Heartwarming: Commie Biz Owner Forced To Close Cafe
You can’t help but smile when you see this…
Watch Amanda explain the controversy below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
You can’t help but smile when you see this…
Watch Amanda explain the controversy below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Donald Trump officially kicked off this third presidential campaign while delivering a speech Tuesday evening from his Mar-a-Lago resort.
Are you all in on Trump 2024 or keeping your options open?
Watch Amanda break it down below.

ANALYSIS – This is how the world ends, not with a bang, but a ‘misgendering.’
A recent podcast interview with the ex-Twitter censorship czar provides insight into the warped woke ‘logic’ behind insanely dangerous leftist censorship.
The illuminating comments were made by the former head of trust and safety at Twitter to defend the company’s earlier choice to suspend the Babylon Bee, a Christian satire outlet, for ‘misgendering’ a public official.
Misgendering is the new made-up woke term that refers to someone not calling someone else by their own totally made-up preferred gender identity.
And to the Left, this simple choice is a horrific act of brutality against a ‘vulnerable community’ and cannot be tolerated under any circumstances – “full stop.”
In the interview Yoel Roth stated:
“So let’s start from a premise that it’s fu**ed up. But then again let’s look at what Twitter’s written policies are, Twitter’s written policies prohibit misgendering, full stop. And the Babylon Bee, in the name of satire, misgendered Admiral Rachel Levine.”
Oh, the horror…
As Fox News reported:
Ex-Twitter safety chief Yoel Roth slammed conservative Twitter accounts during a discussion with journalist Kara Swisher that was later released on her Thursday podcast.
The Babylon Bee (The Bee) was suspended from Twitter after it made a joke at the expense of transgender Health and Human Services assistant secretary Dr. Rachel Levine, who identifies as a female.
The Bee had published a satirical piece congratulating the government official for being dubbed its “Man of the Year” for 2022.
While letting him know that she did not agree with Twitter’s choice to suspend The Bee, Swisher invited Roth to explain his company’s course of action at the time.
“It’s interesting to think about what the competing tensions around that are. I want to start by acknowledging that the targeting and the victimization of the trans community on Twitter is very real, very life-threatening, and extraordinarily serious,” Roth claimed.
“We have seen from a number of Twitter accounts, including LibsOfTikTok notably, that there are orchestrated campaigns that particularly are singling out a group that is already particularly vulnerable within society.”
He went on to say, “Not only is it not funny, but it is dangerous, and it does contribute to an environment that makes people unsafe in the world.”
The former Twitter official then went on to shield himself behind Twitter’s regulations, suggesting that his team was merely enforcing the rules on the books.
Well, not only are Roth’s comments outrageous nonsense, they are dangerous to all our freedoms.
It is a scientific fact that biological men and women cannot change sex. Despite every painful effort, they can only change their appearance.
Biology and chromosomes can’t be transformed, even if genitals and breasts can be mutilated, and supplemented by a lifetime regimen of drugs and hormone injections.
Of course, clothing, accessories, and behavior can also be adjusted and modified.
But, these are all essentially cosmetic, even when some are horribly invasive, changes.
Calling a biological man a man is simply scientific fact.
It is even more accurate when the man has not undergone any sexual transition procedures, but simply ‘identifies’ as a woman.
The same applies to women ‘identifying’ as men.
But banning ‘misgendering’ isn’t enough, Twitter’s Terms of Service continues the insanity by prohibiting ‘deadnaming’ transgender individuals.
‘Deadnaming’ is another newly made up woke term that refers to simply calling someone by the name they were known by prior to their deciding to identify with the opposite sex.
In the case of Rachel Levine, that means calling him Richard, his name for the majority of his male life.
Notice I just ‘misgendered,’ and ‘deadnamed’ Levine.
While on a personal level some of us may choose to accept the preferred gender identity, pronouns, or new name of a ‘transgender’ individual, out of courtesy or whatever other reason, that choice should not be dictated by Big Tech, or anyone else.
And doing so has created a dangerous new logic that the right of a ‘transgender’ individual to demand everyone use his or her gender identity, or new name, absolutely trumps all our rights to our own beliefs and our constitutional right to free speech.
And that is the most dangerous thing of all
Please note that new ‘Chief Twit’ Elon Musk has reinstated Twitter accounts, such as Babylon Bee, previously suspended for policy violations, Twitter’s terms of service still lay out the old rules about misgendering.
Musk needs to quickly, but carefully, change those rules. How he does that will set a new standard for how these issues should be dealt with by other platforms, and society in general. GAND
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Americans may soon know more about a Biden family business arrangement selling White House access to foreign interests, under a lawsuit from an ethics watchdog.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch reports it may receive more records under a “Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for Biden family records and communications regarding travel and finance transactions, as well as communications between the Bidens and several known business associates.”
“This lawsuit is an opportunity for the Trump team to stop the Deep State’s slow-walking of the release of Biden family corruption records,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
The suit was originally filed in May 2023 “after the National Archives failed to respond to a February 2023 FOIA request.”
This lawsuit previously “forced the release of records revealing emails sent by Joe Biden using alias accounts during his vice presidency, in which he communicated with family members, including his son Hunter and brother James. The records also showed that in August 2016, Biden approved ending Secret Service protection for both Hunter Biden and Beau Biden’s daughter, Natalie, during a trip to Kosovo,” Judicial Watch reports.
The emails included messages to Jim and Hunter Biden regarding the then-vice president’s schedule and meetings. Some emails showed Joe Biden using the alias: [email protected].
According to Judicial Watch:
The emails also showed that Hunter and Jim Biden accompanied Joe Biden on taxpayer-funded trips; and then-Vice President Biden in December 2009 emailing an aide after he forgot the password to his West Wing computer.
The records showed that Hunter Biden used an email address ([email protected]) from his now-dissolved firm Rosemont Seneca Partners and that James Biden used an email address ([email protected]) tied to his consulting firm Lion Hall, which had been the subject of an FBI bribery investigation in the 1990s.
The lawsuit also forced the release of records showing then-Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter received a May 26, 2016, email detailing a scheduled “8:45 am prep for a 9 am phone call with Pres Poroshenko,” who was the president of Ukraine. Joe Biden’s email address is the alias [email protected], Hunter Biden’s email account is disclosed as [email protected]. (Hunter Biden was on the board of the controversial Ukrainian firm Burisma at the time.)

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.

George Santos did not stretch the truth. He did not fudge numbers. He did not run afoul of technicalities in campaign finance law. He stole, lied, and exploited vulnerable people for personal and political gain. These were not victimless crimes, nor were they victimless lies. They were part of an elaborate scheme to build a fraudulent political career on a foundation of stolen funds, fictitious wealth, and unearned trust. It is time conservatives stop equivocating. If George Santos were not a thief, he might have been a talented, even promising political figure. But he is a thief, and a spectacularly cynical one at that. He stole from the old and the sick, he stole from donors, he stole from the US taxpayer. He is not a misunderstood maverick or a casualty of overzealous prosecution. He is a con man, and a criminal.
Let us begin, as the law did, with the false image he built. Santos, through deliberate lies to the Federal Election Commission and his own party, fabricated a story of fundraising success. In early 2022, he claimed to have raised over $250,000 in a single quarter from third-party donors, including a personal loan of $500,000 to his own campaign. These were lies. He did not have the money. He did not receive these donations. But this mirage of financial viability was just enough to secure his acceptance into the National Republican Congressional Committee’s “Young Guns” program, granting him financial, logistical, and strategic support. The GOP, believing they were backing a legitimate, self-sustaining candidate, diverted valuable resources to a fraud.
But Santos did not merely fake donor support. He invented donors. Using the identities and financial information of real people, Santos charged their credit cards repeatedly, funneling the proceeds into his campaign, other political committees, and even his own bank account. Nearly a dozen people were victimized, including individuals least capable of defending themselves. One woman, suffering from brain damage, had thousands of dollars withdrawn without her consent. Two elderly men in their eighties, each suffering from dementia, had their identities stolen and their cards charged. These were not passive accounting errors or clerical mistakes. These were acts of intimate, cold exploitation. Santos knew these people, spoke with them, thanked them for their support, and then used their vulnerability against them.
In one egregious instance, a donor who had already given the legal maximum found his credit card charged an additional $15,800 without authorization. Santos disguised this theft by attributing the funds to fabricated family members in his FEC reports, a maneuver that allowed him to continue the ruse while avoiding contribution limits. In another, he charged $12,000 to a donor’s account and deposited the majority into his personal bank. From there, it funded clothing, cosmetics, credit card bills, and gambling trips. The campaign, the candidacy, the public service, all were secondary to a lifestyle of luxury paid for by other people’s money.
Perhaps the most hypocritical of Santos’s frauds involved the pandemic. In 2020, he applied for and received over $24,000 in unemployment benefits from the state of New York. At the time, he was gainfully employed as a regional director at a Florida-based investment firm, earning over $120,000 a year. He did not miss a paycheck. He was not laid off. He did not qualify. And yet, each week, he falsely certified his jobless status, drawing taxpayer-funded aid designed for those hit hardest by COVID-19, the unemployed, the underemployed, the financially desperate. In an act of gall that would be laughable if it were not so despicable, Santos later sponsored legislation in Congress to crack down on pandemic unemployment fraud. The man who stole from the system claimed he would reform it.
Nor did the deception stop there. Santos lied on his congressional financial disclosures, the forms meant to ensure transparency for public officials. He claimed to have earned $750,000 in salary from a private company that paid him nothing. He reported receiving $1 to $5 million in dividends that never existed. He declared hundreds of thousands in bank holdings, when in fact his accounts were often in the low thousands, if not lower. In reality, his only actual income came from the investment firm and the unemployment checks he falsely obtained. The lies were not incidental. They were comprehensive, deliberate, and aimed at creating an illusion of wealth and competence.
Even more brazenly, Santos fabricated an independent expenditure group, a supposed political action committee called RedStone Strategies. He solicited two donors for $25,000 each, promising that the funds would be used for media buys and campaign efforts. They were not. Santos transferred the money into accounts he controlled and spent it on Ferragamo, Hermes, Botox, and credit card bills. This was not merely unethical. It was embezzlement. It was theft. It was a fraud perpetrated with full knowledge and intent.
In total, Santos stole or misappropriated approximately $578,750. The court ordered him to pay $373,749.97 in restitution and to forfeit an additional $205,002.97. These numbers were not speculative. They were calculated against real losses to real people, individuals whose credit was damaged, whose money was siphoned away, whose trust was obliterated. Santos’s 87-month sentence, or just over seven years, was not an outlier in the federal system. It was a typical penalty for this kind of sprawling, malicious financial fraud. Defendants with no political profile, who defrauded the government or private individuals out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, routinely receive similar sentences. That Santos was a congressman did not result in his being singled out. If anything, it spared him scrutiny longer than he deserved.
There is no serious argument for clemency here. Clemency is for excess, for injustice, for punishment that outstrips wrongdoing. Clemency is not for grifters who fake their way into office by stealing from pensioners and pandemic relief funds. One does not defend George Santos by invoking freedom, fairness, or limited government. To the contrary, every dollar Santos stole weakened the legitimacy of our electoral system, diverted support from legitimate candidates, and degraded the moral clarity conservatives must offer in a dishonest age. The true conservative position is to say plainly: this man is a crook.
Yes, Santos was charismatic. Yes, he had a knack for commanding attention. And yes, in another life, with honesty and principle, he might have served well. But we do not excuse embezzlement because the embezzler is clever. We do not overlook theft because the thief is funny. Our movement has spent decades insisting that character matters. If that is still true, then George Santos is not a man to be platformed or pitied. He is a cautionary tale.
Some will argue that Santos’s sentence was harsh. Perhaps. But that is not a reason to pardon him. It is a reason to scrutinize sentencing guidelines for all non-violent financial offenders. Santos should be treated like any other fraudster, no worse, no better. And by that measure, he has been.
Others say we should forgive him because the media was against him. But the media is against every Republican. What makes our side different, or should, is our insistence on personal responsibility. George Santos did what he did. He admitted it. He pled guilty. He is being punished in accordance with the law. He is not a martyr. He is a criminal.
Those who now seek to rebrand Santos as a political prisoner or conservative folk hero are doing damage not only to the movement, but to the truth. And that matters. For if we cannot call theft what it is, if we cannot call fraud what it is, if we cannot reject the normalization of criminality in our own ranks, then we are not a movement of principle. We are just another racket.
If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing: https://x.com/amuse.
ANALYSIS – None dare call it hate. The recent horrific mass killing in Nashville is even more tragic when we understand who the killer was – and how the mass media has either ignored or downplayed her ‘trans’ identity.
Or has made it a point of calling her a man rather than a mentally ill woman.
It’s also tragic, no – outrageous – that none in the establishment media, or Joe Biden or anyone in his administration, has labeled the shooting a ‘hate crime’ even though it was.
Local law enforcement has called it a targeted attack against a Christian school.
The heavily armed 28-year-old mass murderer Audrey Hale who committed the massacre at Covenant School used two AR-style rifles and a pistol to kill three 9-year-old children and three adults.
Reportedly a former student, she was was killed by police.
Her ‘manifesto,’ discovered at her home, has still not been made public.
The killer was first reported correctly as a woman.
Then the media fell all over itself apologizing for its mistake and quickly began stealth editing its initial reports and started calling her a ‘transgender male’ (which in most cases is actually a female claiming to be male).
It is now mostly downplaying the trans issue and the fact that she was being treated for ’emotional’ issues.
And unlike the rhetoric often employed by Democrats after a shooter targets any minority community – like an LGBTQ club or killings simply in a neighborhood with a high number of Asian Americans – they aren’t calling this a ‘hate crime.’
The left is usually very quick to identify any crime it can committed by white conservatives, MAGA Republicans or Donald Trump supporters.
Sometimes it is valid. Most of the time it is not.
As my Georgetown roommate, and colleague, Quin Hillyer writes in the Washington Examiner:
The message is clear: The media will bend over backward to kowtow to transgender ideology when it benefits the gender bender yet will also do backflips to hide a transgender status if somebody might draw negative inferences. Too bad the media honchos aren’t concerned about contributing to inaccurate characterizations of conservative people as dangerous and unhinged.
First, let me be clear, most conservatives despise the ‘hate crime’ moniker because, well, a crime is a crime. Murder isn’t more of a murder because of the races or identities of the victims or perpetrators.
But if you are going to use the term and have it impact how cases are investigated, tried and suspects are sentenced, then call this what it was – a hate crime against Christians by a lunatic transgender person.
Federal law considers violence that causes bodily injury to a person to be a hate crime if it is motivated by race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.
Of course, the fact that this killer was ‘trans’ shouldn’t become the sole focus, nor should it be used to unfairly label other trans persons.
But it should be noted by the media and included in the entire process.
And the targeting of Christians by a trans person should be a major focus.
Senator Josh Hawley, R-Mo., who has opposed hate crime legislation in the past as too broad, quickly took action to ensure this anti-Christian hate crime perpetrated by a self-described transgender was treated as such.
He called on federal authorities Tuesday to investigate Monday’s massacre as a hate crime against Christian believers.
The New York Post reported:
In a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Hawley described Audrey Hale’s rampage through the Tennessee school that left three adults and three 9-year-old children dead as a “targeted” assault “against Christians” and called for “the full resources of the federal government” to be deployed to determine why the 28-year-old former student carried out the heinous crime.
“It is commonplace to call such horrors ‘senseless violence.’ But properly speaking, that is false,” Hawley writes. “Police report that the attack here was ‘targeted’ — targeted, that is, against Christians.”
“I urge you to immediately open an investigation into this shooting as a federal hate crime. The full resources of the federal government must be brought to bear to determine how this crime occurred, and who may have influenced the deranged shooter to carry out these horrific crimes.
Now, let’s see how Team Biden and the establishment media react.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

A federal watchdog group is going to court to learn more about why a former U.S. Treasury Secretary’s portrait was covered up after the release of a trove of disturbing email correspondence between him and deceased convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced it “filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Treasury for records regarding the covering of former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers’ official portrait in the Main Treasury Building in Washington, D.C., reportedly after his name surfaced in records connected to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Treasury (No.1:26-cv-00446)).”
“Covering Larry Summers’ portrait won’t make the Epstein scandal disappear,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Covering the portrait raises obvious questions. Transparency—not cover-ups—is the proper response.”
“An exchange of emails between Summers and Epstein contained in a trove of Epstein records released by the House Oversight Committee, Epstein called himself Summers’ ‘wing man,’” Judicial Watch notes.
Judicial Watch reports it “filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Treasury Department failed to respond to a January 8, 2026, FOIA request for:”
All records, including communications, about the covering up of former Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers’ portrait in the U.S. Treasury Building in Washington, D.C. Mr. Summers served as Treasury Secretary from July 2, 1999, to January 20, 2001.
“Judicial Watch submitted the FOIA request after a source inside Treasury informed a Judicial Watch lawyer about the portrait-covering incident,” the group notes.
Summers’ portrait was covered up after he announced his resignation from public life.
“In November 2025, soon after his name arose in connection with Epstein, Summers said, ‘I am deeply ashamed of my actions and recognize the pain they have caused.… I will be stepping back from public commitments as one part of my broader effort to rebuild trust and repair relationships with the people closest to me.”
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk.