Have you seen the results of this poll? Are you concerned?
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
More media companies are feeling the pinch…
Watch Amanda explain the situation:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – When Republican governors Ron DeSantis of Florida and Greg Abbott of Texas began busing illegal migrants from their states to deep blue ‘sanctuary’ cities like New York City, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., Democrats, and the establishment media called it a political ‘stunt.’
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, leading another state suffering from the same migrant crisis, has also sent migrants from his state to sanctuary cities in recent months.
Abbott has been the most prolific bussing migrants north.
DeSantis sent a couple of busloads to the uber liberal and wealthy enclave of Martha’s Vineyard, the exclusive Massachusetts island that is a regular playground for liberal Hollywood and DC elites.
The governors want to put the pressure of Joe Biden’s horrendous border and immigration policies on the front stoops of big city Democrat mayors, instead of the backyards of mostly red Republican border states.
They also wanted to highlight the issue nationally and emphasize the sheer insanity of the entire sanctuary city concept where illegal aliens are virtually invited to come and stay, safe from federal law enforcement.
And the governors’ ‘stunt’ appears to be working.
Both the outgoing mayor of Chicago and the new mayor of NYC are begging for help with the crush of these migrants.
NYC Mayor Eric Adams, a national surrogate for Biden, has been the most outspoken, recently saying Biden has “failed” his city which is being “destroyed by the migrant crisis.”
Mayor Lori Lightfoot of Chicago sent a letter to Abbott on Sunday requesting that he stop sending busloads of migrants to the Windy City over what she called political motivations.
She said the city has been caring for more than 8,000 penniless migrants since the first buses arrived from Texas in August. And the number is growing.
But Abbott began sending migrant buses to these blue cities in the fall as a response to the surge of migrant crossings at the southern border caused by Bien’s obscene and likely illegal immigration policies.
Abbott has said the migrant ‘relocations will continue until the federal government secures the border.
In her letter, Lightfoot said she is sympathetic to the challenges of border towns in Texas but wrote:
Chicago is a Welcoming City and we collaborate with County, State, and community partners to rise to this challenge, but your lack of consideration or coordination in an attempt to cause chaos and score political points has resulted in a critical tipping point in our ability to receive individuals and families in a safe, orderly, and dignified way.
Well, good. Now she can truly be ‘sympathetic’ to the border towns suffering under the stampede of illegal migrants Biden is allowing into the country.
She added a bunch of other claptrap in her letter blaming Abbott for being heartless and creating a humanitarian crisis, etc.
Unfortunately, what she totally ignores is that her ‘welcoming’ policies, and those of her party and the president, are the direct cause of the migrant crisis.
Meanwhile, Politico reports that “Republicans just gained an unlikely ally in their attacks on the president’s immigration policies: the Democratic mayor of New York.”
Unlike Lightfoot, Adams seems to get it.
GOP leaders high-fived this month after hearing Mayor Adams say Biden had “failed” the city on immigration and that NYC “is being destroyed by the migrant crisis.”
In this past year, more than 57,000 migrants have arrived in New York after crossing the southern border. Some were sent from states like Texas, but others arrived on their own.
City services used to house, feed, educate, and provide health care to newcomers are estimated to cost taxpayers $2.9 billion next year alone.
This is more than the entire NYC Fire Department operating budget.
Adams’ new rhetoric has drawn praise from some Republicans and the conservative editorial page of the New York Post.
His words have also echoed remarks by Fox News contributor Sean Duffy.
But not all Republicans are cheering for Adams. Rep. Chip Roy of Texas wasn’t quite ready to applaud the New York mayor.
Politico continued:
“Eric Adams is right to blame the Biden Administration for the border crisis, but this is the same guy who campaigned on his city’s sanctuary status and extended childcare, colleague classes and other taxpayer-funded programs to illegal migrants,” Roy said in a statement.
“Texas has been bearing the brunt of this crisis for over two years — now New York is getting a taste of their own medicine.”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
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.
A nonprofit legal watchdog has filed a federal lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency, seeking documents and records over an election-year government effort to cover up reporting seen as damaging to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.
In particular, the group seeks information on the agency’s role in a letter signed by 51 intelligence officials that falsely claimed the Russian government “planted” evidence of criminal activity on a laptop owned by Biden’s middle-aged son Hunter.
Judicial Watch filed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the CIA for all “communications of the spy agency’s Prepublication Classification Review Board (PCRB) regarding an October 19, 2020, email request to review and ‘clear’ a letter signed by 51 former intelligence community officials characterizing the Hunter Biden laptop story as having ‘all the earmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign,’” the group announced.
“The Deep State CIA, it seems, engaged in election interference and a political operation against the American people to help Joe Biden and hurt Trump,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And now the CIA is ignoring FOIA law to cover up its role in the scandal, censoring and suppressing the Hunter Biden/Joe Biden laptop story just before the presidential election.”
In October 2020, the New York Post broke a bombshell story revealing that Hunter Biden’s laptop, which he abandoned at a Delaware computer shop, contained photographs of Hunter Biden engaged in drug use and using prostitutes, as well as emails describing what appear to be shady foreign business deals.
Fearing the story could damage Biden’s presidential campaign, social media companies attempted to suppress the sharing of the Post’s reporting.
The Biden campaign also reached out to intelligence officials, including the CIA and FBI, seeking their help in falsely discrediting the story.
“In a May 10, 2023, report the House Judiciary Committee revealed that on October 19, 2020, three days before the second presidential debate between President Donald Trump and Democrat candidate Joe Biden, then-Acting CIA Director Michael Morell sent the PCRB the finalized letter for review, calling it a ‘rush job,’ and quickly secured its approval,” Judicial Watch reports.
Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the CIA failed to respond to a May 11, 2023, FOIA request for:
Records and communications of the Prepublication Classification Review Board, Central Intelligence Agency, including emails, email chains, email attachments, text messages, cables, voice recordings, correspondence, statements, letters, memoranda, reports, presentations, notes, or other form of record, regarding an October 19, 2020, email request to review and “clear” a letter involving the Hunter Biden laptop story potentially having Russian involvement or being a Russian disinformation plot.
An investigation by the House Judiciary Committee and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence found that the CIA, or a CIA employee, may have helped the Biden campaign find signers for the false letter.
One former CIA employee, David Cariens, reveals that while speaking with the PCRB in October 2020 to review materials for his memoir, a CIA employee “asked” him to sign the false letter.
“When the person in charge of reviewing the book called to say it was approved with no changes, I was told about the draft letter,” said Cariens.
“The person asked me if I would be willing to sign. . . . After hearing the letter’s contents, and the qualifiers in it such as, “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement . . .’ I agreed to sign,” Cariens said.
“If accurate, this information raises fundamental concerns about the role of the CIA in helping to falsely discredit allegations about the Biden family in the weeks before the 2020 presidential election,” Judicial Watch notes.
Another former CIA officer, Marc Polymeropoulos, criticized the CIA’s involvement in his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee in the following exchange:
Q. Does what [Former CIA official David Cariens] described there, that interaction with the [Prepublication Classification Review Board], sound like a quid pro quo to you?
A. I can’t comment on this. This is—to me, this is something that the [Prepublication Classification Review Board] in my experience would never engage in something like that. They are just straightforward back and forth in terms of approval. The idea they would have a comment on any other thing that they were working on, that to me is not even close to what I’ve experienced with them.
Q. Does that concern you?
A. If it’s true, it would concern me, for sure. But I just—I have a hard time believing that occurred. If it did, that’s incredibly unprofessional.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It first appeared in American Liberty News.
READ NEXT: Longtime ACU/CPAC Leader David Keene Speaks Out After Vice Chair’s Resignation
It’s difficult for Joe Biden to see down from his ivory tower.
Biden found himself the target of criticism from both sides of the aisle after a major environmental faux pas…
Watch Amanda explain the controversy below:
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.
CATO’s Blog notes that:
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.
ANALYSIS – This is how the world ends, not with a bang, but a ‘misgendering.’
A recent podcast interview with the ex-Twitter censorship czar provides insight into the warped woke ‘logic’ behind insanely dangerous leftist censorship.
The illuminating comments were made by the former head of trust and safety at Twitter to defend the company’s earlier choice to suspend the Babylon Bee, a Christian satire outlet, for ‘misgendering’ a public official.
Misgendering is the new made-up woke term that refers to someone not calling someone else by their own totally made-up preferred gender identity.
And to the Left, this simple choice is a horrific act of brutality against a ‘vulnerable community’ and cannot be tolerated under any circumstances – “full stop.”
In the interview Yoel Roth stated:
“So let’s start from a premise that it’s fu**ed up. But then again let’s look at what Twitter’s written policies are, Twitter’s written policies prohibit misgendering, full stop. And the Babylon Bee, in the name of satire, misgendered Admiral Rachel Levine.”
Oh, the horror…
As Fox News reported:
Ex-Twitter safety chief Yoel Roth slammed conservative Twitter accounts during a discussion with journalist Kara Swisher that was later released on her Thursday podcast.
The Babylon Bee (The Bee) was suspended from Twitter after it made a joke at the expense of transgender Health and Human Services assistant secretary Dr. Rachel Levine, who identifies as a female.
The Bee had published a satirical piece congratulating the government official for being dubbed its “Man of the Year” for 2022.
While letting him know that she did not agree with Twitter’s choice to suspend The Bee, Swisher invited Roth to explain his company’s course of action at the time.
“It’s interesting to think about what the competing tensions around that are. I want to start by acknowledging that the targeting and the victimization of the trans community on Twitter is very real, very life-threatening, and extraordinarily serious,” Roth claimed.
“We have seen from a number of Twitter accounts, including LibsOfTikTok notably, that there are orchestrated campaigns that particularly are singling out a group that is already particularly vulnerable within society.”
He went on to say, “Not only is it not funny, but it is dangerous, and it does contribute to an environment that makes people unsafe in the world.”
The former Twitter official then went on to shield himself behind Twitter’s regulations, suggesting that his team was merely enforcing the rules on the books.
Well, not only are Roth’s comments outrageous nonsense, they are dangerous to all our freedoms.
It is a scientific fact that biological men and women cannot change sex. Despite every painful effort, they can only change their appearance.
Biology and chromosomes can’t be transformed, even if genitals and breasts can be mutilated, and supplemented by a lifetime regimen of drugs and hormone injections.
Of course, clothing, accessories, and behavior can also be adjusted and modified.
But, these are all essentially cosmetic, even when some are horribly invasive, changes.
Calling a biological man a man is simply scientific fact.
It is even more accurate when the man has not undergone any sexual transition procedures, but simply ‘identifies’ as a woman.
The same applies to women ‘identifying’ as men.
But banning ‘misgendering’ isn’t enough, Twitter’s Terms of Service continues the insanity by prohibiting ‘deadnaming’ transgender individuals.
‘Deadnaming’ is another newly made up woke term that refers to simply calling someone by the name they were known by prior to their deciding to identify with the opposite sex.
In the case of Rachel Levine, that means calling him Richard, his name for the majority of his male life.
Notice I just ‘misgendered,’ and ‘deadnamed’ Levine.
While on a personal level some of us may choose to accept the preferred gender identity, pronouns, or new name of a ‘transgender’ individual, out of courtesy or whatever other reason, that choice should not be dictated by Big Tech, or anyone else.
And doing so has created a dangerous new logic that the right of a ‘transgender’ individual to demand everyone use his or her gender identity, or new name, absolutely trumps all our rights to our own beliefs and our constitutional right to free speech.
And that is the most dangerous thing of all
Please note that new ‘Chief Twit’ Elon Musk has reinstated Twitter accounts, such as Babylon Bee, previously suspended for policy violations, Twitter’s terms of service still lay out the old rules about misgendering.
Musk needs to quickly, but carefully, change those rules. How he does that will set a new standard for how these issues should be dealt with by other platforms, and society in general. GAND
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – This could be huge. Donald Trump is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court – which he helped shape as president – following a ruling in Colorado to bar him from its presidential primary ballot over his engagement in an “insurrection.”
Colorado’s all Democrat appointed, left-leaning Supreme Court has ruled 4 to 3 that former President Donald Trump is disqualified from holding office again because he engaged in an “insurrection” over the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
Republicans see the Colorado court’s decision as yet another egregious example of the Democrats’ ongoing campaign of election interference against Trump.
The majority justices’ decision reversed a Denver district judge’s finding last month that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment did not apply to the presidency.
The three justices who dissented did so on procedural grounds. In three separate dissenting opinions, each based on different legal arguments, they all concluded that the Colorado Supreme Court had overstepped its authority.
Colorado’s decision will go into effect on Jan. 4, 2024 – the eve of Colorado’s March 5 Republican primary.
In the wake of the decision, Team Trump came out swinging. As The New York Times reported:
“Unsurprisingly, the all-Democrat appointed Colorado Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump, supporting a Soros-funded, left-wing group’s scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden by removing President Trump’s name from the ballot and eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice,” a campaign spokesman, Steven Cheung, said. “We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits.”
Similar challenges in New Hampshire, Michigan and Minnesota have all been dismissed in court, because the idea is nonsense. The courts there also decided that the Constitution is unclear about whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies to the president.
As Trump’s lawyers have already said he will appeal the verdict. The shock ruling will put an exceptional case before the U.S. Supreme Court – possibly being forced to decide the question for all 50 U.S. states.
The U.S. Supreme Court is made up of nine justices, six of whom are conservatives, or “constitutionalists,” three of whom were appointed by President Trump.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
This article was republished with permission from American Liberty News.
Americans who purchased Bibles, sporting goods or products associated with former President Donald Trump were flagged for surveillance by a federal government spy program, U.S. House investigators reveal.
After the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol, FBI officials told banks that Americans who support President Trump or express religious views may be suspected terrorists, and demanded banks report customers whose transactions indicated they may be political conservatives.
Such blanket surveillance is prohibited by the United States Constitution, which requires the federal government to secure a warrant, based on probable cause, specifically naming the person targeted.
“New documents obtained by the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government reveal that the federal government flagged terms like “MAGA” and “TRUMP” for financial institutions if Americans used those phrases when completing transactions,” the U.S. House Judiciary Committee revealed in a statement.
“Individuals who shopped at stores like Cabela’s or Dick’s Sporting Goods, or purchased religious texts like a bible, may also have had their transactions flagged. This kind of pervasive financial surveillance, carried out in coordination with and at the request of federal law enforcement, into Americans’ private transactions is alarming and raises serious concerns about the FBI’s respect for fundamental civil liberties,” the Committee stated.
In response, the Committee is demanding senior government officials appear for questioning.
“In light of these revelations, Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) has requested transcribed interviews from Peter Sullivan, Senior Private Sector Partner for Outreach in the Strategic Partner Engagement Section of the FBI, and Noah Bishoff, former Director of the Office of Stakeholder Integration and Engagement in the Strategic Operations Division of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN),” the Committee reveals.
Jordan’s letter to Noah Bishoff reads, in part:
“The Committee and Select Subcommittee have obtained documents indicating that following January 6, 2021, FinCEN distributed materials to financial institutions that, among other things, outline the ‘typologies’ of various persons of interest and provide financial institutions with suggested search terms and Merchant Category Codes (MCCs) for identifying transactions on behalf of federal law enforcement. These materials included a document recommending the use of generic terms like ‘TRUMP’ and ‘MAGA’ to ‘search Zelle payment messages’ as well as a ‘prior FinCEN analysis’ of ‘Lone Actor/Homegrown Violent Extremism Indicators.’ According to this analysis, FinCEN warned financial institutions of ‘extremism’ indicators that include ‘transportation charges, such as bus tickets, rental cars, or plane tickets, for travel to areas with no apparent purpose,’ or ‘the purchase of books (including religious texts) and subscriptions to other media containing extremist views.’ In other words, FinCEN urged large financial institutions to comb through the private transactions of their customers for suspicious charges on the basis of protected political and religious expression.
“In addition, the Committee and Select Subcommittee have obtained documents showing that FinCEN distributed slides, prepared by a financial institution, explaining how other financial institutions can use MCC codes to detect customers whose transactions may reflect ‘potential active shooters, [and] who may include dangerous International Terrorists / Domestic Terrorists / Homegrown Violent Extremists (“Lone Wolves”).’ For example, the slides instruct financial institutions to query for transactions using certain MCC codes such as ‘3484: Small Arms,’ ‘5091: Sporting and Recreational Goods and Supplies,’ and the keywords ‘Cabela’s,’ and ‘Dick’s Sporting Goods,’ among several others. Despite these transactions having no apparent criminal nexus—and, in fact, relate to Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights—FinCEN seems to have adopted a characterization of these Americans as potential threat actors. This kind of pervasive financial surveillance, carried out in coordination with and at the request of federal law enforcement, into Americans’ private transactions is alarming and raises serious doubts about FinCEN’s respect for fundamental civil liberties.
“As the former Director of the Office of Stakeholder Integration and Engagement in the Strategic Operations Division, you engaged regularly with financial institutions following the events of January 6, 2021, including the distribution of material about how financial institutions could use private customer information to assist federal law enforcement. As such, your testimony will aid our oversight. In particular, your testimony will help to inform the Committee and Select Subcommittee about federal law enforcement’s mass accumulation and use of Americans’ private information without legal process; FinCEN’s protocols, if any, to safeguard Americans’ privacy and constitutional rights in the receipt and use of such information; and FinCEN’s general engagement with the private sector on law-enforcement matters.”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
