The Supreme Court just dealt a crippling blow to Democrats’ radical agenda for America. It’s about time.
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Is Fox News losing its touch?
Watch Amanda explain the controversy below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – As most of my readers know, I’m not a big fan of Joe Biden, or any of his lefty White House minions. This includes retired Rear Admiral John Kirby, the oftentimes Democrat hack, previously Pentagon press secretary, and currently coordinator for strategic communications at the National Security Council (NSC).
Watching this former senior military officer try to spin ridiculous and dangerous Biden foreign and defense policies is often stomach churning.
But, if nothing else, I try to be fair and honest, and can applaud my opponents when they occasionally get something right.
And this time Kirby not only got things right, but he surprisingly dropped a major ‘truth bomb.’ And even Biden played a part.
On Wednesday Biden correctly responded to a lefty reporter’s loaded question about Israel causing civilian casualties in Gaza by saying he can’t trust the civilian casualty numbers disseminated by the Gaza Ministry of Health, controlled by Hamas. They are, essentially, terrorist propaganda.
In his response the elderly Biden referred to Hamas as “the Palestinians,” but it’s clear what who was talking about.
“What they say to me is I have no notion that the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many people are killed. I’m sure innocents have been killed, and it’s the price of waging a war,” Biden said.
“But I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using.”
And that was spot on. The figures coming from Palestinian Hamas officials in Gaza are worse than worthless, they are lies.
Biden’s accurate observation was followed on Thursday by a question from another lefty reporter asking Kirby if Biden would apologize for his remarks since they had angered the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who called his comments “shocking and dehumanizing.”
Referring to Biden’s remarks, the reporter asked Kirby:
Don’t you think it is insensitive? There [is] very harsh criticism about it. For example, the Council of American-Islamic Relations said it was deeply disturbed and called on the president to apologize. Would the president apologize, and does he regret saying something like that?
To provide some background here, we need to note that while CAIR pretends to be a Muslim human rights group, it often traffics in anti-Jewish rhetoric.
CAIR’s Executive Director has claimed that ‘Zionist organizations’ in the U.S. are “enemies of the Muslim community” and that “Zionist organizations make up the core of the Islamophobia network in the United States.”
He has also used the trope that pro-Israel groups have “corrupted” the U.S. government and that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist. It’s really just another front group for promoting Islamism and antisemitism in the U.S.
So, it was refreshing to hear Kirby provide the biased reporter a firm and simple “no,” Biden won’t apologize.
Kirby then dropped the major ‘truth bomb’ about the Israeli-Hamas conflict. As Blaze Media reported:
“What’s harsh is the way Hamas is using people as human shields. What’s harsh is taking a couple of hundred hostages and leaving families anxious, waiting, and worrying to figure out where their loved ones are. What’s harsh is dropping in on a music festival and slaughtering a bunch of young people just trying to enjoy an afternoon,” he said.
“That’s what’s harsh. And being honest about the fact that there have been civilian casualties — and that there likely will be more — is being honest, because that’s what war is. It’s brutal. It’s ugly. It’s messy,” he continued. “I’ve said that before. President also said that yesterday. Doesn’t mean we have to like it. And it doesn’t mean that we’re dismissing any one of those casualties — each and every one is a tragedy in its own right.”
Kirby, moreover, revealed that the U.S. government is helping Israel minimize civilian casualties but highlighted how Hamas is making that difficult.
“It would be helpful if Hamas would let [Gazan civilians] leave,” he pointed out. “We know that there are thousands waiting to leave Gaza writ large, and Hamas is preventing them from doing it. That is what is harsh.”
BOOM! That truth bomb was a direct hit and must have caused some casualties among the leftist press corps. Well done, Admiral Kirby. Now can you tell the truth about Iran, the border, etc., etc.?
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Until now, only billionaires could afford to enter sub-orbital space. And it needed to be by high-powered rocket (think Jeff Bezos in his Blue Origin, or Richard Branson in his Virgin Galactic).
Star Trek actor William Shatner also did a flight on a Blue Origin’s rocket.
But now you too can see the earth from 20 miles high. It will cost you just over $120,000 and it’s by a high-altitude balloon.
And, no, it’s not aboard a Chinese spy balloon. These will be private companies running the trips.
The billionaires in rockets still have one treat we can’t get – they can briefly experience weightlessness. They also go twice as high.
Space officially starts at the Karman line, 62 miles above the earth’s surface. But for most people there won’t be that much of a difference.
And at half the price, no training required, and a much softer, smoother ride, these edge-of-space balloons will be far more accessible and may become popular among the slightly less rich.
And unlike the rockets, these balloons will give you a much longer ride, with luxury amenities, food, and drink.
There now appears at least two companies on the verge of launching these space balloon trips. One is American and the other is French.
Both seem to avoid mention of the 1937 Hindenburg hydrogen-filled dirigible disaster.
The French company Zephalto with its Celeste balloon will provide Michelin-starred fine dining. It is partnered with France’s national space agency.
These balloons filled with helium or hydrogen will depart from France with two pilots on board and six passengers and rise 15.5 miles into the stratosphere.
Once at peak altitude, the balloon, carrying a pressurized capsule, will stay aloft for three hours, giving guests a chance to take in views previously seen only by astronauts. While in the air, passengers will be served high-end French food and wines.
These near-space rides will start at €120,000 ($132,000) per person in 2025, Bloomberg reports.
The other option will be Florida-based Space Perspective, which is testing its own passenger balloon, designed to reach the edge of space.
Eight civilians and a pilot will be able to comfortably travel up 100,000 feet (19 miles) to near space in a reusable pressurized capsule carried by a gigantic hydrogen-filled balloon called Spacecraft Neptune – because Neptune’s atmosphere is predominantly hydrogen.
The company operates out of leased facilities at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, but plans to expand to Alaska and Hawaii, and then possibly to other countries around the world.
Flight will cost about $125,000 per person. And it plans to launch a year earlier than the Celeste.
Neptune’s ride will be similar to the Zephalto balloons, ascending at a sedate 12.5 miles per hour. It will give passengers two full hours to observe 360° views of Earth rotating beneath them and space above.
The overall ride will last six hours – two hours to ascend, two hours to float along the stratosphere, and two hours to descend into the Atlantic Ocean, where a recovery ship will be waiting.
The capsule comes complete with luxury seating, refreshments, a restroom, and Wi-Fi (so you can post to Instagram or live stream on Facebook as you fly – because – of course). The company plans to offer flights for weddings, corporate events, and scientific excursions.
Its flights are scheduled to begin in 2024, but the first batch of 600 tickets is already sold out.
Bon voyage. No smoking aboard.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
The Republican National Committee’s (RNC) spending is out of control.
Watch Amanda break down the disaster below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – No, this isn’t a story of a wacky conspiracy theory about global elites and pedophilia, it is real news. And this time the truth is close to the mark.
According to a shocking report produced by legal experts backed by the United Nations, children can consent to sex with adults.
This is not only despicable; it violates the very UN principles that protect children from sexual violence.
The widespread raping of women and children is an especially serious concern in the world’s war zones, where the heinous acts are considered war crimes.
And in other UN documents, allowing sex with children “may amount to grave breaches of international humanitarian law.”
The findings of these supposedly enlightened jurists only blurs the lines of perverse criminal behavior and will embolden those animals who abuse children.
And, in an insult to all women, the report was released on March 8 ‘in recognition of International Women’s Day,’ suggesting some sort of connection between women’s rights and the age of consent.
While the report does not specifically call for decriminalizing sex between adults and minors and doesn’t define an age of sexual consent, it states that children have both the mental ability and legal right to make sexual decisions.
We should note that while there is a difference between mature, sexually active older teenagers, and young children, these experts appear to simply reference all minors under age 18.
Listed under Principle 16 – ‘Consensual Sexual Conduct,’ the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists, aided by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, wrote: “Sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law.”
If that is true, then how long before the UN and ‘global elites’ do in fact decriminalize adults having sex with children?
Well, the commission answers that question when it added in its report, “In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them.”
According to Influencer Ian Miles Chong, “This has been the plan all along.”
The perverse findings which seem to open the door to normalize sex with minors appears in a report with the esoteric and convoluted title: “The 8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty.”
The report is posted prominently on the Commission’s website.
Its deranged conclusions also clash directly with the reality the UN Human Rights Commission reports on the ground in many countries.
As noted by the UN’s own organization “Children and Armed Conflict:
Sexual violence against children during conflict is one of the six grave violations identified and condemned by the UN Security Council . The six grave violations form the basis of the Council’s architecture to monitor, report and respond to abuses suffered by children in times of war. Ending and preventing these violations is also the focus of the Special Representative’s work and advocacy.
Sexual violence is increasingly a characteristic of conflict and is often perpetrated against girls and boys in a rule of law vacuum. In some instances sexual violence has been used as a tactic of war designed to humiliate a population or to force displacement.
The UN group clearly states:
Rape and other forms of sexual violence against children are human rights violations, and may amount to grave breaches of international humanitarian law. If committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population, sexual violence can constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
So, which is it, UN? Where do you draw the line? If children can consent to sex, when is it a humanitarian or war crime and when is it just fine?
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Could it be time to amend the U.S. Constitution?
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – While the left immediately claimed Donald Trump’s immigration plan for his potential second term is ‘draconian,’ and ‘extreme,’ it really isn’t. It’s essentially a needed dramatic reversal to Joe Biden’s extreme open border insanity.
It’s being referred to as a ‘bolting the hatches’ and ‘bomb the cartels’ strategy. And I’m all for it.
Especially since what we have now is total third-world chaos and thoroughly unacceptable for America.
The New York Post recently reported that Joe Biden has now literally opened the floodgates at the border by welding open 114 gates in Arizona’s border wall near Tucson.
The paper noted that in addition to endangered antelope being free to cross:
…the move is also letting an average of 1,400 migrants from as far away as China casually walk into the country daily — with overwhelmed and outnumbered border agents practically helpless to stop them.
“We thought the agents were going to tell us something,” one Ecuadorian migrant said. “But we just walked in.”
The Post added: “Smugglers are capitalizing on the floodgate blunder, driving migrants by the busload to the border and dropping them off as if they were casual tourists.”
And, unlike the mostly South American migrants who have been stopped crossing illegally into Texas, the immigrants coming to Arizona are from places as far as India, Egypt, and China.
Rather than the disheveled and exhausted South American migrants at the end of a long and arduous trek across Mexico, the migrants at Tucson now look more like folks on vacation.
The libertarian-leaning (generally not liberal) Reason outlet was also harshly critical of Trump’s new proposed immigration policies. But when I read their version of what they thought was horrible, I mostly applauded.
Trump’s plan includes:
Screening out Marxists as well as Communists – check.
Screening out potential terrorists from extremist countries – check.
Ending so-called birthright citizenship so that simply being born here from parents who entered illegally isn’t an option – check.
Quickly deporting criminal migrants – check.
Targeting Mexico’s deadly drug cartels as enemy combatants – check.
Generally making it harder to enter the United States legally (if you are willing to cross Mexico on foot, you can do more paperwork) – check.
I can easily stand behind every item noted above and below.
According to Reason:
“Trump’s plan would involve waves of harsh new policies — and dust off old ones that rarely have been enforced, if ever,” writes Kight. One policy would “ramp up ideological screening” for would-be legal immigrants. U.S. immigration law already largely bars Communist Party–affiliated people from immigrating, but Trump would reportedly expand that to reject “Marxist” applicants. Another policy would expand the former president’s “Muslim ban” to “block more people from certain countries from entering the U.S.,” notes Axios. Trump’s platform would also include ending birthright citizenship and carrying out quick deportations of criminal migrants under “an obscure section of the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts.”
Other aspects of the plan would target drug cartels and smuggling. It would label cartels as “‘unlawful enemy combatants’ to allow the U.S. military to target them in Mexico,” Axios reports, the same designation the government has used “to justify long-term detentions of 9/11 suspects at Guantanamo Bay.” It would also authorize the Coast Guard and Navy to form a blockade in U.S. and Latin American waters to halt boats carrying drugs.
Certain aspects of the plan, if implemented, would likely run into legal challenges. One such aspect is Trump’s reported intent to use the Alien Enemies Act, signed by President John Adams in 1798, “to quickly remove smugglers and migrant criminals…without having to go through legal steps in [Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s] deportation process.” Other policies would put hopeful migrants—and even travelers—through invasive and costly procedures to enter the U.S., such as social media searches and paying bonds to come here.
Well, after four years of border violence and chaos, and an unprecedented wave of illegal immigrants being practically invited across an open border before being shuttled throughout the country and fed and housed at taxpayer expense, it is time for some cracking down.
Bolt the hatches and bomb away.
His fans have had enough…
Watch Amanda explain the latest controversy below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Biden Administration Sued Over Scheme To Revoke Trump Q Security Clearance
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch reports they filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Energy for “records about the retroactive termination of former President Donald Trump’s security clearance and/or access to classified information.”
Judicial Watch reports the lawsuit “cites Trump’s January 12, 2024, motion to compel discovery in his criminal prosecution in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in which the former president asserts that DOE attempted to terminate his security clearance retroactively after his June 2023 indictment by Special Counsel Jack Smith.”
“It looks like the Department of Energy is trying to manufacture a criminal case,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “What are they hiding?”
Judicial Watch reports the lawsuit “points to the February 2024 response to Trump’s January 2024 motion in which Smith acknowledges the existence of a June 2023 memorandum prepared by an Energy Department official regarding the security clearance.”
“The Special Counsel’s office describes the memorandum’s contents and asserts that it had produced the record to Trump,” Judicial Watch reports. “Smith also acknowledges requesting and receiving additional ‘responsive’ records from DOE, including ‘approximately 30 pages of records and eight emails.’ Smith asserts that he was ‘now producing’ the 30 pages to Trump and withholding the eight emails.”
“Trump’s lawyers suggest in the January 2024 motion to compel discovery that Trump had a high-level security clearance as recently as 2023,” Judicial Watch notes.
“Lawyers for Trump say a government document from June 2023 still listed him with a “Q” clearance from the DOE. The document was dated a few weeks after prosecutors indicted Trump in the classified documents case,” Judicial Watch reports. “A ‘Q’ clearance refers to a type of security clearance handled by the Department of Energy, which holds classified information focused largely on nuclear secrets.”
Judicial Watch reports it “filed the lawsuit after the Energy Department failed to comply with a January 18, 2024, FOIA request for its records and communications concerning retroactively terminating Trump’s security clearance and/or access to classified information.”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.