ANALYSIS – In an unexpected, but long overdue move, the Pentagon has stated it will no longer work with directors if their movies will be censored by Beijing. This follows directly on the heels of Vietnam banning the movie ‘Barbie’ over its inclusion of a China-friendly map of the South China Sea.
That movie’s producers apparently caved to Chinese pressure and included the map showing China essentially owning the South China Sea, which it does not, despite its claims. And Vietnam wasn’t happy.
But, as I previously wrote, this Chinese censorship problem really exploded with last year’s release of Tom Cruise’s blockbuster “Top Gun: Maverick.”
And now the Pentagon, thanks to GOP Senator Ted Cruz, has made it clear it now bans any military assistance to directors who plan to comply (or will likely comply) with censorship demands from the Chinese regime in order to distribute their movie in China.
In trailers for the ‘Maverick’ film shown in 2019, the flags of Taiwan and Japan had been removed from Capt. Pete “Maverick” Mitchell’s flight jacket worn by Cruise in the 1986 original “Top Gun” movie.
The flags were part of a Far East Cruise patch commemorating the 1963-64 deployment by the USS Galveston off Japan and Taiwan. In the preview clip for the movie in 2019, those two historically accurate flags were replaced by generic nonsensical symbols.
This shameless kowtowing was an apparent attempt to appease Chinese investor Tencent. But after serious blowback in the U.S. — and after Tencent reportedly dropped its investment in the film – the flags were restored in the final version of the film.
In another example, Chinese government censors actually pushed the producers of “Spider-man: No Way Home” to remove the Statue of Liberty, according to Puck. This, likely due to its association with the Tiananmen Square protests.
Thankfully, the studio did not comply, and that movie wasn’t shown in China.
The Defense Department updated its rules for working with movie studios after Cruz (R-Texas) inserted language, known as the SCRIPT Act. into the fiscal 2023 defense policy bill.
The latest Top Gun movie also reportedly showed us a peek at what might be the SR-72 – the super-secret experimental hypersonic spy plane under development by Lockheed Martin. It was called the ‘Darkstar’ in the film.
According to a new Defense Department document obtained by POLITICO, filmmakers who want the U.S. military to help with their projects must now pledge that they won’t let Beijing alter those films.
The DOD “will not provide production assistance when there is demonstrable evidence that the production has complied or is likely to comply with a demand from the Government of the People’s Republic of China … to censor the content of the project in a material manner to advance the national interest of the People’s Republic of China,” the document reads.
Hollywood and the Defense Department have enjoyed a symbiotic relationship for decades. The Pentagon has allowed filmmakers to shoot their projects on military bases, Navy ships, or other locations, and weighs in on filmmaking processes. The military benefits from positive portrayals of service members, and moviemakers benefit from authentic settings and technical expertise.
But as China’s ruling Communist Party has developed increasingly advanced censorship and surveillance tools, countless American companies — including Hollywood studios — have sought to comply with Beijing’s demands while attempting to dodge stateside pushback.
However, from now on, producers of films greenlighted by the Defense Department must notify the Pentagon “in writing of such a censorship demand, including the terms of such demand, and whether the project has complied or is likely to comply with a demand for such censorship.”
But not just that. DoD will also weigh any “verifiable information” from people not involved in the production who indicate that producers could comply with a censorship demand.
So, hopefully Hollywood will stop caving to China’s blackmail, or risk losing access to their much-loved Pentagon collaboration.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – As the left implodes over Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter and many triggered liberals threaten to abandon the platform, conservatives are breathing a sigh of relief.
For years now, but increasingly since Donald Trump was elected, Big Tech has been on a rampage against mainstream conservative ideas and opinions.
Often, Big Tech employees and executives have been found overtly colluding with the Democrats in Washington to spread their agenda and talking points while quashing and canceling any opposing (i.e.; conservative views).
Their weapons of choice – ‘independent fact checking’ (aka – their leftist views on things by fellow leftists) and of course, the ubiquitous and amorphous company ‘terms of use,’ ‘community standards,’ and unknowable internal policies, which seem to always target conservatives while giving leftists and other radicals a pass.
Most conservatives know all this, but many independents and liberals do not.
Then there are those who do, and don’t care. Or do – and lie about it.
But how can we show just how bad things were at Twitter (and by extension other Big Tech platforms, including Facebook, and the often-overlooked LinkedIn, where I was permanently banned).
Well, we can thank Musk for uncovering the depths of leftist wokeness which had spread like ideological cancer at Twitter.
On Tuesday, as Musk continued his overhaul of Twitter, he said he had stumbled upon a closet chock full of “#StayWoke” t-shirts at the company’s headquarters.
Fox Business noted that Twitter co-founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey infamously wore a “#StayWoke” t-shirt during an interview with journalist Peter Kafka for ReCode’s Code conference over six years ago in 2016.
When asked to explain his shirt, Dorsey said the meaning has evolved over time but “to me… it’s really being aware, and staying aware, and keep questioning.”
Unfortunately, that is NOT the meaning of ‘woke’ most follow today.
Instead, it now means an increasingly intolerant leftist ideology centered on promoting radical agendas such as transgender transitioning of children, bullying friends, and allies to accept LGBT views and policies, and imposing anti-white racist indoctrination, along with many other extremist and socialist ideas.
And along with this agenda, leftist ‘wokesters’ also believe in crushing any dissent of these radical views, by censoring or canceling anyone who dares disagree.
As Fox Business wrote: “With the rise of cancel culture, many have interpreted “woke” to describe people who would rather silence their critics than listen to them.”
Hopefully, this will now change; at least at Twitter. And Musk believes it will:
As he said this week: “More and more over time, as we hew closer to the truth, Twitter will earn the trust of the people…”
More and more over time, as we hew closer to the truth, Twitter will earn the trust of the people
With Musk’s takeover of Twitter, and the GOP’s takeover of the House, as well as Florida Governor Rion DeSantis’ victories against the left, we may be seeing a turning point in the ‘woke wars.’
Now if Musk will only buy LinkedIn too, so I can recover my profile and 20,000 followers.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Former President Donald Trump faces a slew of legal onslaughts, the latest being a federal indictment by Joe Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) for violating the Espionage Act by mishandling classified information.
Like the FBI raid on his Florida home, this divisive and politically charged indictment is an unprecedented development that makes him the first former president in U.S. history to face criminal charges by the federal government.
And the political fallout will be huge.
Trump denies any wrongdoing and is calling the indictments a witch hunt. And yes, he has been unfairly targeted before – many times.
But is this case really part of that same anti-Trump vendetta? And does it matter?
The latest indictment is for the willful retention of highly classified national security documents at his Florida Mar-a-Lago estate, corruptly concealing documents, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and making false statements.
Many will point to the later discovery of classified documents in Joe Biden’s homes and properties connected to him without him facing criminal charges (yet) as proof that this is an anti-Trump witch hunt.
Last week, the DOJ also cleared former Vice President Mike Pence of any wrongdoing after a small number of classified documents were found at his Indiana home in January.
Trump posted a slew of angry social media posts against federal investigators Tuesday highlighting different treatment.
“The Marxists and Fascists in the DOJ & FBI are going after me at a level and speed never seen before in our Country, and I did nothing wrong,” Trump wrote in one of several posts.
And yes, as I have repeatedly written about, the DOJ and the FBI have been heavily politicized, or even weaponized against conservatives.
But, as with Richard Nixon and Watergate, the problem for Trump here is the cover-up. Had he simply returned the documents once they were discovered, it would have been far less likely he would have been indicted.
Instead, Trump repeatedly refused to turn over the materials to federal officials once he left the White House, and then provided a series of bizarre justifications for his actions, before the FBI raided his home.
A separate special counsel is investigating Biden’s handling of classified material after documents were found at his Wilmington, Del., home and a Washington, D.C., office from his time as vice president.
The difference here is Biden’s team alerted federal officials upon discovering the documents and promptly turned them over.
Trump’s own former Attorney General Bill Barr pushed back on Trump’s claims that a special counsel’s ongoing documents probe is politically motivated.
“Over time, people will see that this is not a case of the Department of Justice conducting a witch hunt,” Barr said in an interview on CBS on Tuesday. “In fact, they approached this very delicately and with deference to the president, and this would have gone nowhere had the president just returned the documents. But he jerked them around for a year and a half.”
The indictment carries serious legal consequences, including the possibility of prison if he’s convicted. Trump will appear at a federal courthouse in Miami on June 13.
In March, the notoriously liberal, Soros-backed Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, indicted Trump on state charges related to hush-money payments to a former porn film star in 2016.
That local indictment appears far more political and ‘Trumped-up’ (pun not intended) than this federal one. The trial for this case begins in March 2024.
Jack Smith, the special counsel coordinating federal investigations into the Espionage Act indictments, oversees other inquiries related to Trump, including those regarding the Capitol Riot on January 6, 2021.
But none of this will prevent Trump from continuing his campaign for president. “Nothing stops Trump from running while indicted, or even convicted,” University of California, Los Angeles law professor Richard Hasen told CNN.
The Constitution requires only three things of candidates. They must be a natural-born citizen (not a naturalized one), at least 35 years old, and residents of the U.S. for at least 14 years.
So theoretically, Trump could be convicted and still be elected President.
Not only won’t this keep Trump from running, but it will probably help him with his core base of supporters in the GOP primary.
And Trump won’t even go to trial for any of this until well into the next presidential term.
But the optics and politics of all this is the biggest issue.
As the Daily Caller reported Pence as saying: “I think this is going to be terribly divisive for the country. I also think it sends a terrible message to the wider world that looks at America as a standard of not only democracy, but of justice.”
The question is when does all of this come to a head? And what will happen when it does?
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Law schools across the country are abandoning their decades-long principles going woke and the move could prove disastrous for attorneys, current law students, and prospective law students across the nation.
Let Amanda break down the situation in the video below.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
President Donald J. Trump participates in a roundtable discussion on immigration and border security at the U.S. Border Patrol Calexico Station Friday, April 5, 2019, in Calexico, Calif. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
ANALYSIS – Joe Biden’s border disaster is getting worse by the day as thousands of illegal immigrants swarm U.S. border entry points daily. And as I have repeatedly noted the Mexican drug cartels essentially control the border regions of Mexico.
Across the entire southwest border, as many 9,400 migrants have crossed into the US in a single 24-hour period. That is tens of thousands a week or over 100,00 per month. Over a million a year.
And now, thanks to Joe Biden and his band of merry leftists, the cartels essentially control the U.S. side of the border as well, flooding our border with illegal migrants to overwhelm our border patrol agents and divert them from the drug smuggling points.
As the New York Post reported: “The way it’s being orchestrated through the cartels, I believe it’s meant to overwhelm the system. The [places] that are being impacted the most are border communities,” said former El Paso City Councilmember Claudia Rodriquez.
The Post added:
Cartels unleashed turmoil on the city before, stirring up rumors of the border being open to all back in March and again in April, prompting hundreds of migrants to storm one of El Paso’s international bridges.
“If you’re at the border, go this morning,” a social media screenshot of the rumor said. “Don’t miss this opportunity.”
Aid workers previously told The Post how migrants are particularly susceptible to tricks orchestrated by the cartel, as most are in a vulnerable position and in unfamiliar territory.
“A lot of the folks that are waiting in Juarez [across the border from El Paso] are very desperate, and they’ll believe anything,” Crystal Sandoval of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center said in March.
These waves of migrants egged on by cartel-driven misinformation online on social media overwhelms and distracts the Border Patrol, and diverts federal resources, when they are most needed to combat the smuggling of fentanyl into the U.S.
It also overwhelms the local communities.
BREAKING: The city of Eagle Pass, Texas, issued an emergency declaration today as thousands of migrants crossed the Rio Grande from Piedras Negras, Mexico. Watch:https://t.co/0EYYEO6Oo9
Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), who represents both Eagle Pass and El Paso, has warned about the raw numbers of illegal migrants.
“Eagle Pass is completely overrun right now. El Paso is getting overwhelmed right now. Arizona is getting overwhelmed right now.”
“The only way we can regain control of the southern border is by enforcing the laws that are on the books. That’s exactly what the administration needs to do. That’s exactly what Congress needs to focus on.”
Meanwhile, as Fox News reported, things are getting so bad that a Mexican railway company has halted operations after a video showing migrants packed into freight cars riding into the U.S. went viral earlier this week.
Often called the ‘train of death,’ for many migrants, this days-long journey is the only shot they have at making it to the U.S.-Mexico border. Here’s a glimpse at their experience.
Note, the rail company didn’t halt the trains because the migrants were swarming into the U.S., but because some were getting hurt along the way, and it was becoming too public.
According to Fox: “Migrants have long used the trains, known collectively as ‘The Beast,’ [or ‘train of death’] to hitch rides to the U.S. border, and a video of a Ferromex train out of Zacatecas, Mexico, packed with migrants — heading toward the U.S. southern border — went viral on Sunday.”
As long as Biden continues his deliberately disastrous open border policy, the cartels will continue to push waves of illegal migrants into the U.S., overwhelm the Border Patrol, and send more deadly drugs into America across the Rio Grande.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Without a whisper, David Brock once again took his seat in that deep club chair, the one upholstered in battered oxblood leather and steeped in quiet menace. He reached for his tailor-crafted inner pocket, drawing from it a fresh Davidoff 702 Double R. The oily Ecuadorian leaf caught flame with practiced ease, releasing those same familiar notes of dark chocolate and café crema. Nearby, a Baccarat tumbler appeared in a silent ritual of service, filled just so with Pappy Van Winkle, as though it had always been there. This wasn’t just habit. It was stagecraft, and the man in the chair was directing a performance with constitutional consequences.
There was no need for preamble. Those in the room knew why they were there. Brock was about to reintroduce the legal profession to its own velvet-clad nightmare. His audience, a quiet circle of left-wing patrons and media barons, leaned in as he explained the next phase of his campaign, not against Donald Trump per se, but against anyone daring to offer him or his allies a legal defense. This wasn’t about winning court cases. This was about ensuring those cases were never filed at all.
The 65 Project, Brock explained, was not an electoral effort. It was not a messaging campaign. It was war. A war against the 6th Amendment, that slender but essential clause guaranteeing every American the right to legal counsel. Its aim? To deprive Republicans, particularly those challenging elections or government orthodoxy, of any capable legal defense.
Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]
Run through Brock’s network of nonprofits and housed under Law Works, the 65 Project deployed seasoned political operatives to file bar complaints, ethics charges, and sanctions motions against Trump-affiliated attorneys. The power of the model lay in its asymmetry. A single complaint, even meritless, could cost an attorney tens of thousands of dollars and a year or more in disciplinary review. And even if dismissed, the stain was permanent.
In 2025, this campaign has not slowed. In February, the 65 Project filed a high-profile complaint against Edward Martin, then the interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia. His offense? Alleged conflicts of interest tied to representing January 6 defendants before his federal appointment. The complaint cited violations of Rule 4-1.7 of professional conduct, a detail blasted across the headlines of friendly media outlets. As of June, there is no word on whether the complaint succeeded, but that isn’t the point. The accusation is the punishment.
Incredibly, the 65 Project also targeted the sitting Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi. On June 5, 2025, a coalition including the 65 Project, Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law filed a 23-page ethics complaint with the Florida Bar, accusing Bondi of “serious professional misconduct.” The complaint alleged that Bondi threatened DOJ lawyers with discipline or termination for failing to pursue President Trump’s political objectives, particularly via a February 5 “zealous advocacy” memo. It claimed her actions led to resignations and firings in violation of DOJ norms and Florida Bar rules. Yet, on June 6, the Florida Bar summarily rejected the complaint, citing a policy against investigating sitting officers appointed under the US Constitution. It was the third such complaint against Bondi, and the third rejection. Critics like DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle called the filings “vexatious” and politically motivated. That the 65 Project would go after a sitting Attorney General at all illustrates the sheer audacity, and absurdity, of their campaign. They have announced they will be filing more complaints against Bondi.
Even more outrageous, the same coalition named two additional Trump administration officials in their June 5 complaint: Emil Bove, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General and Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General. The complaint accused them contributing to a culture of unethical conduct within the Justice Department by pressuring career lawyers to ignore professional responsibilities and instead pursue political objectives at the behest of President Trump. The goal was clear: not just to intimidate one leader, but to undermine the credibility of an entire legal team working within the bounds of the law.
This complaint, like so many others, underscores the project’s enduring mission: to ensure lawyers think twice before defending Trump or any of his associates. Public defenders and private litigators alike have been swept into the net. Whether you were in court for Giuliani, or simply filed an amicus brief on election integrity, the 65 Project likely has your name on a list.
This strategy, weaponizing legal ethics as a partisan bludgeon, would have made Boss Tweed grin from ear to ear. Backroom operators like Col. George Brinton McClellan Harvey would recognize it instantly. Harvey, managing editor of the Democratic Party’s press empire at the turn of the 20th century, orchestrated conventions from smoke-filled rooms in Chicago’s Blackstone Hotel, where policies were written not in law books, but on cocktail napkins between puffs of Havana cigars. Brock, in many ways, is his spiritual heir, using legal bureaucracy the way Harvey used ink and influence.
The Biden-appointed judiciary has not resisted. In Michigan, Democratic activists succeeded in convincing a federal judge to sanction every lawyer who filed election-related litigation for Trump in 2020. Among them: Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, and Stefanie Junttila. Each was ordered to pay legal fees to Democratic Party groups and attend re-education courses, under the euphemism of continuing legal education. The court referred them for possible disbarment, fulfilling Brock’s vision.
Michael Teter, managing director of the 65 Project, has filed complaints against more than 100 attorneys across 26 states. The targets include high-profile figures like Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, and Cleta Mitchell. And while many of these complaints were dismissed by mid-2023, the damage to reputations and client relationships lingers.
The project’s tactics have drawn sharp rebuke. Congressman Lance Gooden, in April 2025, called the 65 Project a “political hit squad” and demanded a Justice Department investigation. Others on social media have accused the group of colluding with establishment Republicans to kneecap Trump’s legal allies. Yet Brock’s defenders frame the group as guardians of democracy, protecting the legal profession from ethical collapse.
Such framing is dishonest. When Alan Dershowitz defended Al Gore in 2000, no one suggested he should be disbarred for challenging election results. But now, lawyers challenging questionable election conduct on behalf of Republicans face professional ruin. This is not accountability. It is ideological warfare.
Critics may point out that the 65 Project has not secured many disbarments. That may be true, but they have achieved some high-profile penalties. Jenna Ellis was publicly censured by a Colorado judge in March 2023. Rudy Giuliani had his law license suspended in New York and is facing permanent disbarment proceedings in Washington, DC. John Eastman was disbarred in California following a March 27, 2024, decision by State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland, who found him culpable of 10 out of 11 disciplinary charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. His license was placed on involuntary inactive status days later, rendering him ineligible to practice law in California. Eastman has appealed, but as of June 15, 2025, no reversal has been reported. He was also suspended from practicing law in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2024, pending resolution of the California case. Lin Wood surrendered his law license in Georgia under pressure from multiple complaints. These results are rare but not insignificant. Still, the goal was never just disbarment. It was deterrence. It was a public display of consequence, a digital scarlet letter. No need to win in court when you can win in LinkedIn’s HR department.
The project has inspired imitators including the Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law. The Lincoln Project also targets law firms, encouraging junior associates to pressure partners against accepting GOP clients. Shutdown DC and the Un-American Bar maintain lists of “insurrectionist” lawyers. Others push the American Bar Association to adopt rules banning election challenges altogether, cloaking censorship in the rhetoric of professionalism.
Marc Elias, the left’s court general, has taken the mission even further, seeking to disqualify GOP candidates under the 14th Amendment, resurrecting post-Civil War measures to bar Trump allies from holding office. Lawsuits against Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, and others reflect this broader ecosystem of lawfare. It is a constellation of coordinated attacks designed to render conservative legal advocacy untenable.
And what of the Constitution? The Sixth Amendment was never meant to be partisan. It exists not to protect the powerful, but the accused. In America, even pariahs have lawyers. Even the guilty deserve defense. The 65 Project’s perverse genius is to flip that premise, treating legal representation as complicity, and enforcing political loyalty through professional terror.
David Brock did not build this machinery alone. Melissa Moss, a Clinton veteran, helped architect the effort. She recruited Democratic grandees, Tom Daschle, ABA presidents, former state judges, to lend legitimacy. Their goal? To make conservative legal advocacy professionally radioactive.
And it may be working. Some lawyers are declining GOP clients outright. Others fear disciplinary complaints, X mobs, or worse. The chilling effect is real, and precisely what the architects intended. The War on the Sixth is a war on courage, a war on professional independence, a war on the idea that justice should be blind.
In the end, Brock’s smoke-filled rooms are not about cigars or cocktails. They are about control. They are about ensuring that when Republicans step into a courtroom, they do so alone.
ANALYSIS – Can we say dangerous left-wing intelligence hack?
With Joe Biden and the Democrats demonizing conservatives, partisan, out-of-work former intelligence officers, without much of a ‘war on terror’ to fight anymore, and looking for new work, are now targeting Americans as their new terrorist bogeyman.
And following the bizarre ‘underwear hammer attack’ on Nancy Pelosi’s husband in San Francisco, the Democrats are on a tear blaming Republicans for violence.
This is despite the fact that the Pelosi attacker was a crazy, life-long pot-smoking hippie, left-wing nudist, and illegal alien from Canada who only started making ‘right-wing’ social media posts a few weeks ago.
But once you designate your domestic political opponents as ‘extremists’ and ‘enemies of democracy,’ you open the door to widespread abuse and repression by the state.
And targeting American citizens as if they were ISIS is the result.
As I noted earlier, we should expect to see a host of these former ‘counter-extremism’ hacks try to parlay their experiences against al-Qaeda to use against their fellow citizens.
This is the old Cold War ‘Red Scare’ in reverse.
And this is just the latest example. A partisan former CIA officer proposing we illegally use ‘counterterror’ measures against Americans.
Former Senior Intelligence Service officer at the CIA, Marc Polymeropoulos published a Sunday piece declaring that technique once used to fight radical Islam should be turned against the right-wing in America.
Polymeropoulos’ piece for NBC News Think warned that propagandists, whether Islamic terrorists or Republicans, should be subject to counterterrorism and counter-radicalization techniques.
“I worked in counterterrorism operations for nearly my entire career at the CIA before retiring in 2019. The battle we engaged in with international terrorist groups like Al Qaeda wasn’t just with their legions of foot soldiers but with their highly effective propaganda arms as well,” he wrote.
“The U.S. and our allies considered those propagandists fundamental cogs in a terror group’s machinery, and just as culpable as any other terrorist. So we held them accountable when innocent civilians were killed.”
Polymeropoulos suggested that the attack of Paul Pelosi was evidence that the American government needs to take a firmer approach to its own citizenry.
This type of thinking is outrageous on so many levels. Simply un-American. Unconstitutional. And extremely dangerous.
Polymeropoulos, who sounds more like a left-wing extremist than an intelligence officer, is also either willfully ignorant or outright deceptive when he claims that the American right has some sort of monopoly on violent rhetoric.
He laughably states that there is “nothing equivalent being done on the other side of the aisle” as far as promoting violence against their political opposition.
“Democratic politicians and leaders may not like Trump, but they don’t call for violence against him, let alone his execution,” he outrageously claimed.
In 2017, a far-left former Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer named James T. Hodgkinson fired upon on a group of Republican lawmakers as they practiced for the annual Congressional Baseball Game, critically injuring House Republican Whip Steve Scalise.
Democrats didn’t equate their own hyper-aggressive anti-GOP rhetoric with his violent actions.
And let’s be clear Democrat politicians do incite violence against their GOP opponents.
Fox continues:
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., endorsed harassing political opposition in public in 2018. “They’re not going to be able to go to a restaurant, they’re not going to be able to stop at a gas station, they’re not going to be able to shop at a department store,” Waters proclaimed at the time. “The people are going to turn on them, they’re going to protest, they’re going to absolutely harass them.”
Polymeropoulos also ignores left-wing activists protesting in front of the houses of Supreme Court justices, firebombing crisis pregnancy centers, and doxing (posting the addresses of public figures online).
Not to mention the assassination attempt against Justice Brett Kavanaugh by a heavily armed man at his home.
Recall that in 2020, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., warned Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh that they “will pay the price” for rulings against abortion and “You won’t know what hit you.”
Can we say “incitement to violence” against Justices?
This ex-CIA hack also overlooks a full year of left-wing politically motivated riots in cities, often encouraged and enabled by Democrat politicians and ‘community’ leaders.
But facts, consistency, and fairness aren’t needed when you are a political hack trying to get the all-powerful government to use your now unneeded skills to target your fellow Americans who disagree with you.
All you need is your own extremist leftist rhetoric.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
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 – Even as the world obsesses over Donald Trump’s latest legal dangers, the walls are slowly closing in on the Biden crime family. And I don’t use the phrase ‘crime family’ often.
But it’s becoming increasingly clear that Joe Biden used his time as Vice President as a golden opportunity to unlawfully enrich his entire family, often flying his son Hunter on Air Force Two abroad to seal deals.
In one well-known instance, VP Biden leveraged a billion dollars in U.S. aid to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating the energy firm that employed Hunter.
In their ongoing investigation into alleged influence peddling involving Biden, members of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee have asked the National Archives and Records Administration for unrestricted access to Biden’s travel aboard the vice-presidential jet, known as Air Force Two, and the VP’s official helicopter, known as Marine Two.
They want to determine whether the trips aided his son Hunter’s shady foreign business deals.
House GOP investigators believe Biden, while vice president under Barack Obama, used his power and influence to help his family and a group of associates with foreign business deals involving China, Russia, Ukraine and other countries, worth tens of millions of dollars.
And there is more evidence to back up their beliefs. Last month, Devon Archer, Hunter’s former business partner, told House investigators the foreign deals were secured by selling the Biden “brand,” essentially, Joe Biden’s position as vice president of the United States.
“Then-Vice President Joe Biden abused Air Force Two by allowing his son to jet set around the world to sell ‘The Brand’ to enrich the Biden family,” said House Oversight Chairman James Comer.
“This is yet another example of then-Vice President Biden abusing his public office for his family’s financial gain.”
More specifically, the Washington Times reported that:
Lawmakers on the Oversight panel said the president’s son Hunter Biden may have traveled to 15 countries with his father while he was vice president and that during that time, Mr. Biden met in Beijing with his son’s business associate, a Chinese national, while he was on official business.
“Then Vice-President Biden’s misuse of Air Force Two and Marine Two is indicative of yet another way in which the President has abused his various offices of public trust and wasted taxpayer money to benefit his family’s enterprise, which consisted of nothing more than access to Joe Biden himself,” Oversight lawmakers wrote to U.S. Archivist Colleen Shogan.
House investigators also believe Biden used numerous aliases to hide his participation in his son’s shady deals. The Times added:
…Comer also is seeking more than 5,000 White House emails that used aliases for then-Vice President Joseph R. Biden. The National Archives said it is awaiting approval from Mr. Biden and former President Barack Obama before handing them over to Mr. Comer, according to an aide to Mr. Comer.
White House records show that Mr. Biden used the name Robert L. Peters while serving as vice president. Mr. Biden also disguised his name on emails using the pseudonyms Robin Ware and JRB Ware, a play on his middle name and initials paired with his home state of Delaware.
Critically, investigators noted a May 26, 2016, White House scheduling email sent to VP Biden ahead of a call with the Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko that was also inexplicably sent to his ‘private citizen’ son, Hunter.
At the same time, the drug-addicted, unqualified Hunter was earning $100,000 a month as a board member of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma Holdings, which was under investigation for corruption. The U.S. State Department had said Burisma engaged in bribery.
And in a typical moment of braggadocio, a clueless Biden senior bragged about it. The New York Post reported:
In a 2018 interview at the Council on Foreign Relations, Biden bragged that he unilaterally withheld a billion dollars in US aid from the Ukrainians to force them to fire Prosecutor-General Viktor Shokin.
The Ukrainians balked, but Biden gave them an ultimatum: “I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.”
Tough guy, that Biden.
Biden has claimed he demanded Ukraine fire its equivalent of Attorney General because he was corrupt, but we now know the State Department had found that Ukraine had made great strides in dealing with corruption, and Shokin, specifically, was praised in private correspondence.
The Post added that Devon Archer’s testimony revealed that Burisma executives made the removal of Shokin a top priority and raised it with their hired gun, Hunter.
Archer reportedly described how Burisma officials told Hunter of the importance of neutralizing Shokin, and how “a call to Washington” was made in response. The call was of course to Dad.
And that’s what House investigators are hoping to prove. The Obama-Biden White House call logs, emails, and flight schedules are all part of the mounting evidence against Joe Biden.
ANALYSIS –Are Democrats wetting their beds about Joe Biden?As I wrote about earlier, even the New York Times (NYT) is admitting Biden is losing in the polls to Donald Trump in five key electoral states.
And David Axelrod, chief strategist for Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns, and a senior advisor to the former president Obama, is sending a message to the elderly Biden – “this is your last chance – get out now.”
This is one of Obama’s top advisors, so it seems like a veiled message from the ex-president himself to Biden that it’s time to quit. We will likely hear this chorus to grow among Democrat movers and shakers.
When questioned about his comments Monday, Axelrod told CNN that it’s a good time for Biden to check if he should keep up his campaign. Sunday marked one year before the election.
“As I’ve said for like a couple years now, the issue’s not — for him, is not political, it’s actuarial. You can see that in this poll and there’s just a lot of concern about the age issue, and that is something I think he needs to ponder. Just do a check and say, ‘Is this the right thing to do?’” Axelrod said.
“Is this the best path? I suspect that he will say yes, but time is fleeting here, and this is probably the last moment for him to do that check, and it’s probably good if he does,” the Obama alum added.
By ‘actuarial,’ Axelrod was referring to Biden’s age, calling it is “his biggest liability” and something he cannot change.
“Among all the unpredictables there is one thing that is sure: the age arrow only points in one direction,” Axelrod wrote on X. Meaning, Biden is only going downhill from here.
The NYT poll found Biden being trounced by Trump in five out of six battleground states including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania by margins of 3 to 10 points.
The poll also found that 71 percent of registered voters said they agree to some degree that Biden is “just too old to be an effective president.” 62 percent of participants said Biden did not have the “mental sharpness to be an effective president.”
The Hill added: “Axelrod told CNN that he’s not reacting to one poll with his comments but has had conversations with people and finds 2024 a unique year considering the threat of Trump — who is leading the GOP primary race — on the other side of the aisle.”
The Hill continued:
“Trump is a dangerous, unhinged demagogue whose brazen disdain for the rules, [norms], laws and institutions or democracy should be disqualifying,” Axelrod wrote in a separate post. “But the stakes of miscalculation here are too dramatic to ignore.”
I would add that maybe the growing GOP impeachment inquiry into the Biden family business – ‘influence peddling’ – and the tax fraud and gun indictments against Hunter Biden, are also worrying Democrats.
Echoing the growing talking points about Biden quitting while he still can, a separate Hill piece reported:
Arguing Biden is “justly proud of his accomplishments,” Axelrod said Biden’s poll numbers will “send tremors of doubt” through the Democratic Party.
“Not ‘bed-wetting,’” but legitimate concern, Axelrod wrote…
“Only @JoeBiden can make this decision,” he continued. “If he continues to run, he will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. What he needs to decide is whether that is wise; whether it’s in HIS best interest or the country’s?”
I don’t know about you, but I sense there is a lot of Democrat bed-wetting about Biden going around right now.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
