lying about her marijuana use when she applied for a gun purchase. Her 6-year-old son used the 9 mm semi-automatic pistol on Jan. 6 to shoot his elementary school teacher in Newport News, Virginia, in a case that has received massive media coverage,” The Washington Times reports.

    Taylor faces as much as two years in federal prison for not reporting her drug use on her gun purchase application, but her sentencing will come weeks after Biden, the wealthy white son of the President, got a sweetheart plea deal to his offense of not reporting his drug use.

    While Taylor’s marijuana use is legal under Virginia law, Biden’s crack cocaine was illegal under both Delaware and federal law.

    Biden received no jail time for his offense, and will likely have his guilty plea erased from his criminal record after participating in a pretrial diversion program.

    Taylor may not be as lucky.

    “In our sentencing memo, we will surely raise the inconsistency in the government’s approach to a vulnerable and scared very young mother, who does not have a privileged background and connections,” defense attorney Eugene Rossi told The Washington Times.

    “Why does the prodigal son of a president get diversion on the same gun charge — along with the sweetheart deal on the tax crimes?” Rossi told the Times. “The disparity is a bit hard to comprehend — let alone swallow.”

    While Taylor’s gun was left unsecured, and used in a school shooting, observers note Biden’s handgun was left discarded in a public trash can near a Delaware school.

    Others are noticing the double standard, too.

    “Biden’s DOJ is giving Hunter a sweetheart deal for lying on a firearm background check,” tweeted U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN.) “Meanwhile, the same DOJ is sending Deja Taylor to prison for 18-24 months for the exact same offense.”

    “What happened to equal justice under the law?,” Blackburn asked

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

    GOP Bill Says Only US Flags Will Fly Over Our Embassies Abroad – But What About Fed Buildings at Home?

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    2

    ANALYSIS – As a former Marine Corps officer and military attaché who served at several embassies overseas in the 1990s, it has infuriated me to see partisans and ideologues impose their radical agendas on our foreign embassies during Joe Biden’s tenure at the White House.

    Flying extremely divisive, and to many host countries, offensive, flags representing controversial sexual agendas (LGBTQ+), which includes the extreme ‘trans’ movement, and private groups which espouse hate toward one race and law enforcement (Black Lives Matter – BLM), has been an egregious abuse pushed hard by the Biden State Department since last year.

    Our embassies and consulates are official extensions of the United States. They are even considered sovereign U.S. territory. 

    They are there on behalf of the entire U.S. nation, as represented by our national flag, not sectarian views, or radical and controversial agendas. 

    This is true, even when these same radical agendas are being forced on our executive branches of government. 

    Thankfully, the new GOP House is proposing to quickly change that abuse.

    The Old Glory Only Act, introduced Monday by South Carolina Republican Rep. Jeff Duncan would prohibit any flag other than the American flag to be flown over U.S. embassies and consulates.

    Newsmax reported:

    “Our beautiful flag, Old Glory, should be the only flag flying and representing our country over our diplomatic and consular posts worldwide,” Duncan said in a press release announcing the bill’s introduction in the House Monday. “The American flag is a beacon of liberty, and no other flag or symbol better portrays our shared values than the Stars and Stripes. It is important to ensure that Old Glory only is flown at American embassies to represent our ideals abroad.”

    The New York Times previously reported that Biden Secretary of State Antony Blinken authorized U.S. embassies to fly ‘gay pride’ flags in April 2021, prior to May 17, which is the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, and to continue displaying the flag through the end of the month.

    The push to fly the rainbow ‘gay pride’ flag actually began in 2014, under the Obama-Biden term. That flag has flown over U.S. embassies in more than a dozen countries since then, including Russia, Spain, Sweden and South Korea.

    President Trump’s Secretary of State banned the ‘pride’ flags from being flown but his order was quickly  reversed by Blinken.

    In May, another cable from Blinken’s State Department authorized flying Black Lives Matter flags at U.S. diplomatic facilities worldwide, Foreign Policy reported at the time.

    The BLM flag has been flown at U.S. embassies in Brazil, Greece, Spain, Bosnia, Cambodia and South Korea, according to Duncan’s office.

    This, even though violent BLM rioters had spent months attacking the federal courthouse in Portland and laying siege to dozens of cities nationwide just months earlier in 2020.

    The BLM riots caused over $2 billion in property damage, more than any other similar event in U.S. history, injured over 2,000 local and federal police officers, and resulted in numerous deaths of civilians. 

    According to the NYT, a cable from the State Department at the time gave the chiefs of missions (COMs), who lead our overseas diplomatic stations, a “blanket written authorization” to display the flags if it was “appropriate in light of local conditions.” 

    While the Times noted this was an “authorization, not a requirement,” few COMs will ignore the pressure to follow the boss’ lead, and the more woke embassies and consulates quickly started flying these unofficial flags.

    Republicans are optimistic the new GOP leadership will hold a vote on the bill since there is broad GOP support for the idea.

    But why stop there? Why not ban these divisive flags from being flown over any federal buildings, period – including all of the ones here at home?

    According to the General Services Administration (GSA), More than 40 federal buildings across the country opted to raise the Pride Flag to show their support of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” in the federal workforce.

    What they are actually doing is flying the flags of exclusive, divisive and radical private groups on federal property paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.

    This too must end. 

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

    Amanda Head: Even Hollywood Hates Meghan Markle Now

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0
    WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND - October 28: THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX'S VISIT TO NEW ZEALAND: Engagement 6. Reception hosted by the Governor-General, Government House. October 28, 2018 in Wellington, New Zealand. (Photo by Mark Tantrum/ http://marktantrum.com)

    Even woke Hollywood can’t stand Meghan Markle…

    The former princess’ podcast finally got the axe…

    Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

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

    Growing Number of Americans Support War on Woke

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    5
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    ANALYSIS – The war against woke is raging across the nation. From school districts to corporations and even the Pentagon, conservative Republicans are on the front lines to get America to wake up to what woke really is. 

    And it’s not the dictionary definition of the term.

    As Florida Governor Ron DeSantis battles Disney over its woke policies, and both he and the Texas legislature dismantle neo-Marxist Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives statewide, liberals still try to focus on the textbook description of woke, as being ‘socially conscious’ rather than the radical concept it is.

    This, as a growing majority of Americans are supporting the war against woke, and saying that if you “go woke, you go broke.” Budweiser is certainly learning this lesson right now.

    Bud Light is facing a massive boycott over its partnership with transgender influencer (aka man who is trying to look like a woman) Dylan Mulvaney. And thankfully, it’s hurting the company.

    But it isn’t the only one – Target, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Miller Lite are also being hit by outrage over their woke advertising.

    Still, in a Newsweek piece, the writer, Aleks Phillips, makes every effort to focus on the dictionary definition of woke, even in a report about how their recent poll shows that Millennials favor the expression “go woke, go broke.” 

    Phillips writes:

    The term ‘woke’ is a colloquialism that has emerged in recent years. Its definition is to be “aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice),” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

    That’s the thoroughly watered-down dictionary definition. More specifically woke is an adjective derived from African American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning being “alert to racial prejudice and discrimination.”

    But that too is less than meets the eye.

    It’s a call to social justice activism. And social justice is a code for socialism.

    Even so, the Newsweek poll contradicts the popular narrative that millennials are the most socially conscious group who care most about so-called ‘social justice’ issues.

    The poll found that of those who were aware of the phrase “go woke, go broke,” an average of 71% of 25-44-year-olds agreed with the idea.

    That’s a big chunk of adult folks who don’t seem to like woke.

    Phillips later adds an earlier Newsweek reference where a clueless (and lefty) Kelly O’Keefe, founding partner of Brand Federation, said it was “really a minority on the right” that was “concerned about even the term ‘woke’.”

    “They’ve essentially weaponized the term ‘woke’—which has a dictionary definition that almost no one could disagree with: standing up for those who have been misrepresented, poorly represented etc.,” he added.

    But neither the leftist politicians and activists forcing the new wokeness, nor those suffering under the policies, see the term in such an innocuous manner.

    Being woke isn’t about simply being socially aware. Not by a long shot.

    It is a simple code word for a slew of policies based on a neo-Marxist ideology.

    These policies include pushing a radical transgender agenda on our children, racial preferences, and discrimination in favor of minorities, and against whites (in schools, government and businesses), and outright socialism under the guise of ‘equity.’ 

    To be clear – equity is the opposite of equality. It means the forceful creation of equal results rather than equality under the law, or equal opportunity. That is the textbook definition of socialism.

    And more Americans, including Millennials, are seeing through the ‘textbook definition” of woke charade, and calling it what it is – a dangerous ideology – especially damaging to your corporate bottom line.

    The outrage at woke brands like Bud Light has been sold by liberals as a reaction by a small minority of conservatives. But as noted earlier, the dramatic decline in Bud Light sales suggests that the boycott has widespread support.

    Newsweek‘s poll also suggests that the opposition to everything woke isn’t just a preserve of conservatives anymore, it’s an increasingly American thing.

    Phillips notes that:

    A majority of both those who voted for Donald Trump in 2020 and those who voted for Joe Biden agreed with the sentiment of “go woke, go broke,” it found, with 71 percent of Trump supporters agreeing and 62 percent of Biden supporters.

    So even a majority of liberal Biden supporters are coming around to see woke for the extremist ideology it is. And that’s not good for Democrats leaders who still seem hell-bent on pushing that radical agenda.

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

    GOP Leaders Fund Anti-Freedom Caucus Primary Candidates

    By
    Alex Muse
    -
    2
    Ted Eytan from Washington, DC, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    In the quiet corridors of Republican power, something unprecedented is happening. For decades, party leadership maintained a mostly unspoken, but deeply respected ethic: do not intervene in open-seat primaries, especially in safely Republican districts. Let the voters decide. Let the grassroots rise. Let the contest unfold without the heavy thumb of Washington tipping the scale. This was not merely tradition. It was a matter of trust, a recognition that voters, not donors, not operatives, not Majority Whips, should choose the next Republican standard-bearer. Today, that ethic is being cast aside.

    The stage is Arizona’s 5th Congressional District, a deep-red seat held by House Freedom Caucus (HFC) stalwart Andy Biggs, who is stepping down to pursue the governorship. Historically, this would be the moment for conservative insurgents to rise, for HFC allies to present their case to voters without interference from party brass. Instead, what we are witnessing is an unmistakable effort by House Republican leadership to erase one of the Freedom Caucus’s most reliable seats.

    Three separate leadership PACs have now contributed directly to Jay Feely, a former NFL kicker and establishment-favored Republican who is not aligned with the Freedom Caucus. Majority Whip Tom Emmer’s “Electing Majority Making Effective Republicans” PAC gave $5,000. NRCC Chair Richard Hudson’s “First in Freedom PAC” gave $2,500. And Rep. Juan Ciscomani, of neighboring AZ-6, added $1,000 from his own “Defending the American Dream PAC.” These are not idle contributions. They are targeted, strategic, and meant to shape the outcome of a race that should have been left to the people.

    Only one candidate in the race, Daniel Keenan, a local home builder, has pledged to join the Freedom Caucus. His candidacy represents continuity with Biggs’s conservative legacy. Feely’s candidacy, by contrast, is backed by leadership precisely because it promises rupture. That is the point. The goal here is not merely to elect a Republican, but to deny the seat to the Freedom Caucus entirely.

    To grasp the seriousness of this act, one must understand just how rare it is. Leadership PACs, particularly those operated by high-ranking figures like the Majority Whip and NRCC Chair, have historically stayed neutral in Republican primaries unless protecting incumbents. This was not a legal requirement, but a moral one. Rick Scott, as NRSC chair, was emphatic on this point during his tenure: “We should remain neutral in primaries, except in the cases of GOP incumbents. The voters will decide.”

    In fact, neutrality in safe-seat primaries was such a bedrock value that during the contentious 2023 Speaker’s race, conservative holdouts demanded that Kevin McCarthy enshrine it in writing. The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), the House GOP’s main super PAC aligned with McCarthy, publicly promised not to interfere in open safe Republican primaries. CLF president Dan Conston declared, “CLF will not spend in any open-seat primaries in safe Republican districts, and CLF will not grant resources to other super PACs to do so.” That promise secured enough support for McCarthy to win the gavel. It was a recognition that such meddling would constitute a betrayal.

    And yet, here we are, watching as Emmer, Hudson, and Ciscomani appear to do precisely what CLF promised not to do. They are not spending millions, but the act is significant because of who they are and what it signals. A whisper from the Majority Whip carries weight. A nod from the NRCC chair is not an idle gesture. Their PAC money announces a clear intention: the Republican Party must no longer accommodate the Freedom Caucus.

    To call this behavior unethical is not hyperbole. The entire point of leadership PACs is to strengthen the party against Democrats, not to wage civil war within it. Donors to these PACs do not expect their money to be used to sandbag fellow Republicans who happen to believe in a stricter reading of the Constitution, in tighter budgets, in actually following the rules. They expect their money to be used to expand the majority, not to hollow it out ideologically.

    This is why even modest interventions like these cause such a stir. They are not just financial acts, but symbolic declarations. They say to the conservative base, “You are not welcome here.” They say to the House Freedom Caucus, “You will be replaced.” They signal that what was once an uneasy coalition is now an open conflict.

    There is precedent, to be sure, but not encouraging one. In 2016, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Tim Huelskamp was defeated in his Kansas primary after outside money flooded the race. It was widely seen as retaliation for his opposition to then-Speaker John Boehner. The establishment, furious at Huelskamp’s independence, funded a challenger, Roger Marshall, who went on to win. At the time, that maneuver was shocking. Paul Gosar, another HFC member, remarked, “The Freedom Caucus hasn’t challenged sitting members. We’ve only played in open seats. But isn’t it interesting that K Street and Wall Street are playing against our members?”

    Now, that behavior is becoming institutional. The NRCC chair and the Majority Whip are no longer merely allowing such intervention, they are directing it. The shift is profound. It marks a move from tolerating intra-party dissent to crushing it.

    What changed? The rise of the Freedom Caucus has been a source of anxiety for establishment Republicans ever since its inception. But with the return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2025 and the growing alignment between the Freedom Caucus and the MAGA base, that anxiety has morphed into fear. The Freedom Caucus has shown it can shape leadership elections, influence appropriations bills, and demand accountability. It is no longer a fringe. It is a force. And that makes it a target.

    Trump himself has called Tom Emmer a “RINO” and opposed his speakership bid. Hudson and Ciscomani have similarly earned the ire of MAGA-aligned voters for their votes on spending bills and procedural maneuvers seen as too accommodating to Democrats. The leadership PAC donations in Arizona’s 5th are not just about that race. They are part of a larger strategy to neutralize the most vocal advocates of the America First agenda.

    None of this is illegal. But neither is it wise. When party leadership abandons neutrality, it sends a message to grassroots conservatives: your vote does not count unless we approve of your candidate. That message corrodes trust. It demoralizes volunteers. It severs the organic connection between representative and represented. It replaces the republican with the oligarchic.

    The party should not fear its conservative wing. It should listen to it. If leadership believes Freedom Caucus members are too extreme, they should make that argument on the merits, in public, and with courage. They should not attempt to buy the outcome behind closed doors with PAC money. That is not persuasion. That is manipulation.

    What is unfolding in Arizona’s 5th is not just a local race. It is a test case. If leadership succeeds in deleting a Freedom Caucus seat here, others will follow. More PAC money will flow. More loyal conservatives will be boxed out before the voters even speak. The House Freedom Caucus will be diminished, not by debate or democracy, but by design.

    This is not the path to unity. It is the road to irrelevance. The Republican Party must decide whether it wishes to be a big tent or a closed club. If the answer is the latter, it should at least have the honesty to admit it.

    If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing https://x.com/amuse.

    Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

    DOUBLE Your Impact to Crush the Left’s Comeback! It’s up to patriots like you to stop them. Heritage will match every dollar — up to $1 MILLION. Double your impact before it’s too late!

    .

    Amanda Head: Hollywood Strikes Again!

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    1

    Are you a fan of late-night talk shows? Well, buckle up because some big changes are coming to your TV…

    Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

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

    Dowdy Jill Biden Graces Cover Of Vogue, Supermodel Melania Trump Shunned

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    2

    ANALYSIS – Totally tone deaf. Just a little reminder of how ridiculously biased, partisan and idiotic our mainstream media has become, including the fluffy fashion forums.

    First Lady Jill Biden, the incredibly unstylish, power-hungry, social climbing, faux intellectual with an unserious Doctor of Education (EdD), has again graced the cover of Vogue magazine.

    This, her third time, right before the upcoming election. (RELATED: Poor Sign Placement Haunts Jill Biden At Hunter High School)

    The New York Post noted how remarkably out of touch the Biden White House is:

    After Biden’s horrific debate performance on Thursday, much of the media world reluctantly conceded that our 46th president looks like a lost toddler.

    And then there’s Vogue — which literally couldn’t stop the presses. The fashion-bible-turned-Dem-PR-machine was already rolling out its July issue, with cover model Jill Biden in a silk cream Ralph Lauren dress that retails for $4,990.

    Office of the President of the United States, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    The magazine landed on the internet Monday morning with a resounding, wincing thud.

    It was tone deaf. It was tacky — but this shoot and interview, conducted months ago, would have been messy even if the debate disaster had never happened.

    Fox News host Jimmy Failla on X had this to say about the horrible caregiver of the elderly and frail Joe Biden:

    Melania Trump is an actual super model who speaks 5 languages but she’s NEVER been on the cover of Vogue. Jill Biden commits vicious elder abuse on the world stage and now has two Vogue covers to show for it. Congrats Jill, you’ll be great in “The Devil Wears Depends.”

    Newsweek noted the backlash:

    Former NBC senior executive Mike Sington said, “First Lady Jill Biden appears on the cover of Vogue magazine, which seems like a good time to remind you that Melania Trump never appeared on the cover of Vogue when she was First Lady.”

    C.J. Pearson, a co-chair of the GOP Youth Advisory Council, said: “Outside of how tone deaf this following Joe Biden‘s disastrous debate performance, it is even more absurd that Jill Biden somehow graced the cover of Vogue and @MELANIATRUMP was never given the opportunity. Asinine even.”

    Another user on X noted: “She will NEVER be Melania.”

    Dr. Jill, as she insists on being called, first appeared on a Vogue cover in 2021 right after Joe Biden was inaugurated. She later appeared on the cover of the digital Winter 2023 issue. 

    Meanwhile, Melania Trump, an actual former supermodel who speaks several languages, and was exemplary, and always stylish and immaculately attired, as first lady is still shunned by the fashion world.

    Back in 2005, when she was getting married to The Donald, and well before Trump became president, Melania did get her own Vogue cover as Trump’s new bride. But oddly, she never again got a cover for Vogue or any other fashion, or mainstream magazine. (RELATED: Melania Trump Addresses Jan. 6 for First Time)

    Newsweek noted the backlash:

    Former NBC senior executive Mike Sington said, “First Lady Jill Biden appears on the cover of Vogue magazine, which seems like a good time to remind you that Melania Trump never appeared on the cover of Vogue when she was First Lady.”

    C.J. Pearson, a co-chair of the GOP Youth Advisory Council, said: “Outside of how tone deaf this following Joe Biden‘s disastrous debate performance, it is even more absurd that Jill Biden somehow graced the cover of Vogue and @MELANIATRUMP was never given the opportunity. Asinine even.”

    Another user on X noted: “She will NEVER be Melania.”

    The fact that she never landed a Vogue cover in her White House years was such a point of consternation that the former First Lady Trump criticized Wintour, who also serves as Condé Nast’s chief content officer, for it during a 2022 Fox News interview.

    WWD reported:

    As Jill Biden‘s role in encouraging President Joe Biden to stay in the presidential race — despite his lackluster performance in Thursday night’s debate with Donald Trump — continues to be hashed over in the media and around the globe, Vogue debuted its August issue with the first lady on its cover.

    In this already deeply divided country, the Condé Nast fashion magazine — intentionally or not — has ratcheted up the public dispute about Biden’s full-steam-ahead plans. As of Monday afternoon, Vogue‘s post of the first lady’s cover had 51,960 likes and 5,286 comments. The first lady donned an ivory Ralph Lauren Collection dress for the Norman Jean Roy-shot cover that accompanied Maya Singer’s interview.

    Of course, Vogue’s editorial direction is strongly liberal. WWD added:

    Requests for comment from Vogue’s global editorial director Anna Wintour and Singer through a Vogue spokesperson were declined. The company spokesperson said, “It’s no secret that Anna has been a supporter of Democratic campaigns for decades. Our August cover story is a look at the tremendous work Dr. Biden has done, and the most urgent issues in 2024 and beyond.”

    Meanwhile, a parting comment: Newsmax’s Rob Schmitt wrote, “Nice puff piece on the most valueless person in America and her bid to keep her corpse-like husband into the White House to stay relevant.”

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

    123...40Page 1 of 40
    © Great America News Desk 2022