Random

    Opinion

    Home Opinion Page 39

    Many in Gen Z ‘Love Big Brother,’ Want State Surveillance in Homes

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    3
    Image via Pixabay free images.

    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.

    Biden DOJ Wants Even Harsher Sentences for Key Jan. 6 Rioters

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    3
    Elvert Barnes, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – First, let’s be clear. I was at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, as a security contractor for a foreign TV news crew. I witnessed the chaos firsthand and was not happy about it. 

    I strongly condemned those who violently rioted there in an article the very next day.

    In my piece, I even said they should go to jail, just like any other violent rioters.

    And they should. But Joe Biden’s DoJ isn’t content with ‘hard time’ for some of these rioters. They want a much longer time.

    To also be clear, at the Capitol that day I saw tens of thousands of peaceful protesters before the riot. And saw many ‘rioters’ who weren’t violent.

    Meanwhile, I have written about how many peaceful Jan. 6 protesters have been persecuted unfairly, and how harshly many violent rioters have been treated compared to equally violent Black Lives Matter (BLM) rioters.

    Some of it is due to the Biden Department of Justice (DoJ) being hyper-political and overzealous, and part of it is the fact that these folks are getting tried and sentenced in the ‘People’s Republic of DC.’

    When I first read of the case of Stewart Rhodes, head of the Oath Keepers, I thought he was one of the few who should get serious jail time. He and his gang were part of an organized, violent cadre that went to the Capitol to create violent chaos.

    This is why they were charged and convicted of ‘seditious conspiracy’ – the only ones to be found guilty of that serious charge.

    But when I heard he had gotten 18 years, I was floored. Child molesters get less time. Repeat violent offenders get less time. Even convicted spies sometimes get less time.

    Eighteen years is a lot of time.

    Even so, federal prosecutors are not satisfied with the severity of the jail terms delivered by the federal judge overseeing the case.

    In the case of Rhodes, they wanted 25 years.

    U.S. District Court Judge, and Barack Obama appointee, Amit Mehta sentenced Rhodes, and his colleagues, harshly due what he characterized as a dangerous criminal conspiracy aimed at violently derailing the transfer of presidential power.

    But even if you believe these knuckleheads were intent on blocking the certification of the Electoral College vote, their chances of ‘derailing the transfer of presidential power’ two weeks later, on Jan 20, were little to none.

    This is why Mehta’s sentences, while harsh, were still less than the prison terms prosecutors recommended and years below an agreed-upon “guidelines range” based upon their charges.

    Of the others convicted of seditious conspiracy, Florida Oath Keeper leader Kelly Meggs received a 12-year term instead of the 21 DOJ wanted. Roberto Minuta of New York was sentenced to 4.5 years instead of 17. Joseph Hackett of Florida got a 3.5-year sentence; DOJ sought 12 years. 

    Ed Vallejo of Arizona was sentenced to 3-years, while DOJ wanted 17. And David Moerschel of Florida was sentenced to three years instead of the 10 DoJ wanted.

    All of these are significant sentences in federal prison. A few might be deserved, but Biden’s DoJ isn’t happy with that. They want these folks to suffer even more. 

    If only DoJ was that zealous with other political crimes, and criminals, Hunter Biden might actually be in jail.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Controversial Lefty-Feminist ‘Barbie’ Movie Tops $1 Billion at Box Office

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0

    Barbie was released in cinemas worldwide on July 21. Since then, according to Warner Bros., the colorfully controversial, left-leaning, gender-bender, fantasy-comedy movie has drawn in $459m so far in the U.S. and $572m internationally.

    That means it has already topped $1 billion overall. This is a huge global smash. But what does it say about us?

    Oscar-nominated Barbie writer and director Greta Gerwig also became the first female filmmaker to surpass the billion-dollar benchmark as a solo director, Warner Bros. said.

    Other female directors have helmed films that have surpassed the $1bn-mark, but they were working with others. Frozen, the animated blockbuster, and its sequel have generated more than $1.4bn in box office takings and were co-directed by Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck.

    Meanwhile, Captain Marvel, starring Brie Larson and co-directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck, generated more than $1.1bn at the box office.

    But what is the very pink themed movie, starring Margot Robbie (the primary Barbie) and Ryan Gosling (the primary Ken), about? What is its messaging?  

    The feminist comedy with a PG-13 rating’s plot hinges on Barbie leaving her fake but perfectly idealized world behind and, like Pinocchio before her, becoming “real.” 

    That’s when it gets political and goes straight into lefty social issues like ‘the patriarchy,’ and gender confusion-fusion.

    Elon Musk mocked the film on ‘X,’ formerly known as Twitter, saying: “If you take a shot every time Barbie says the word ‘Patriarchy,’ you will pass out before the movie ends.”

    Conservatives have derided the Barbie movie’s anti-male themes, and inclusion of a trans-gender actor/actress playing one of the Barbies. The critics include journalist Piers Morgan and commentator Ben Shapiro. Newsweek reported:

    “If I made a movie mocking women as useless dunderheads, constantly attacking ‘the matriarchy,’ and depicting all things feminist as toxic bulls***, I wouldn’t just be canceled, I’d be executed,” Morgan wrote in his columns for British newspaper The Sun and The New York Post after seeing the Barbie movie.

    Shapiro meanwhile went as far as to burn a Barbie and Ken doll on Saturday, after seeing the movie the night before. The following Monday he claimed he had received death threats for his stunt.”

    Writing for the New York Post, Morgan added: “the movie achieves exactly what it wanted to achieve and that is to establish the matriarchy as the perfect antidote to the patriarchy when in fact it’s just the same concept that they asked us all to detest in the first place.”

    The movie “forgets its core audience of families and children while catering to nostalgic adults and pushing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender character stories,” wrote a contributor to Movieguide, a site with a conservative Christian bent.

    Ginger Gaetz, wife of conservative Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz, posted on ‘X’ that at the premiere, she saw “disappointingly low T from Ken,” referring to testosterone, and she also called him a “beta” male, not an alpha. 

    Less politically, Time said: “Barbie never lets us forget how clever it’s being, every exhausting minute.”

    Mattel has a lot riding on its $100m Barbie movie, the first of a planned slew of films from the toy-making behemoth that include Masters of the Universe, Barney, Hot Wheels and Magic 8 Ball, to name but a few.

    The Barbie doll was launched by Mattel in 1959, when the toy-maker itself was only 14 years old, and has sold over a billion units over six decades.

    Today, Barbie is still considered Mattel’s crown jewel, driving about a third of its $5 billion annual revenue.

    Since 2018, Mattel has been working on a strategy to license its intellectual properties to Hollywood, to reverse a sales decline over recent years. The new movie was a big gamble for Mattel Films.

    A hit would boost toy sales, a flop would have done the opposite – threatening other projects currently in pre-production. But the gamble has clearly paid off.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    C*VID Could Be Linked to China’s Secret Biowarfare Program: House GOP Intel Report

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    4
    Ureem2805, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – While I never claimed C*VID was a deliberately released Chinese b*oweapon or even explicitly that it was part of a b*oweapons program, I did point out that China had an extensive biowarfare program that could be involved with the creation and leak of the v*rus.

    I also explored the likely theory that C*VID-*9 accidentally escaped from the BSL-4 bio lab at the W*han Institute of Vir*logy.

    This was the W*han bio-leak theory.

    To me, this was a no-brainer and something any intelligence analyst of any merit should have been evaluating when C*VID first surfaced in W*han, China, in December 2019.

    However, the mere mention of any of these considerations was immediately crushed by so-called scientific experts, the media, left-leaning politicians and a host of others, branding it disinformation or misinformation to even mention the possibility that C*VID could be man-made.

    Big Tech social media platforms quickly made it their job to ferociously suppress any discussion that China may have accidentally created C*VID, much less that it could be tied to a Chinese military b*owarfare program.

    This censorship affected scientists, and others, and even resulted in many respected persons, including me, being canceled by social media platforms, such as LinkedIn. [Editor’s Note: This article is currently being censored]

    This draconian response was partly due to President Trump noting this was a possibility, producing a visceral reaction to say the opposite.

    But the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) was also part of the major effort to downplay any connection between C*VID and China’s b*oweapons, claiming in an October 2021 Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) assessment that S*RS-C*V-2 was “probably not a b*ological weapon.”

    Over time, as the evidence piled up, and experts became less afraid to contradict the official narrative, more and more reporting was done pointing to the W*han bio lab as the potential source of an accidental leak.

    And now we are going beyond that and potentially linking C*VID to China’s secretive military b*owarfare effort.

    A new unclassified report released by GOP members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) argues that C*VID-*9 “may have been tied” to China’s b*ological weapons research program.

    The minority report, released on Dec. 14 states that “there are indications that S*RS-C*V-2 may have been tied to China’s biological weapons research program and spilled over to the human population during a lab-related incident at the W*han Institute of Vir*logy (WIV).”

    Significantly, the committee blamed the intelligence community when it further stated in its report that it has “reason to believe that the IC downplayed the possibility that S*RS-C*V-2 was connected to China’s b*oweapons program based in part on input from outside experts.”

    These ‘outside’ experts the IC relied on were of course extremely biased, many with political, ideological or financial agendas.

    The GOP report also highlights that the intelligence community has “failed to comply” with numerous requests for information—including bipartisan committee questions about the experts relied upon for its assessment.

    As The Epoch Times reported, Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, noted the IC’s non-compliance when he stated: “We should know who is making these decisions and how they are coming to their conclusions. I think that’s our responsibility as oversight, and to date, we have not received that information.”

    Expect the Republican majority to push the intelligence community harder on this issue when it takes control of the HPSCI and other related committees.

    It’s time we learn the full truth about how these assessments were completed. And also learn as much as possible about the true origins of C*VID. 

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Amanda Head: Even Hollywood Hates Meghan Markle Now

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0
    WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND - October 28: THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX'S VISIT TO NEW ZEALAND: Engagement 6. Reception hosted by the Governor-General, Government House. October 28, 2018 in Wellington, New Zealand. (Photo by Mark Tantrum/ http://marktantrum.com)

    Even woke Hollywood can’t stand Meghan Markle…

    The former princess’ podcast finally got the axe…

    Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Anti-War GOP Rep Gaetz Joins Forces with Far Left ‘Squad’

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    1
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    ANALYSIS – Bad idea. It was just a matter of time before the conservative Republican populists ranting against defending Ukraine and America’s so-called ‘forever wars,’ would join forces with the far left. 

    Echoing Donald Trump’s language, Gaetz has said: “I sometimes feel as though I’m waging a forever war against forever wars.”

    In this case, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida suggested left-wing Democrats and populist Republicans might join forces in opposing U.S. support for defending Ukraine against Russian conquest and ending U.S. military involvement in securing Somalia from ISIS.

    But this doesn’t mean just allying with any left-wing congressional Democrats, it means radical members of “the Squad,” partly led by none other than Alejandra Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), the Socialist Democrat from New York.

    While his War Powers measure proposed to remove U.S. troops from Somalia was rejected by a 219-vote margin in the House of Representatives on April 27, Gaetz said that he appreciated the contributions of several Democrats who backed his bill, including members of “the Squad.” 

    It also means befriending Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, the infamous antisemitic Democrat from Minnesota.

    As reported by The Daily Caller:

    “[W]hile we disagree strongly on a variety of issues, I think there should be greater connectivity between the anti-war right and the anti-war left,” said Gaetz, naming Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna, Jamaal Bowman, and Ilhan Omar as his advisers on his recent measure. “I am grateful for the advice that I’ve gotten from [them on] war powers bills,” he said. He declined to say whether the two camps would unite to form a formal caucus in the House.

    The mention of Omar as a confidant on a foreign policy issue comes despite Gaetz’s earlier positions. In February of this year, Gaetz voted “Yea” to remove Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the chamber’s chief panel on foreign policy issues, for statements that were allegedly antisemitic and trivialized the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, according to the text of the resolution.

    It is doubtful Gaetz will win much support for his efforts. His resolutions to remove troops from Syria and Somalia were rejected by consistently large margins (165 GOP members voted against the recent resolution), and he hasn’t introduced any bills in this Congress to reform the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

    But it’s not just allying on ‘war powers.’  They have already allied elsewhere.

    Earlier, Gaetz and AOC co-sponsored a bill to restrict members of Congress from owning or trading stocks.

    Unlike military resolutions, this is something I may be able to support.

    The New York Post reported: “When Members have access to classified information, we should not be trading in the stock market on it,” said Ocasio-Cortez. “It’s really that simple.”

    “Members of Congress are spending their time trading futures instead of securing the future of our fellow Americans,” Gaetz said. “We cannot allow the Swamp to prioritize investing in stocks over investing in our country.”

    I generally support restrictions on members of Congress trading stocks. But this bill may go a bit far, not allowing representatives to own any individual stocks. 

    Prohibiting trading stocks while in office should be enough.

    Still, this unsettling new left-right alliance may signal something else. 

    Gaetz, Omar, and Ocasio-Cortez are in their 30s and 40s and seemingly want to burnish their reputations as lawmakers who are a new generation of politicians outside the Beltway.

    What else might these folks start to agree on? When the young far left in America starts to join the far right, what comes next?

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    CIA Sued Over Role In Hunter Biden Laptop Election Cover-Up

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    3
    The New Headquarters Building (NHB) of the CIA. The Central Intelligence Agency, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    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

    Vice President Biden Flew Son Hunter On Air Force Two To Close Foreign Business Deals

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    3
    President Joe Biden hugs his family during the 59th Presidential Inauguration ceremony in Washington, Jan. 20, 2021. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took the oath of office on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol. (DOD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II)

    ANALYSIS – Even as the world obsesses over Donald Trump’s latest legal dangers, the walls are slowly closing in on the Biden crime family. And I don’t use the phrase ‘crime family’ often.

    But it’s becoming increasingly clear that Joe Biden used his time as Vice President as a golden opportunity to unlawfully enrich his entire family, often flying his son Hunter on Air Force Two abroad to seal deals.

    In one well-known instance, VP Biden leveraged a billion dollars in U.S. aid to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating the energy firm that employed Hunter.

    In their ongoing investigation into alleged influence peddling involving Biden, members of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee have asked the National Archives and Records Administration for unrestricted access to Biden’s travel aboard the vice-presidential jet, known as Air Force Two, and the VP’s official helicopter, known as Marine Two.

    They want to determine whether the trips aided his son Hunter’s shady foreign business deals.

    House GOP investigators believe Biden, while vice president under Barack Obama, used his power and influence to help his family and a group of associates with foreign business deals involving China, Russia, Ukraine and other countries, worth tens of millions of dollars.

    And there is more evidence to back up their beliefs. Last month, Devon Archer, Hunter’s former business partner, told House investigators the foreign deals were secured by selling the Biden “brand,” essentially, Joe Biden’s position as vice president of the United States.

    “Then-Vice President Joe Biden abused Air Force Two by allowing his son to jet set around the world to sell ‘The Brand’ to enrich the Biden family,” said House Oversight Chairman James Comer.

    “This is yet another example of then-Vice President Biden abusing his public office for his family’s financial gain.”

    More specifically, the Washington Times reported that:

    Lawmakers on the Oversight panel said the president’s son Hunter Biden may have traveled to 15 countries with his father while he was vice president and that during that time, Mr. Biden met in Beijing with his son’s business associate, a Chinese national, while he was on official business.

    “Then Vice-President Biden’s misuse of Air Force Two and Marine Two is indicative of yet another way in which the President has abused his various offices of public trust and wasted taxpayer money to benefit his family’s enterprise, which consisted of nothing more than access to Joe Biden himself,” Oversight lawmakers wrote to U.S. Archivist Colleen Shogan.

    House investigators also believe Biden used numerous aliases to hide his participation in his son’s shady deals. The Times added:

    …Comer also is seeking more than 5,000 White House emails that used aliases for then-Vice President Joseph R. Biden. The National Archives said it is awaiting approval from Mr. Biden and former President Barack Obama before handing them over to Mr. Comer, according to an aide to Mr. Comer.

    White House records show that Mr. Biden used the name Robert L. Peters while serving as vice president. Mr. Biden also disguised his name on emails using the pseudonyms Robin Ware and JRB Ware, a play on his middle name and initials paired with his home state of Delaware.

    Critically, investigators noted a May 26, 2016, White House scheduling email sent to VP Biden ahead of a call with the Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko that was also inexplicably sent to his ‘private citizen’ son, Hunter. 

    At the same time, the drug-addicted, unqualified Hunter was earning $100,000 a month as a board member of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma Holdings, which was under investigation for corruption. The U.S. State Department had said Burisma engaged in bribery.

    And in a typical moment of braggadocio, a clueless Biden senior bragged about it. The New York Post reported:

    In a 2018 interview at the Council on Foreign Relations, Biden bragged that he unilaterally withheld a billion dollars in US aid from the Ukrainians to force them to fire Prosecutor-General Viktor Shokin.

    The Ukrainians balked, but Biden gave them an ultimatum: “I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.”

    Tough guy, that Biden.

    Biden has claimed he demanded Ukraine fire its equivalent of Attorney General because he was corrupt, but we now know the State Department had found that Ukraine had made great strides in dealing with corruption, and Shokin, specifically, was praised in private correspondence.

    The Post added that Devon Archer’s testimony revealed that Burisma executives made the removal of Shokin a top priority and raised it with their hired gun, Hunter.

    Archer reportedly described how Burisma officials told Hunter of the importance of neutralizing Shokin, and how “a call to Washington” was made in response. The call was of course to Dad.

    And that’s what House investigators are hoping to prove. The Obama-Biden White House call logs, emails, and flight schedules are all part of the mounting evidence against Joe Biden.

    Amanda Head: Tim Allen Masterfully Strong-Arms Disney Into Christian Content

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0

    Tim Allen is reprising his beloved role as Santa Claus in Disney’s latest Christmas series. The original 1994 “The Santa Clause” movie saw massive success and Allen went on to play the role for two more movies. However, Allen says that he had some big conditions for Disney before returning to the iconic role for the new series- one of them being Disney must incorporate Christianity into the show.

    Watch Amanda break down the situation below:

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    House Conservative Explains Why Big Beautiful Bill Was Big Ugly Spending Spree

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    2

    A leading House conservative and member of the Budget Committee used his time in a committee hearing on the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” spending package to explain that the bill does little to reform spending and the supposed spending cuts are pushed to future years, giving future congresses and the next president time to repeal them.

    Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy explained that while the bill does deliver tax relief it dramatically increases budget deficits by putting off spending reform:

    “I appreciate my friend from Texas, the chairman, and you know, my Democratic colleagues keep telling things that are not true. The vast majority of Americans will get tax benefits under this bill. It’s just simply false to say that that’s not true. Hardworking Americans who will benefit from the standard deduction increase, hardworking Americans who will benefit from child tax credits and lower tax rates—stop saying things that aren’t true. Those things are true. The fact is, we have money in here for the border to undo the damage of Joe Biden. We have more money in here for defense to undo the damage of Joe Biden, but we also address Medicaid and Medicaid spending goes up. Stop lying. Medicaid spending goes up. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are profoundly unserious when it comes to being real about what’s happening with the numbers. I applaud Chairman Arrington. I applaud my colleagues on this side of the aisle for taking a step forward in dealing with the spending problem in this town.

    But I have to now admonish my colleagues on this side of the aisle: this bill falls profoundly short. It does not do what we say it does with respect to deficits. The fact of the matter is, on the spending, what we’re dealing with here is tax cuts and spending a massive front-loaded deficit increase. That’s the truth. That’s the truth. Deficits will go up in the first half of the 10-year budget window. And we all know it’s true, and we shouldn’t do that. We shouldn’t say that we’re doing something we’re not doing.

    The fact of the matter is, this bill has back-loaded savings and front-loaded spending, nowhere near the Senate Budget top line, by the way. The Senate Budget top line of six and a half trillion dollars, which, by the way, is what we were pre-COVID, inflation-adjusted, on interest, on Medicare and Social Security. And if we would reform Medicaid, we could actually get to the core of the problem, but we refuse to do it. And I’m not going to sit here and say that everything is hunky-dory when this is the Budget Committee. This is the Budget Committee. We are supposed to do something to actually result in balanced budgets, but we’re not doing it. Look at what happens under deficits… Only in Washington are we expected to bet on the come that in five years, everything will work, then we will solve the problem.

    We have got to change the direction of this town, and to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: yes, that means touching Medicaid. It went from $400 billion in 2019 to $600 billion this year. It’ll be over a trillion in the 2030s. We are making promises that we cannot keep. We do need to reform it. We need to stop giving seven times as much money to the able-bodied over the vulnerable. Why are we sticking it to the vulnerable population, the disabled and the sick, to give money to single able-bodied male adults? We shouldn’t do that. We should reform it. But guess what? That message needs to be delivered to my colleagues on this side of the aisle too.

    We are writing checks we cannot cash, and our children are going to pay the price. So I am a no on this bill unless serious reforms are made today, tomorrow, Sunday. We’re having conversations as we speak, but something needs to change, or you’re not going to get my support.”

    1...38394041Page 39 of 41
    © Great America News Desk 2022