Opinion

Home Opinion

House Conservative Explains Why Big Beautiful Bill Was Big Ugly Spending Spree

2

A leading House conservative and member of the Budget Committee used his time in a committee hearing on the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” spending package to explain that the bill does little to reform spending and the supposed spending cuts are pushed to future years, giving future congresses and the next president time to repeal them.

Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy explained that while the bill does deliver tax relief it dramatically increases budget deficits by putting off spending reform:

“I appreciate my friend from Texas, the chairman, and you know, my Democratic colleagues keep telling things that are not true. The vast majority of Americans will get tax benefits under this bill. It’s just simply false to say that that’s not true. Hardworking Americans who will benefit from the standard deduction increase, hardworking Americans who will benefit from child tax credits and lower tax rates—stop saying things that aren’t true. Those things are true. The fact is, we have money in here for the border to undo the damage of Joe Biden. We have more money in here for defense to undo the damage of Joe Biden, but we also address Medicaid and Medicaid spending goes up. Stop lying. Medicaid spending goes up. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are profoundly unserious when it comes to being real about what’s happening with the numbers. I applaud Chairman Arrington. I applaud my colleagues on this side of the aisle for taking a step forward in dealing with the spending problem in this town.

But I have to now admonish my colleagues on this side of the aisle: this bill falls profoundly short. It does not do what we say it does with respect to deficits. The fact of the matter is, on the spending, what we’re dealing with here is tax cuts and spending a massive front-loaded deficit increase. That’s the truth. That’s the truth. Deficits will go up in the first half of the 10-year budget window. And we all know it’s true, and we shouldn’t do that. We shouldn’t say that we’re doing something we’re not doing.

The fact of the matter is, this bill has back-loaded savings and front-loaded spending, nowhere near the Senate Budget top line, by the way. The Senate Budget top line of six and a half trillion dollars, which, by the way, is what we were pre-COVID, inflation-adjusted, on interest, on Medicare and Social Security. And if we would reform Medicaid, we could actually get to the core of the problem, but we refuse to do it. And I’m not going to sit here and say that everything is hunky-dory when this is the Budget Committee. This is the Budget Committee. We are supposed to do something to actually result in balanced budgets, but we’re not doing it. Look at what happens under deficits… Only in Washington are we expected to bet on the come that in five years, everything will work, then we will solve the problem.

We have got to change the direction of this town, and to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: yes, that means touching Medicaid. It went from $400 billion in 2019 to $600 billion this year. It’ll be over a trillion in the 2030s. We are making promises that we cannot keep. We do need to reform it. We need to stop giving seven times as much money to the able-bodied over the vulnerable. Why are we sticking it to the vulnerable population, the disabled and the sick, to give money to single able-bodied male adults? We shouldn’t do that. We should reform it. But guess what? That message needs to be delivered to my colleagues on this side of the aisle too.

We are writing checks we cannot cash, and our children are going to pay the price. So I am a no on this bill unless serious reforms are made today, tomorrow, Sunday. We’re having conversations as we speak, but something needs to change, or you’re not going to get my support.”

Did Trump Threaten to Execute Gen. Mark Milley for Treason?

4
Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Michael J. McCord provide testimony at a Senate Armed Services Committee budget hearing, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., March 28, 2023. (DoD photo by Chad J. McNeeley)

ANALYSIS – Words matter. In a post on his Truth Social platform last Friday, former President Donald Trump suggested that outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley deserved to be executed after speaking with China’s top general during Trump’s final months in office. 

Trump said Milley’s “treasonous act” was “so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!”

Clearly, Trump wasn’t threatening to do so but saying that Milley’s actions could have been punished by death in a prior era.

I condemned Milley’s actions at the time because they seemed to give the Chinese Communist regime a promise that they would be given a warning prior to any attack under Trump.

While Milley claims his actions were a normal part of his duties, I disagree. 

They appeared to be more a normal part of the mission that he took upon himself, which was to counter Trump when Milley believed the president had crossed some line only Milley could see.

Some argue that Milley’s actions were not only disloyal to the president but also borderline ‘treasonous.’

Milley contends that he was behaving appropriately to avert an accidental war. He responded to Trump’s comments on CBS:

He also assured viewers that he had adequate safety measures for himself and his family.

The two backchannel calls to China’s top general, Li Zuocheng, that Milley made, and at the center of all this, were revealed in the 2021 book “Peril.”  

As CNN reported:

In October 2020, as intelligence suggested China believed the US was going to attack them, Milley sought to calm Li by reassuring him that the US was not considering a strike, according to the book. Milley called again two days after the January 6 riot at the US Capitol to tell Li that the US is “100 percent steady” even though “things may look unsteady.”

How much of this reporting in the book was accurate, is hard to say. But Trump sees things very differently. 

Trump said that Milley “turned out to be a Woke train wreck who, if the Fake News reporting is correct, was actually dealing with China to give them a heads up on the thinking of the President of the United States.”

And Trump may be right. For Milley to do that could be seen as highly inappropriate, if not exactly ‘treasonous.’

Still, Trump, a former president, and current front-runner for the Republican nomination for president, is way out of line. No American political leader should be using that kind of language against any American military official or political leader.

In today’s volatile climate, it is extremely dangerous.

Yet few in the GOP will condemn Trump’s statements. Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson is one of those willing to take aim at the Republican frontrunner. Politico quoted Hutchinson as saying:

To suggest that Gen. Milley should be executed is inexcusable and dangerous. While some will excuse this latest outrage as Trump just being Trump, the fact is that his statement endangers people and is an insult to those who serve in the military.

Perennial Trump critic, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, had stronger words, calling Trump an “absolute child” for the “reprehensible” remarks. 

But it is part of a disturbing pattern by both sides to use dangerously inflammatory rhetoric at the highest levels against the other side.

Democrats raised the political temperature considerably against Trump, calling for, or at least condoning the calls for, his beheading and death on many occasions. 

The demonization of Trump by the left and Democrat Party was more than I had ever seen in over thirty years in and around U.S. politics. 

It was, and still is, outrageous.

But Trump isn’t helping things with his own dangerous rhetoric.

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

Democrats Give Their Media Green Light to Go After Bidens

7
CNN Headquarters via Wikimedia Commons

ANALYSIS – It seems that the Democrat establishment has given its media the green light to start reporting real news about the Bidens. Some will see it as them going after Joe and Hunter Biden, but most will see it as something long forgotten by these organizations – journalism.

Either way, as Hot Air asked: “Who let the dogs out?” 

And more importantly, why now?

White House Press reporters not from Fox News, or other conservative outlets, are finally asking Joe Biden tough questions, including whether he was involved in his son’s shady business deals.

And CBS Evening News did an entire national broadcast piece interviewing the senior IRS whistleblower about how the agency held back in its investigation into Hunter Biden.

The segment was only three minutes long, but that’s a lifetime in broadcast news, especially when the topic has literally been banned from the establishment media since Biden launched his campaign in 2020.

In the CBS segment reporter Jim Axelrod interviewed IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley in a professional manner and allowed him time to fully answer his questions.

The segment included reporting “…the stunning claim he [Shapley] was blocked from pursuing leads that could have led to the president himself.”

This follows another CBS News story on the two whistleblowers last Thursday that included transcripts of their interviews with GOP lawmakers.

That story noted that: “Two IRS whistleblowers allege sweeping misconduct, including interference in the Hunter Biden tax investigation, according to the GOP House Ways and Means Committee chairman and newly released transcripts of congressional interviews with the whistleblowers.”

This can only start building to a bigger deluge of actual reporting on the Biden scandals. The question is why now? David Catron explained his view of the Democrat intrigue in the Spectator:

Something changed last week inside the Beltway that suggests the people who run the Democratic Party now realize President Biden’s tenure in office is not sustainable beyond 2024. The “tell” was not, however, the latest revelation by IRS whistleblowers about his corrupt administration. It was instead the sudden awakening of the White House press corps. The same “reporters” who snored through more than two years of preposterous claims by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and her predecessor simultaneously woke up Friday. Correspondents from media outlets CNN, CBS, NBC, and even the New York Times aggressively questioned Jean-Pierre about the metastasizing Hunter Biden scandals. 

This wasn’t spontaneous. The word has gone out that regime change is coming [emphasis added].

So, it seems Democrats want Biden out. And Kamala Harris too. And can you blame them?

I have long predicted that Biden would not finish the 2024 race. Too old. Too frail. Too demented. Too scandal plagued. And Harris is just plain dumb. And unelectable.

But what now? Conservative commentator Chad Prather notes in The Blaze:

“They’re gonna really run Joe down, and it’s gonna get to a point where basically, Jill’s gonna come along and pull Joe and say, ‘You know, Joe and I have decided that we have fixed everything Trump messed up. We’ve done our job; it’s time to pass the mantle on to the successor.’”

Prather adds that Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 race will allow him to avoid any criminal liability and believes he and Jill will sign a very big book deal, and as part of a bigger deal, will likely let Harris be president, briefly.

 “She’ll get to be the first female president — just for a second. That’ll keep her from running her mouth too much later on, because they’ll throw her that bone,” Prather adds.

“She’ll go down in history as that.”

I must admit this scenario sounds plausible to me. The only remaining question is, who will be the real Democrat candidate for president in 2024?

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

George Santos Deserves Prison, Not A Pardon

2
(Miami - Flórida, 09/03/2020) Presidente da República Jair Bolsonaro durante encontro com o Senador Marco Rubio..Foto: Alan Santos/PR

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.

READ NEXT: Unstable Leader Pushes Reckless Nuclear Gamble

Amanda Head: Late Night TV Hits Rock Bottom

3

Things are going downhill at an alarming rate…

Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

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?

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.

Joe Biden (aka JRB Ware’) Facing ‘Inferno of Allegations’ – What’s Next?

3
Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

ANALYSIS – If you only followed establishment news, you would think that only former president Donald Trump is in a heap of legal trouble. Well, regardless of whether Trump’s legal woes are justified or a witch hunt by a weaponized Department of Justice (DoJ) and politicized local prosecutors, he isn’t the only president in increasingly hot water.

Whether it’s through his son Hunter, or by his own doing, Joe Biden is also facing what one congressman called an “inferno of allegations.”

Pennsylvania Republican and House Oversight Committee member Scott Perry said on a Newsmax TV interview on Thursday that where there’s smoke there’s fire, and Joe Biden has “gotten himself into an inferno of allegations and credible claims of influence peddling that seems like it’s filled with probable cause.”

Newsmax reported:

Perry made the comments on “Rob Schmitt Tonight” in a discussion about the president’s use of at least one email alias when he was vice president. The Oversight Committee has demanded that the National Archives turn over unredacted material related to the alias and its use that overlaps with Hunter Biden’s time in Ukraine.

“I think it’s really long past time where the Oversight Committee and the Congress itself to play hardball with these agencies that somehow think that this information that belongs to the American people somehow solely belongs to them as though it’s their personal possession,” Perry told Schmitt.

Joe Biden’s use of email aliases during his time as vice president is the latest bombshell to come from investigations into Hunter’s shady foreign business deals.

As the New York Post reported:

President Biden used at least three pseudonyms during his vice presidency to send messages to his son Hunter concerning both family and official government business — including meetings with Ukrainian leaders, emails found on the first son’s abandoned laptop show.

Then-Vice President Biden emailed Hunter under the aliases “Robin Ware,” “Robert L. Peters” and “JRB Ware” between 2014 and 2016, keeping his son abreast of scheduled talks with then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Kyiv Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman, among other communications The Post first revealed in 2021.

The elder Biden had one of his aides, John Flynn, send his daily schedule to the private email address “[email protected]” at least 10 times between May 18 and June 15, 2016, copying Hunter on a May 26 message with a note about an “8.45am prep for 9am phonecall [sic]

Biden had pressured Poroshenko five months earlier to fire Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin, who was investigating the natural gas company Burisma Holdings, where Hunter earned roughly $1 million per year while serving on the board between 2014 and 2019.

Joe Biden also used the “JRB Ware” alias in 2016 to discuss plans for the Penn Biden Centerin Washington, DC, and where improperly kept classified material was found late last year.

The revelation of these Biden aliases has prompted House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) to ask the National Archives to turn over unredacted records where Biden relied on the aliases when communicating with his son Hunter and his son’s business partners Eric Schwerin and Devon Archer.

Archer told the committee on July 31 that Joe Biden got on phone calls with his son’s foreign business associates nearly two dozen times.

Schwerin also visited the Old Executive Office Building to meet with then-Vice President Biden around the time the Obama-Biden administration was making big changes to US-Ukraine policy.

So, what should happen next? Well, Congressman Perry has an answer for that.

Newsmax quoted Perry as saying:

I think the subpoenas have to start. I think the impeachment inquiry is overdue again. We have probable cause. I think in any other criminal case instance right now that this would be completely fulfilling the probable cause requirement.

I think it’s our duty to ferret this out, so the American people know about their president, whether they can trust him or not.

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

Amanda Head: Done With Bud Light? Buy This Instead!

1

Are you boycotting Bud Light and looking for a new beer to support? Look no further!

Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

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

Are Liberals Using Tax Exempt Groups To Promote Terrorism?

5
Image via Pixabay free images

A top congressional chairman is leaning on the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the tax-exempt status of several left-wing or Islamist organizations for actively supporting deadly Islamist terrorist activity.

The U.S. House Ways and Means announced in a statement that Committee Chairman Jason Smith (MO-08) is calling on the IRS to “revoke the tax-exempt status of multiple organizations previously referred by the Ways and Means Committee for failing to operate within their stated tax-exempt purpose.

“The letter coincide(ed) with the anniversary of the October 7th terrorist attack on Israel and targets organizations with links to designated foreign terrorist groups, as well as organizations linked to violence and unrest in the United States,” the Committee reports.

“Chairman Smith previously demanded then-IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel revoke the tax-exempt status of eight organizations with ties to Hamas and terror-linked organizations, as well as entities fueling antisemitic protests on U.S. college campuses and violence in the U.S.

In the letter to the IRS, Chairman Smith wrote: “We write to request that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) prioritize examinations into the tax-exempt status of tax-exempt organizations previously referred to the IRS for revocation during the 118th Congress. In light of the anniversary of the October 2023 violent attack on Israel, along with recent acts of political violence and the continued disruptive activities of previously identified organizations that have been sowing chaos in the United States and have links to designated foreign terrorist groups, it is imperative that action is taken to ensure tax-exempt groups are operating within their tax-exempt purpose.”

Smith’s letter continues, “From the international funding sources and activities of tax-exempt entities in the U.S., and the role of certain organizations in fostering antisemitism on college campuses, the Committee has remained steadfast in ensuring that all tax-exempt organizations are abiding by their exempt status.  In September 2024, the Committee on Ways and Means (“the Committee”) sent seven letters to the IRS requesting that the IRS investigate and revoke the tax-exempt status of the referenced organizations, while also highlighting the tax-exempt organizations’ ties to Foreign Terrorist Organizations, support of illegal activity in America, and failure to operate for stated exempt purposes.  Some of the organizations, such as Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation, American Muslims for Palestine, and Islamic Relief USA, are suspected of having terrorist ties to groups like Hamas, using those ties to actively support and funnel resources in support of terrorism. Other groups like the Alliance for Global Justice, WESPAC Foundation, and Tides Foundation instead fiscally sponsor projects that disrupt college campuses, incite violence and intimidation, and illegal riot across the United States—prominent projects include Students for Justice in Palestine and Samidoun. Together, this evidence strongly supported referring the groups to the IRS for revocation of their tax-exempt status.”

The committee notes “organizations for which Chairman Smith is renewing referral for revocation of tax-exempt status include: Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation, American Muslims for Palestine, Islamic Relief USA, Alliance for Global Justice, WESPAC Foundation, Tides Foundation, Peoples Media Project (also known as The Palestine Chronicle), and The People’s Forum.”

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. 

Feds Admit Dozens of Undercover Agents Joined Protesters at Capitol on Jan 6

6
Elvert Barnes, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

ANALYSIS – Federal and local law enforcement reportedly had at least 40 confidential informants, or CIs, (also known by federal agencies as Confidential Human Source – CHS) embedded with protestors and rioters at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

This, according to the attorney for one of the Jan 6 defendants, Dominic Pezzola.

A member of the nationalist Proud Boys group, Pezzola is facing charges in federal court for allegedly conspiring to oppose the Jan. 2021 transfer of presidential power and related charges by interfering with Congress’ certification of the Electoral College vote.

His attorney says federal prosecutors kept this critical evidence secret and belatedly admitted this bombshell just recently.

I wrote about this issue in March when a video was released that showed undercover DC Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers inciting the rioters to storm the Capitol. Many more videos are still sealed by the courts and kept from the public.

As the attorney’s filing noted:

Some of these undercover Metro officers marched with the Proud Boy[s] march. And some appear to have played roles of instigators, in that they are seen on body-worn videos chanting “Go! Go!,” “Stop the Steal!,” and “Whose house? Our house!” on Jan. 6.  Others generally followed demonstrators toward the Capitol.

 
While that video, part of which was posted on Rumble, shows three members of the MPD’s Electronic Surveillance Unit (ESU) acting as protesters and inciting the crowd, new information reveals that MPD and the feds may have had dozens of undercover informants there that day.

The Daily Caller reports that Pezzola’s lawyer, Roger Roots, said that federal prosecutors admitted Tuesday that eight FBI confidential human sources were embedded among the Proud Boys on Jan. 6. In his Wednesday court filing, Root said that Homeland Security Investigations (HIS) , part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), appears to have had some 19 informants active at the time.

That means that the largest number of federal CHSs on Jan. 6 didn’t even belong to the FBI, but instead were from DHS.

Roots added that, in addition to all these federal CIs, at least 13 undercover plain-clothes DC Metro Police agents worked among Jan. 6 defendants that day (one more than originally revealed). 

That’s a lot of local police undercover officers and federal confidential informants for one protest. And who knows how many more there may have been in other capacities.

In his filing, Roots argues that:

Pezzola submits that the entire defense in this trial, including opening,cross, and defense cases, would have been different, and much more aggressive, if defense counsel had known of the scope and scale of undercover government operations on Jan. 6. Prosecutors made arguments contrary to information they possessed and withheld; and defense counsel could have lodged different cross-examination and direct examination questions if they had known of these materials.

Roots concludes by noting that the “United States is refusing to provide information which obviously has a high likelihood of being exculpatory.”

He adds that defendants are entitled to this information. “ACCORDINGLY, Pezzola asks for an order compelling the United States to provide the names, identities, and reports of all HSI confidential informants operating at or near the Capitol or around the Proud Boys on January 6, 2021.”

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