The latest polls show why liberalism sucks…
It’s unavoidable and now more Americans are sick and tired of Biden’s leadership has resulted in nothing but an epic failure.
Let Amanda break down the latest situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Go woke, go broke…
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
The Biden administration is allegedly illegally concealing records on the unprecedented FBI raid on the home of former President Donald Trump, which comes as Trump leads President Joe Biden in polls ahead of a possible 2024 re-election contest.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced that, as of March 31, the National Archives has released only 1,276 pages of over 8,000 records on the federal government investigations of allegations Trump illegally retained and handled classified documents.
“The Biden administration’s National Archives is hiding almost every record it has about its manufactured records dispute with President Trump,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
The released records were secured after Judicial Watch filed an August 2022 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, after the National Archives and Records Administration allegedly unlawfully failed to respond to a February 2022 FOIA request for:
“All records regarding the referral from NARA to the Department of Justice regarding the records management procedures of former President Donald Trump. This request includes all related records of communication between any official or employee of NARA and any official or employee of the Department of Justice and/or any other branch, department, agency, or office of the federal government.”
“All records regarding the retrieval of records from President Trump or any individual or entity acting on his behalf by the National Archives and Records Administration. This request includes related records of communication between any official or employee of NARA and President Trump and/or any individual or entity acting on his behalf.”
Judicial Watch claims the released records confirm how “the Biden White House was directly involved in the dispute by initiating ‘special access request’ that advanced an FBI investigation of Trump’s records.”
According to Judicial Watch, Gary Stern, general counsel for the National Archives wrote to his colleagues on August 23, 2022:
And, this evening the Post just published a new story detailing an April 12, email that I sent to the Trump reps concerning the DOJ special access request for the 15 Trump boxes, along with many other details concerning the DOJ request and the overall issue. [Redacted]
“On April 12, an Archives official emailed Philbin [former White House deputy counsel Pat Philbin] and John Eisenberg, another former deputy White House counsel, to tell them the Justice Department, via the Biden White House, had made the request. The email offered the lawyers the opportunity to view the documents as well, but said the documents were too sensitive to be removed from the agency’s secure facility.”
Conservatives expect further releases of documents will show how the investigation and the current Justice Department criminal investigation are driven by concerns Trump will defeat Biden, and do not show any criminal intent or offense.
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.
In the quiet corridors of Republican power, something unprecedented is happening. For decades, party leadership maintained a mostly unspoken, but deeply respected ethic: do not intervene in open-seat primaries, especially in safely Republican districts. Let the voters decide. Let the grassroots rise. Let the contest unfold without the heavy thumb of Washington tipping the scale. This was not merely tradition. It was a matter of trust, a recognition that voters, not donors, not operatives, not Majority Whips, should choose the next Republican standard-bearer. Today, that ethic is being cast aside.
The stage is Arizona’s 5th Congressional District, a deep-red seat held by House Freedom Caucus (HFC) stalwart Andy Biggs, who is stepping down to pursue the governorship. Historically, this would be the moment for conservative insurgents to rise, for HFC allies to present their case to voters without interference from party brass. Instead, what we are witnessing is an unmistakable effort by House Republican leadership to erase one of the Freedom Caucus’s most reliable seats.
Three separate leadership PACs have now contributed directly to Jay Feely, a former NFL kicker and establishment-favored Republican who is not aligned with the Freedom Caucus. Majority Whip Tom Emmer’s “Electing Majority Making Effective Republicans” PAC gave $5,000. NRCC Chair Richard Hudson’s “First in Freedom PAC” gave $2,500. And Rep. Juan Ciscomani, of neighboring AZ-6, added $1,000 from his own “Defending the American Dream PAC.” These are not idle contributions. They are targeted, strategic, and meant to shape the outcome of a race that should have been left to the people.
Only one candidate in the race, Daniel Keenan, a local home builder, has pledged to join the Freedom Caucus. His candidacy represents continuity with Biggs’s conservative legacy. Feely’s candidacy, by contrast, is backed by leadership precisely because it promises rupture. That is the point. The goal here is not merely to elect a Republican, but to deny the seat to the Freedom Caucus entirely.
To grasp the seriousness of this act, one must understand just how rare it is. Leadership PACs, particularly those operated by high-ranking figures like the Majority Whip and NRCC Chair, have historically stayed neutral in Republican primaries unless protecting incumbents. This was not a legal requirement, but a moral one. Rick Scott, as NRSC chair, was emphatic on this point during his tenure: “We should remain neutral in primaries, except in the cases of GOP incumbents. The voters will decide.”
In fact, neutrality in safe-seat primaries was such a bedrock value that during the contentious 2023 Speaker’s race, conservative holdouts demanded that Kevin McCarthy enshrine it in writing. The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), the House GOP’s main super PAC aligned with McCarthy, publicly promised not to interfere in open safe Republican primaries. CLF president Dan Conston declared, “CLF will not spend in any open-seat primaries in safe Republican districts, and CLF will not grant resources to other super PACs to do so.” That promise secured enough support for McCarthy to win the gavel. It was a recognition that such meddling would constitute a betrayal.
And yet, here we are, watching as Emmer, Hudson, and Ciscomani appear to do precisely what CLF promised not to do. They are not spending millions, but the act is significant because of who they are and what it signals. A whisper from the Majority Whip carries weight. A nod from the NRCC chair is not an idle gesture. Their PAC money announces a clear intention: the Republican Party must no longer accommodate the Freedom Caucus.
To call this behavior unethical is not hyperbole. The entire point of leadership PACs is to strengthen the party against Democrats, not to wage civil war within it. Donors to these PACs do not expect their money to be used to sandbag fellow Republicans who happen to believe in a stricter reading of the Constitution, in tighter budgets, in actually following the rules. They expect their money to be used to expand the majority, not to hollow it out ideologically.
This is why even modest interventions like these cause such a stir. They are not just financial acts, but symbolic declarations. They say to the conservative base, “You are not welcome here.” They say to the House Freedom Caucus, “You will be replaced.” They signal that what was once an uneasy coalition is now an open conflict.
There is precedent, to be sure, but not encouraging one. In 2016, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Tim Huelskamp was defeated in his Kansas primary after outside money flooded the race. It was widely seen as retaliation for his opposition to then-Speaker John Boehner. The establishment, furious at Huelskamp’s independence, funded a challenger, Roger Marshall, who went on to win. At the time, that maneuver was shocking. Paul Gosar, another HFC member, remarked, “The Freedom Caucus hasn’t challenged sitting members. We’ve only played in open seats. But isn’t it interesting that K Street and Wall Street are playing against our members?”
Now, that behavior is becoming institutional. The NRCC chair and the Majority Whip are no longer merely allowing such intervention, they are directing it. The shift is profound. It marks a move from tolerating intra-party dissent to crushing it.
What changed? The rise of the Freedom Caucus has been a source of anxiety for establishment Republicans ever since its inception. But with the return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2025 and the growing alignment between the Freedom Caucus and the MAGA base, that anxiety has morphed into fear. The Freedom Caucus has shown it can shape leadership elections, influence appropriations bills, and demand accountability. It is no longer a fringe. It is a force. And that makes it a target.
Trump himself has called Tom Emmer a “RINO” and opposed his speakership bid. Hudson and Ciscomani have similarly earned the ire of MAGA-aligned voters for their votes on spending bills and procedural maneuvers seen as too accommodating to Democrats. The leadership PAC donations in Arizona’s 5th are not just about that race. They are part of a larger strategy to neutralize the most vocal advocates of the America First agenda.
None of this is illegal. But neither is it wise. When party leadership abandons neutrality, it sends a message to grassroots conservatives: your vote does not count unless we approve of your candidate. That message corrodes trust. It demoralizes volunteers. It severs the organic connection between representative and represented. It replaces the republican with the oligarchic.
The party should not fear its conservative wing. It should listen to it. If leadership believes Freedom Caucus members are too extreme, they should make that argument on the merits, in public, and with courage. They should not attempt to buy the outcome behind closed doors with PAC money. That is not persuasion. That is manipulation.
What is unfolding in Arizona’s 5th is not just a local race. It is a test case. If leadership succeeds in deleting a Freedom Caucus seat here, others will follow. More PAC money will flow. More loyal conservatives will be boxed out before the voters even speak. The House Freedom Caucus will be diminished, not by debate or democracy, but by design.
This is not the path to unity. It is the road to irrelevance. The Republican Party must decide whether it wishes to be a big tent or a closed club. If the answer is the latter, it should at least have the honesty to admit it.
If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing https://x.com/amuse.
Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.
.
Is this truly the beginning of the end?
Standford University, which costs undergraduates nearly $20,000 per quarter, wants to police students’ language…
The university has released guide on offensive language students should avoid using on campus or in their own personal lives.
Watch Amanda explain the latest controversy below:
Members of Congress want to know if one of America’s most powerful liberal political groups is evading federal laws requiring them to report lobbying on behalf of foreign billionaires.
U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman Paul Gosar (R-AZ) want League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski to answer questions about LCV’s fundraising, lobbying, and political activities, and whether it is complying with the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
The League of Conservation Voters, a radical environmentalist group, is one of the nation’s most powerful political organizations.
OpenSecrets reports the LCV donated $15,129,989 to federal political candidates in 2020. They also spent $42,272,125 on ads supporting or opposing federal candidates in 2020, making them the nation’s 15th-biggest political spending.
But members of Congress want to know if the LCV is lobbying lawmakers at the behest of Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss, a radical leftist who opposes American energy independence.
The members write:
“Following ‘intense lobbying’ from LCV and related groups that led to passage of the [Inflation Reduction Act,] you met then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi who told you Democrats ‘passed what you wanted’ and asked whether LCV would ‘have our backs’ in the 2022 election. Following the election, in an end-of-year memo on December 19, 2022, LCV detailed how the ‘LCV Victory Fund and affiliated entities invested more than $100 million’ to elect Democrat candidates that align with LCV’s eco-agenda agenda in the 2022 elections. Previously, in the 2018 cycle, LCV spent $80 million on candidates that support its eco-agenda.
“LCV has registered to lobby on several activities within the jurisdiction of the Committee, including issues like opposing offshore drilling plans, supporting a ‘pause and review of the federal oil and gas program,’ and supporting the restoration and expansion of a number of national monuments. The Committee is concerned that LCV’s relationship with foreign donors, such as Swiss national Mr. Wyss, who are prohibited from contributing, either directly or indirectly, to domestic political campaigns may impact LCV’s political and lobbying activities relating to America’s ability to achieve energy independence. As you are aware, such political and lobbying activities may require compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
“The central purpose of FARA is to ‘promote transparency with respect to foreign influence within the United States by ensuring that the United States government and the public know the source of certain information from foreign agents intended to influence American public opinion, policy, and laws.’ Hence, FARA requires any person or entity, including non-profits, to register with the Department of Justice (DOJ) if they act as an agent or at the request ‘of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly, supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal.’ Registration under FARA is also required for any entity that attempts, on behalf of a foreign principal, to influence any section of the U.S. public or a U.S. government official in ‘formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States.'”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – The Elon Musk ‘Twitter Files’ exposé, much-ignored and maligned by the establishment media, has shown a consistent effort by various U.S. government agencies, and several prominent Democrat lawmakers, to censor or cancel dissenting, mostly conservative views.
Under the guise of combating ‘misinformation,’ a wholly concocted concept to justify censorship, Big Tech slowly at first, but increasingly later, got cozily into bed with Uncle Sam… and Adam Schiff.
Fox News reports that journalist Matt Taibbi joined Joe Rogan’s podcast to break down how the federal government, including the office of Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the hyper-partisan former chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, frequently contacted Twitter to have the content removed from the social media platform.
It is important to note that Taibbi is not a right-wing conspiracy theorist. On the contrary, he is a left-leaning former contributing editor for Rolling Stone, and the author of several books, including ‘Insane Clown President,’ an unflattering portrayal of Donald Trump.
According to Taibbi, the relationship between our security agencies like the FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and tech companies like Twitter and Facebook was a “little bit less formal” than he originally thought.
Rather than playing an advisory role, the feds and Twitter created a “really intense structure” cultivated over several years.
This structure included regular meetings and a system where the DHS handled censorship requests from the states while the FBI fielded international requests.
Taibbi said he was “especially shocked” by an email from a Schiff staffer who called for the suspension of journalists on Twitter who tweeted critically on the House Intelligence Committee.
Rogan replied that it was “bizarre” for someone in the government to openly call for censorship in unsecured, unclassified emails that could be disseminated publicly.
Taibbi said it represents a Big Government and Big Tech mentality of being “impregnable” without fear of oversight.
It’s not surprising, he added, because, “They’re so comfortable with the idea that the government should be involved in this censorship…”
But that’s not all. Fox News reports:
In a January installment of “The Twitter Files”, Taibbi indicated Schiff’s staff asked Twitter “quite often” to take down certain tweets. A separate batch of Twitter Files that same month revealed similar requests by Schiff’s office.
An example he shared was one sent in November 2020 by Schiff’s office, which contacted Twitter hoping the tech giant would take action regarding “alleged harassment from QAnon conspiracists” against Schiff’s staff, including aide Sean Misko. The latest batch indicates Schiff’s office even fought to have unflattering pictures removed.
“This important use of taxpayer resources involved an ask about a ‘Peter Douche’ parody photo of Joe Biden. The DNC made the same request,” Taibbi wrote, proving visual evidence.
“To its credit, Twitter refused to remove it, with Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth saying it had obvious ‘humorous intent’ and ‘any reasonable observer’ – apparently, not a Schiff staffer – could see it was doctored,” he added.
Meanwhile, as the New York Post reports, things only appear to be getting worse, with left-leaning Big Tech billionaires like Bill Gates promoting even more frightening ideas to control conservatives.
In a recent chilling interview, Microsoft founder and billionaire Bill Gates called for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to combat not just “digital misinformation” but “political polarization,” as well.
Gates wants to fight this feared “political polarization” by checking “confirmation bias,” the tendency of people to search for information in a way that confirms their own embedded beliefs.
While this can be applied to anyone, left, right, or center, including COVID-19 fear mongers, climate change extremists, or Trump-Russia-collusion fanatics, it is now being used exclusively by our self-appointed tech overlords to dismiss all those who oppose and accepted, established liberal mantras.
And like all Leftist agendas, fear of the end fuels their need for control.
First, it was the fear of the end of the planet due to climate change, now it’s the fear of the end of democracy due to conservative ideas.
To these technocratic leftists, robust, free-wheeling debate in a democracy is now considered “political polarization,” and must be quashed to save us from death.
If we don’t use Gate’s enlightened, benevolent AI to supply the solutions, Gates suggested, we could all die: “Political polarization may bring it all to an end, we’re going to have a hung election and a civil war.”
And many leading left-wing Democrats, including Joe Biden, agree.
As the New York Post explains, the Orwellian Leftist censorship landscape may only get worse, even as they use a book by Aldous Huxley for their metaphor:
Others have suggested a Brave New World where citizens will be carefully guided in what they read and see. Democratic leaders have called for a type of “enlightened algorithm” to frame what citizens access on the internet. In 2021, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) objected that people were not listening to the informed views of herself and leading experts. Instead, they were reading views of skeptics by searching Amazon and finding books by “prominent spreaders of misinformation.”
Warren blamed Amazon for failing to limit searches or choices: “This pattern and practice of misbehavior suggests that Amazon is either unwilling or unable to modify its business practices to prevent the spread of falsehoods or the sale of inappropriate products.” In her letter, Warren gave the company 14 days to change its algorithms to throttle and obstruct efforts to read opposing views.
Social media responded to such calls and engaged in widespread censorship of those who held opposing views of mask mandates, vaccine safety, school mandates, and the origin of COVID-19. Many of those criticisms and views are now acknowledged as plausible and legitimate, but scientists were banned and censored. There was no “polarization” allowed. The public never was allowed to have that full debate on social media because such views were declared disinformation.
President Biden joined in these calls for censorship, often sounding like a censor-in-chief, denouncing social media companies for “killing people” by not blocking enough. Recently, he expressed doubt that the public can “know the truth” without such censorship by “editors” in Big Tech.
Well, in this case the fear is justified.
But it’s not fear that far-left Democrats and Big Tech billionaires espouse; it’s the fear of losing our constitutional right to free speech, and the platforms to express them.
Not to mention your right to order any book you want from Amazon.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – The war against woke is raging across the nation. From school districts to corporations and even the Pentagon, conservative Republicans are on the front lines to get America to wake up to what woke really is.
And it’s not the dictionary definition of the term.
As Florida Governor Ron DeSantis battles Disney over its woke policies, and both he and the Texas legislature dismantle neo-Marxist Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives statewide, liberals still try to focus on the textbook description of woke, as being ‘socially conscious’ rather than the radical concept it is.
This, as a growing majority of Americans are supporting the war against woke, and saying that if you “go woke, you go broke.” Budweiser is certainly learning this lesson right now.
Bud Light is facing a massive boycott over its partnership with transgender influencer (aka man who is trying to look like a woman) Dylan Mulvaney. And thankfully, it’s hurting the company.
But it isn’t the only one – Target, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Miller Lite are also being hit by outrage over their woke advertising.
Still, in a Newsweek piece, the writer, Aleks Phillips, makes every effort to focus on the dictionary definition of woke, even in a report about how their recent poll shows that Millennials favor the expression “go woke, go broke.”
Phillips writes:
The term ‘woke’ is a colloquialism that has emerged in recent years. Its definition is to be “aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice),” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
That’s the thoroughly watered-down dictionary definition. More specifically woke is an adjective derived from African American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning being “alert to racial prejudice and discrimination.”
But that too is less than meets the eye.
It’s a call to social justice activism. And social justice is a code for socialism.
Even so, the Newsweek poll contradicts the popular narrative that millennials are the most socially conscious group who care most about so-called ‘social justice’ issues.
The poll found that of those who were aware of the phrase “go woke, go broke,” an average of 71% of 25-44-year-olds agreed with the idea.
That’s a big chunk of adult folks who don’t seem to like woke.
Phillips later adds an earlier Newsweek reference where a clueless (and lefty) Kelly O’Keefe, founding partner of Brand Federation, said it was “really a minority on the right” that was “concerned about even the term ‘woke’.”
“They’ve essentially weaponized the term ‘woke’—which has a dictionary definition that almost no one could disagree with: standing up for those who have been misrepresented, poorly represented etc.,” he added.
But neither the leftist politicians and activists forcing the new wokeness, nor those suffering under the policies, see the term in such an innocuous manner.
Being woke isn’t about simply being socially aware. Not by a long shot.
It is a simple code word for a slew of policies based on a neo-Marxist ideology.
These policies include pushing a radical transgender agenda on our children, racial preferences, and discrimination in favor of minorities, and against whites (in schools, government and businesses), and outright socialism under the guise of ‘equity.’
To be clear – equity is the opposite of equality. It means the forceful creation of equal results rather than equality under the law, or equal opportunity. That is the textbook definition of socialism.
And more Americans, including Millennials, are seeing through the ‘textbook definition” of woke charade, and calling it what it is – a dangerous ideology – especially damaging to your corporate bottom line.
The outrage at woke brands like Bud Light has been sold by liberals as a reaction by a small minority of conservatives. But as noted earlier, the dramatic decline in Bud Light sales suggests that the boycott has widespread support.
Newsweek‘s poll also suggests that the opposition to everything woke isn’t just a preserve of conservatives anymore, it’s an increasingly American thing.
Phillips notes that:
A majority of both those who voted for Donald Trump in 2020 and those who voted for Joe Biden agreed with the sentiment of “go woke, go broke,” it found, with 71 percent of Trump supporters agreeing and 62 percent of Biden supporters.
So even a majority of liberal Biden supporters are coming around to see woke for the extremist ideology it is. And that’s not good for Democrats leaders who still seem hell-bent on pushing that radical agenda.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – We still don’t know if it was an intentional call for help, a prank, or a broken clip as Senate officials claim, but the American flag did spend some time flying upside down over the U.S. Capitol.
And considering it flew over the Democrat-led Senate building, the meaning and symbolism weren’t lost on many Americans.
A tweet by Rogan O’Handley, a political activist whose Twitter handle is DC_Draino, posted on May 16, 2023, showed a photo of the U.S. flag outside the Capitol flying upside down.
He tweeted: “NEW: US flag currently flying upside down over Senate building signaling distress and needing rescue.”
DC_Draino added: “Some believe it was flipped after Sen. Fetterman spoke with the sophistication of a drunk toddler in a hearing today.”
The tweet was viewed 4.3 million times by Thursday.
Under the U.S. Flag Code, turning the flag upside down should never be done “except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.”
Others noted that Congress, and indeed the entire country, is in distress and needs emergency assistance.
The upside-down flag display has also been used as a means of protest, mostly by conservatives.
Newsweek confirmed that the photo is real and the flag was at one point upside down, but reported that an official at the Capitol blamed the upside down flag on a broken clip, adding that the problem was later corrected.
However, many on Twitter questioned the explanation. One asked: “If it was a broken clip and the wind was blowing as it clearly is in the photo, why would it not appear to be attached by only one clip?”
“Science/physics, right?”
“If it was caused because a ‘clip broke’ wouldn’t the flag just streamer in the wind instead of still fluttering like a flag?” another user suggested.
DC_Draino also responded to the official explanation reported by Newsweek, and mocked those who bought it at face value:
Yes I know the article says a “clip broke” but the flag wouldn’t fly like that if it was hanging by 1 clip
Guarantee the reply guys in my comments taking the government’s PR answer at face value are vaccinated & boosted
The picture is clearly showing something different.
However, as symbolic and justified it may be to fly the American flag upside down over the Democrat-controlled Senate, this was still likely a case of human error and broken clip.
Still, maybe it should become a regular thing until the Republicans retake the Senate.
America is definitely in emergency distress.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
