Nobody expected Southwest Airlines to be the biggest grinch of all this Christmas.
As a winter storm rolled through much of the United States grounding thousands of airline passengers over the Christmas holidays. While nearly every airline was forced to announce delays and cancellations Southwest airlines was by and far the worst culprit, even drawing ire from the Dept. of Transportation.
Watch Amanda break down the controversy below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
An ethics watchdog is suing two top prosecutors for documents that may reveal a collusion scheme against President Donald Trump intended to influence the 2024 presidential election.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced in a statement it “filed a lawsuit against Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes for her communications with former Special Counsel Jack Smith.”
“On January 13, 2025 several media outlets reported that Attorney General Mayes had formally requested case documents from U.S. Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith’s criminal investigation into President Donald Trump regarding the 2020 presidential election,” Judicial Watch.
“12News reported that ‘Mayes said the documents could ensure defendants in Arizona’s fake electors case would be held accountable,’” Judicial Watch notes.
That case refers to supporters of President Trump from states whose Electoral College votes went to Joe Biden, who alleged the results were fraudulent offered themselves to the Electoral College as “alternate electors” under a theory the Electoral College could refuse to accept a state’s official slate of electors.
Many of them in states like Arizona now face prosecution on charges of fraud.
Critics argue there were no “fake electors” because the accused persons never mislead anyone about their identity, publicly identified themselves as alternate electors to be considered only in the event the slate of electors submitted by state officials could be rejected by the Electoral Congress and even held press conferences to explain what they were doing.
Judicial Watch reports it “filed the Arizona Public Records Law complaint in the Superior Court of Arizona after the attorney general failed to respond to a January 13, 2025, request for:”
Any communications and/or documents with Jack Smith and/or the DOJ Special Counsel group/team from January 1, 2022, to the completion of this request.
“Collusion against President Trump by Democratic politicians with Jack Smith and the weaponized Biden Justice Department are of great public interest,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “Attorney General Mayes is acting as if she has something to hide.”
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken is facing backlash after reports surfaced that the State Department organized therapy sessions for employees distressed by President-elect Donald Trump‘s victory in the 2024 election. According to sources who spoke to The Washington Free Beacon, the Biden administration’s State Department hosted the sessions for its staff to help them cope with the emotional fallout from the election results raising concerns about professionalism and the Department’s competency.
An internal email sent out by the Department’s Bureau of Medical Services encouraged staff to attend a one-hour webinar on “managing stress during change.” The session offered “effective stress management techniques” to help participants navigate the uncertainty they felt in the wake of the election.
It then invited employees to join a discussion on how to handle their feelings about the outcome of the election. The focus of the session, according to the email, was to “provide tips and practical strategies for managing stress and maintaining your well-being.”
While the initiative was likely well-intentioned in its goal to support mental health, the idea of government workers receiving taxpayer-funded therapy to cope with a political defeat has sparked fierce criticism. Among the most vocal detractors is Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Issa called the sessions “unacceptable,” emphasizing that government employees should not expect to be “soothed” over the results of a democratic election, especially when their salaries are funded by American taxpayers.
Issa lambasted the State Department for tolerating what he described as a “personal meltdown” from its employees. In a letter to Blinken, Issa noted that the U.S. government champions free and fair elections around the world, and that it was “disturbing” to see U.S. government officials struggling to cope with the results of a legitimate, democratically held election. He went on to question the appropriateness of taxpayer-funded therapy sessions for civil servants who, according to Issa, should be able to handle political change without resorting to emotional support services.
“It is unacceptable that the Department accommodates this behavior and subsidizes it with taxpayer dollars,” Issa wrote. “The mental health of our foreign service personnel is important, but the Department has no obligation to indulge and promote the leftist political predilections of its employees and soothe their frayed nerves because of the good-faith votes of—and at the personal expense of—the American taxpayers.”
Issa’s letter raised broader concerns about the State Department’s ability to effectively carry out its duties in a time of political transition. Given the stark policy differences between the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration, Issa questioned whether the personnel involved in these therapy sessions would be able to effectively implement the policy priorities of the new president.
“The mere fact that the Department is hosting these sessions raises significant questions about the willingness of its personnel to implement the lawful policy priorities that the American people elected President Trump to pursue,” Issa wrote.
The idea that a portion of the U.S. government workforce may struggle with accepting a Trump victory—despite the fact that elections are a regular and democratic part of American life—raises questions about the professional competence and political neutrality of federal employees.
The controversy over these therapy sessions underscores a growing sense of frustration among conservatives who believe that the federal government has become too politicized, particularly in agencies like the State Department, which often take progressive stances on global issues. Critics argue that such therapy sessions are emblematic of a broader trend within the federal bureaucracy, where employees may prioritize their personal political beliefs over their professional duties to serve the American people impartially.
Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News.
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 – Be afraid, Be very afraid. 1984 is almost here. A recent poll by the Libertarian CATO Institute showed that a big chunk of our latest and brightest Generation Z (Gen Z or Zoomers) actually favors having the government watch them 24/7.
Including surveillance in their homes and bedrooms.
Zoomers are officially those under the age of 26. And come right after Millennials.
After the horrors of World War Two showcased the brutal dangers of modern totalitarian dictatorships such as Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union, George Orwell penned his classic dystopian tale titled ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ (1984).
In the novel, written in 1949, the pervasive government of the fictional nation Oceania was known as ‘Big Brother,’ and it watched its citizens incessantly via two-way video devices called ‘telescreens.’
This was of course before the advent of television or modern surveillance.
Government agents known as the ‘Thought Police’ were able to monitor everyone at home, at work, on public streets, in shops, even in bathrooms. It was a terrifying existence.
The book and term ‘Big Brother’ have since been widely referenced when warning about government overreach and expanding state control.
Sadly, it seems that almost 30 percent of Gen Z (and some Millennials) haven’t read the book or understand the danger.
In a newly released Cato Institute 2023 Central Bank Digital Currency National Survey of 2,000 Americans, we asked respondents whether they “favor or oppose the government installing surveillance cameras in every household to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity.”
Fortunately, the poll shows that 75 percent of Americans oppose or are strongly opposed to this insane idea.
However, CATO also notes that the younger you get, the less concerned Americans are about state surveillance and control:
…Americans under the age of 30 stand out when it comes to 1984‐style in‐home government surveillance cameras. 3 in 10 (29 percent) Americans under 30 favor “the government installing surveillance cameras in every household” in order to “reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity.” Support declines with age, dropping to 20 percent among 30–44-year-olds and dropping considerably to 6 percent among those over the age of 45.
Support for 24/7 surveillance was especially high among those younger than 30. Almost a third of those born after 1993 said they would welcome round-the-clock monitoring by the government.
Those respondents in their 40s, 50s, and 60s were almost totally opposed. That is a terribly disturbing trend that bodes ill for liberty in America in the next decades.
In his Boston Globe Email Newsletter, Jeff Jacoby provides his explanation for this sad state among Zoomers:
…perhaps, [it] is that Generation Z has been indoctrinated to regard safety, not freedom, as the highest good — so much so that many would rather be under the nonstop watch of the state than face the possibility of being abused or endangered.”
If so, they are in for a fearful awakening. What little protection they might gain from being under the authorities’ constant watch is nothing compared with the peril they would face. Benjamin Franklin’s famous admonition is as relevant as ever: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Inviting Big Brother into your home will not keep Gen Z-ers safe. And by the time they realize what they have given up, it will be too late to get it back.
Jacoby adds that the protagonist of Orwell’s novel, Winston Smith, is a weak man who resents the regime — and is ultimately broken for it. And the must-read book’s final words are haunting: “He loved Big Brother.”
Yet, after all we have seen and know about tyranny, almost a third of Generation Z is still prepared to love Big Brother too. Yes, we must be afraid. Very afraid.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Americans may soon learn more about how a FBI agent worked with a liberal group to target President Donald Trump in a criminal investigation.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced in a statement it “filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for communications between former Assistant Special Agent in Charge Timothy Thibault and the anti-Trump organization American Oversight.”
“It’s a shame that we must sue to get these records about how the Biden gang at the FBI and DOJ tried to rig an election by jailing Trump for disputing the 2020 election,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It’s past time for these institutions to focus on transparency under law, so the American people can know the full truth on the lawfare attack perpetrated on Trump.”
Judicial Watch reports it filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia “after the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) failed to respond to a January 31, 2025, FOIA request for:”
Records and communications between Timothy Thibault, former [Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Washington Field Office] and the non-profit organization American Oversight, 1030 15th St. NW, B255, Washington, D.C. 20005, email domain: @americanoversight. The search terms for this request are a) Trump b) Electors c) Investigation d) election
According to Judicial Watch, “in July 2022, U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) reportedly warned then-Attorney General Merrick Garland that Thibault and an official in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, Richard Pilger, were ‘deeply involved in the decisions to open and pursue election-related investigations against President Trump. At the time, whistleblowers told Grassley that the Thibault-Pilger investigation’s predicating document was based on information from “liberal nonprofit American Oversight.”’ Thibault retired in August 2022.”
Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) have revealed in a statement that:
Internal FBI emails and predicating documents provided to Grassley and released jointly by the two senators show Timothy Thibault, a former FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) who was forced to retire from the Bureau after Grassley exposed his public anti-Trump bias, authored the initial language for what ultimately became Jack Smith’s federal case against Trump regarding the 2020 presidential election. Records show Thibault essentially opened and approved his own investigation.
Judicial Watch reports American Oversight describes itself as “founded in 2017 in response to the unprecedented challenges that the Trump administration posed to our nation’s democratic ideals and institutions.…” Earlier this year, Politico described it as, “A left-leaning watchdog group … working to gather materials that could feed Congressional investigations into the Trump administration.”
The latest Rasmussen poll is reporting some unfortunate facts about the state of America. A plurality of those polled said that our country’s best days are behind it…Do you agree?
Watch Amanda break down the problem below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – As a former Marine Corps officer and military attaché who served at several embassies overseas in the 1990s, it has infuriated me to see partisans and ideologues impose their radical agendas on our foreign embassies during Joe Biden’s tenure at the White House.
Flying extremely divisive, and to many host countries, offensive, flags representing controversial sexual agendas (LGBTQ+), which includes the extreme ‘trans’ movement, and private groups which espouse hate toward one race and law enforcement (Black Lives Matter – BLM), has been an egregious abuse pushed hard by the Biden State Department since last year.
Our embassies and consulates are official extensions of the United States. They are even considered sovereign U.S. territory.
They are there on behalf of the entire U.S. nation, as represented by our national flag, not sectarian views, or radical and controversial agendas.
This is true, even when these same radical agendas are being forced on our executive branches of government.
Thankfully, the new GOP House is proposing to quickly change that abuse.
The Old Glory Only Act, introduced Monday by South Carolina Republican Rep. Jeff Duncan would prohibit any flag other than the American flag to be flown over U.S. embassies and consulates.
“Our beautiful flag, Old Glory, should be the only flag flying and representing our country over our diplomatic and consular posts worldwide,” Duncan said in a press release announcing the bill’s introduction in the House Monday. “The American flag is a beacon of liberty, and no other flag or symbol better portrays our shared values than the Stars and Stripes. It is important to ensure that Old Glory only is flown at American embassies to represent our ideals abroad.”
The New York Times previously reported that Biden Secretary of State Antony Blinken authorized U.S. embassies to fly ‘gay pride’ flags in April 2021, prior to May 17, which is the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, and to continue displaying the flag through the end of the month.
The push to fly the rainbow ‘gay pride’ flag actually began in 2014, under the Obama-Biden term. That flag has flown over U.S. embassies in more than a dozen countries since then, including Russia, Spain, Sweden and South Korea.
President Trump’s Secretary of State banned the ‘pride’ flags from being flown but his order was quickly reversed by Blinken.
In May, another cable from Blinken’s State Department authorized flying Black Lives Matter flags at U.S. diplomatic facilities worldwide, Foreign Policy reported at the time.
The BLM flag has been flown at U.S. embassies in Brazil, Greece, Spain, Bosnia, Cambodia and South Korea, according to Duncan’s office.
This, even though violent BLM rioters had spent months attacking the federal courthouse in Portland and laying siege to dozens of cities nationwide just months earlier in 2020.
The BLM riots caused over $2 billion in property damage, more than any other similar event in U.S. history, injured over 2,000 local and federal police officers, and resulted in numerous deaths of civilians.
According to the NYT, a cable from the State Department at the time gave the chiefs of missions (COMs), who lead our overseas diplomatic stations, a “blanket written authorization” to display the flags if it was “appropriate in light of local conditions.”
While the Times noted this was an “authorization, not a requirement,” few COMs will ignore the pressure to follow the boss’ lead, and the more woke embassies and consulates quickly started flying these unofficial flags.
Republicans are optimistic the new GOP leadership will hold a vote on the bill since there is broad GOP support for the idea.
But why stop there? Why not ban these divisive flags from being flown over any federal buildings, period – including all of the ones here at home?
According to the General Services Administration (GSA), More than 40 federal buildings across the country opted to raise the Pride Flag to show their support of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” in the federal workforce.
What they are actually doing is flying the flags of exclusive, divisive and radical private groups on federal property paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
This too must end.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – From the day cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was shot and killed on the set of the movie Rust, on Oct. 21, 2021, there has been a flurry of speculation over whether anyone would be criminally charged.
Hutchins was killed when a live round was fired from a real ‘prop’ gun being held by liberal actor Alec Baldwin.
Well, now the speculation is over, and Baldwin will be charged.
He has always denied responsibility, saying the replica old west revolver should have had dummy bullets and that he never pulled the trigger.
On the first point, Baldwin is correct; on the second, he is less convincing.
Baldwin statement on Rust charges 2/2:
'He relied on the professionals with whom he worked, who assured him the gun did not have live rounds.
The set armorer is responsible for ensuring gun safety. And there was no reason for live rounds to be on a movie set. Period.
Much less mixed in with dummy rounds.
The armorer certainly is responsible if not culpable. And a big question is why live rounds were on the set and mixed in with dummy rounds and who put them there.
But experts have shown that Baldwin’s claim of not firing the gun doesn’t wash.
It is physically impossible for this type of gun to fire without the trigger being pulled and/or the hammer dropped.
Beyond his immediate possible culpability as the man who ‘fired’ the gun, Baldwin was also a producer of the low-budget Western film.
After the shooting numerous current and former crew members from the film publicly claimed that safety was extremely lax, and formal complaints had been made and ignored about those safety concerns.
The shooting occurred while rehearsing a scene inside a wooden chapel on Bonanza Creek Ranch in New Mexico.
This is a popular western location seen in the likes of Jimmy Stewart’s 1955 “The Man from Laramie” and Paul Newman and Robert Redford’s 1969 “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.”
As the crew worked out positions for the scene, Baldwin, playing a grizzled 1880s Kansas outlaw, fired a live round from an Italian-made Pietta Long Colt revolver replica – the bullet passed through Hutchins’ chest and lodged in director Joel Souza’s shoulder.
Hutchins died in a flight to the hospital in Albuquerque, while Souza was later discharged from the hospital.
In April 2022, the producers, including Baldwin, were fined $136,793 by the New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Bureau, which said: “management knew that firearm safety procedures were not being followed on set and demonstrated plain indifference to employee safety.”
A wrongful death lawsuit was then filed against Alec Baldwin and other key members of the production in Feb. 2022.
The lawsuit named Baldwin and others who “are responsible for the safety on the set” and called out “reckless behavior and cost-cutting” that led to the death of Hutchins, according to the family’s lawyer.
The lawsuit also claimed that Baldwin and other “Rust” crew and cast committed “major breaches” of safety on the set.
That lawsuit was later settled.
But Baldwin’s legal woes continue as he is now being hit with two counts of involuntary manslaughter over the shooting.
Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the film’s young and inexperienced armorer, will also be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter.
Meanwhile, assistant director Dave Halls who handed the gun to Baldwin prior to the shooting signed a plea agreement for a charge of the negligent use of a deadly weapon.
In return, he received a suspended sentence and six months of probation, according to the district attorney.
If Baldwin is convicted, he could be facing up to 18 months in prison.
“Involuntary manslaughter in New Mexico is a Class D felony punishable by up to 18 months in prison,” former Assistant U.S. Attorney Neama Rahmani explained to Fox News Digital. “If Baldwin is convicted, I can see him being sentenced at or near the max.”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
