Democrats didn’t expect it to be this bad…
Weeks after Joe Biden announced his re-election campaign and pollsters are already showing massive red flags.]
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Yes, this was election interference. Under the guise of combating ‘misinformation’ the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) led the effort that colluded with major universities and Big Tech to censor free speech leading up to the 2020 election.
As House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Monday, according to Newsmax: “This pressure was largely directed in a way that benefited one side of the political aisle: true information posted by Republicans and conservatives was labeled as ‘misinformation’ while false information posted by Democrats and liberals was largely unreported and untouched by the censors.”
How did they do this?
An interim staff report by the House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government explained that DHS, so-called disinformation “experts” at universities, Big Tech and others colluded through the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) to monitor and censor Americans’ online speech during the 2020 election.
“The federal government and universities pressured social media companies to censor true information, jokes and political opinions.”
Among the DHS targets was Newsmax, according to a summary of the report, titled “The Weaponization of ‘Disinformation’ Pseudo-experts and Bureaucrats: How the Federal Government Partnered with Universities to Censor Americans’ Free Speech.”
Newsmax reported: “The report revealed how the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the Global Engagement Center (GEC) within the State Department coordinated with Stanford University and other entities to create the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) to censor Americans’ speech in the lead-up to the election.”
In a post on X, Jordan wrote, “according to one EIP member, the EIP was created ‘at the request of CISA.’ The head of the EIP also said that EIP was created after ‘working on some monitoring ideas with CISA.'”
Newsmax added:
It [the report] outlines how the EIP was created in the summer of 2020 to provide a way for the federal government “to launder its censorship activities in hopes of bypassing the First Amendment and public scrutiny.”
“The EIP targeted Americans across the political spectrum, but especially conservatives,” according to the report’s summary.
The House committee found that EIP, using Stanford, encouraged social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter, now known as X, to declare conservative news as “misinformation.”
Newsmax continued: “ EIP used a tactic known as “switchboarding” to refer to removal requests from state and local officials to Facebook, X and other social media sites, the New York Post reported Monday…the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana ruled in September federal officials colluded with Big Tech social media platforms to suppress speech.”
And they didn’t just censor everyday Americans, they also targeted Republican politicians ranging from former President Donald Trump, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., to former Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Among the media, the report noted, in addition to Newsmax, this corrupt political effort targeted conservative commentators such as Candace Owens, Charlie Kirk, Michelle Malkin and Mollie Hemingway, and “an untold number of everyday Americans of all political affiliations.”
As an added note, I was permanently banned from LinkedIn, where I had a growing following in the tens of thousands, back in 2022.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
The latest results from this poll may surprise you…
As Americans seek answers on the best way to keep kids safe in schools it may surprise you what is really concerning parents in 2023.
Watch Amanda explain the controversy below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
The Secret Service provided a shocking update about the mystery drugs found in the White House…
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Question – What’s worse than regular people being indoctrinated to be woke leftists? Answer – a global woke leftist Artificial Intelligence (AI) helping them.
And apparently, and not unsurprisingly, that’s what Joe Biden and his team want. And they are working hard to achieve this nefarious goal.
And it is terrifying.
The American Accountability Foundation (AAF), a government watchdog group, recently warned that Team Biden is actively using the federal government’s vast power to regulate AI to promote a “woke” ideology in the basic architecture of the revolutionary, powerful, and dangerous new technology.
That ‘woke’ ideology promotes affirmative action racism under the guise of ‘anti-racism,’ and radical transgenderism as gender ‘equity.’ Please note ‘equity’ is the opposite of equality. It means forcing equal results not providing equal opportunities.
It is essentially un-American – simply a new way to say socialism.
But Orwellian doublespeak is the way the left sugarcoats and soft peddles its poison.
After researching Team Biden’s plans for artificial intelligence, AAF concluded that Biden administration officials are planning to feed emerging AI platforms with “dangerous ideologies.”
Add that to the growing list of the dangers of AI.
AAF just released part one of a multi-part “investigation into WOKE AI.”
“They have plans to rig AI in the name of fighting ‘algorithmic discrimination,’ ‘harmful bias,’ and ‘data that fails to account for existing systemic biases in American society,’” the group tweeted on June 25.
Fox News reported:
“Under the guise of fighting ‘algorithmic discrimination’ and ‘harmful bias,’ the Biden administration is trying to rig AI to follow the woke left’s rules,” AAF president Tom Jones told Fox News Digital.
“Biden is being advised on technology policy, not by scientists, but by racially obsessed social academics and activists. We’re already seen the biggest tech firms in the world, like Google under Eric Schmidt, use their power to push the left’s agenda. This would take the tech/woke alliance to a whole new, truly terrifying level.”
Arati Prabhakar, director of Biden’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, seen in the twitter thread above, recently touted Biden’s signing of an executive order that, in her words, “promotes data equity,” directs agencies to fight “algorithmic discrimination” and ensures these agencies use AI to advance “equity…”
Vice President Kamala Harris, who Biden named “AI czar” is supposedly in charge of the National Science and Technology Council which oversees all science and technology efforts across the federal government.
As part of that effort, the White House’s Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence released the National Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Strategic Plan, which calls for additional resources to fight “harmful biases.”
Fox reported that the AAF memo showed another example of how Team Biden is weaponizing AI.
The “Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights” released by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy last October talks of “algorithmic discrimination” in which AI systems treat people differently based on their race, sex or other characteristics and calls for data “used as part of system development or assessment” to be “reviewed for bias based on the historical and societal context of the data.”
To address such concerns, the blueprint recommends, among other steps, that “proactive equity assessments as part of the system design.”
But AAF isn’t the only one sounding the alarm about Biden’s woke AI, Tesla CEO and Twitter owner Elon Musk also warned about the danger of “woke” artificial intelligence being weaponized to push political agendas through false information.
Last December, he tweeted: “The danger of training AI to be woke — in other words, lie — is deadly.”
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
ANALYSIS – ‘Go woke – Go Broke’ – The saga of Budweiser and Target’s disastrous forays into transgender politics is great for conservatives, and all Americans.
It shows how national grassroots pressure can force giant woke companies to lose billions of dollars in a matter of weeks.
But more importantly, it shows us other ways to fight back. To truly force change we have to effectively leverage these boycotts and go way beyond them.
We need to go after the behemoth investment firms that push and incentivize these corporations to go even more woke.
Elon Musk just hinted at the next battleground – courtrooms.
Referring to Target’s decision to sell LGBT-themed items and clothing aimed at families and kids (including ‘onesies’ for toddlers and books instructing kids on using transgender pronouns), and the ensuing financial backlash, Musk said Friday that it’s just a matter of time before Target faces lawsuits for “destruction of shareholder value.”
“Won’t be long before there are class-action lawsuits by shareholders against the company and board of directors for the destruction of shareholder value,” he tweeted.
Musk made the remarks in response to a tweet by conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who posted about JPMorgan downgrading Target’s stock after suffering its longest consecutive drop in decades.
Kirk replied by saying that shareholders should organize to get politics out of the “hyperpolitical” corporations of today.
And that is exactly what should be done.
Conservatives should also consider buying just one share of each offending company to give them legal rights as shareholders. And then take the companies to court.
These lawsuits won’t just put the offending companies on notice, but their huge investment firm backers too.
A big factor encouraging brands to promote transgender ideologies is an attempt to score points on lefty environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards that are being foisted on organizations all over the country.
And this is a product of leftist political pressures and aggressively activist investment firms.
During an appearance on Fox News, Anson Frericks, an ex-top Anheuser-Busch executive, said that quiet pressure from huge investment firms like New York-based BlackRock and Pennsylvania-based Vanguard is behind many of the controversial decisions by the woke companies they are heavily invested in.
He noted that BlackRock, Vanguard, and another firm, State Street, manage about $20 trillion in capital and use their power to promote leftist political agendas.
However, it’s also not necessarily coming from the investment firms organically, since they too are being pressured by progressive lawmakers overseeing giant government pension funds that the investment firms profit from.
These hyper-politicized monster government pension funds are the ones really calling the shots.
One of the huge investment firms mentioned earlier, manages California’s massive pension fund — the country’s biggest — and California’s leftist politicians have a big say in the corporate governance and politics of the firms the fund invests in, Frericks noted.
“In California, for example, they recently have mandated those large pension funds [sic] that they divest from things like fossil fuels and oil and gas…”
“But they also tell BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard if they’re going to manage their money, they have to commit to things like ESG — diversity, equity, inclusion — and adopt firm-wide commitments that they therefore then force onto all the major companies in corporate America,” he added.
So, we need to find ways to limit the power and influence of these monstrous and highly politicized government pension funds that use taxpayer funds to push radical agendas.
We should also note that this isn’t just a conservative issue. Erin Elmore at Turning Point USA, reported The Epoch Times, argued that calls to boycott Target are “not necessarily conservative.”
Instead, she said, “it’s common sense. Most parents don’t support satanists or little boys wearing girls’ bathing suits,” she tweeted on May 28.
This isn’t a conservative-liberal thing. It’s an American thing.
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.
A congressional committee is now investigating allegations that the Biden White House tried to sway a major workplace unionization vote in favor of the United Auto Workers union bosses.
U.S. House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) “probed senior Biden administration officials for their attempts to sway the outcome of a Mercedes-Benz unionization election,” the Committee announced in a statement
“In a letter to Jake Sullivan, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Chairwoman Foxx is demanding information regarding the Biden administration’s attempts to influence the outcome of a unionization vote at the Mercedes-Benz plant in Vance, Alabama, as voting was underway,” the statement reads.
The UAW is a major donor and political supporter of Democrats, spending a reported total of $22.64 million on politics in the 2020 election cycle, according to OpenSecrets.
“On May 17, Mercedes-Benz employees at a plant in Vance, Alabama, voted not to join the United Auto Workers (UAW). In this election, 56 percent of the workers cast their ballots against UAW membership, with more than 90 percent of eligible workers voting in the election. Simultaneously, the UAW became the first U.S. union to file charges using a new German supply chain law. The Committee on Education and the Workforce (Committee) is concerned about recent reports of unusual and inappropriate communications between you and German government officials in what appears to be an attempt to impact the outcome of this election,” Foxx writes in in the letter.
“On May 6, a news report stated that U.S. government officials had a phone call with German government officials and raised concerns over the Mercedes-Benz representation election in Alabama. … A later report regarding the call also indicated that you prodded Germany to examine the UAW’s allegations against Mercedes-Benz at the direct request of UAW President Shawn Fain. On May 16, the UAW announced that the German government was investigating Mercedes-Benz as a result of charges filed by the UAW in Germany. … It appears the Biden administration, through your actions, sought to put its thumb on the scale to benefit the UAW as the Mercedes-Benz election in Alabama was pending,” Fox continues, adding “It also suggests the UAW sought to use your influence and the White House’s bully pulpit to impact a union representation election.”
Foxx asked the White House for answers to the following questions:
Did you raise concerns with German government officials over the Mercedes-Benz representation election in Vance, Alabama, at the request of the UAW?
In your call with German government officials, did you or any other White House official ask Germany to initiate an investigation of Mercedes-Benz before the Mercedes-Benz union representation election in Alabama concluded?
Was the purpose of the call with German government officials to discuss the Mercedes-Benz union representation election in Alabama? Were other labor issues or representation elections discussed?
When did the call with German government officials take place? Provide any White House call logs related to this call.
Did you discuss your call with German government officials with any employees of the Department of Labor or the NLRB? If so, who?
Is a local union representation election a national security issue? Why is a local union representation election occupying the time of the U.S. National Security Advisor?
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Last week the world was hit by the purported news of a Russian missile strike into NATO member country, Poland.
And now the award-winning AP reporter who wrote it has been fired.
Based only on a single, unnamed ‘senior U.S. intelligence official,’ the initial Associated Press (AP) story by James LaPorta, a former U.S. Marine who served in Afghanistan, was widely disseminated and quickly caused a barrage of other reporting.
Most of it was alarmist and panic-causing, with many in the news media and blogosphere quickly demanding harsh action against Russia.
As the Blaze reports:
Fox News and the Daily Mail similarly carried the AP reporter’s suggestion, the former running a piece entitled, “Russian missiles cross into NATO member Poland, kill 2: senior US intelligence official,” and the latter stating, “‘Russian bombs’ kill two in POLAND.”
CBS Evening News tweeted “RUSSIAN MISSILE STRIKE: Two Russian missiles crossed over the Ukrainian border into Poland, a NATO country, killing two civilians.”
A Russian attack on Poland could have triggered articles 4 and 5 of the NATO charter, potentially putting the U.S. into direct conflict with nuclear power.
Article 4 requires full consultation at the North Atlantic Council, the alliance’s political decision-making body, while Article 5 requires joint NATO action to repel an attack.
As MSN explains: “Article 5 states that the parties to the NATO treaty ‘agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.’”
Article 5 also states that each NATO member must take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
This of course would make the U.S. a direct combatant in this war and could escalate to a nuclear exchange.
As such, I wrote about the ‘errant’ strike the same day, albeit in more careful ways.
My headline was more matter-of-fact and far less alarming, and it didn’t mention a direct Russian missile strike: “Escalation in Russia-Ukraine War Leads to Emergency Crisis Meeting.”
In the piece I did note the ramifications of any foreign missiles crashing into Poland, writing: “In what might be the greatest (albeit perhaps accidental) escalation since Russia invaded Ukraine, the war just crossed the border into a NATO country.”
And, yes, I like to say ‘albeit.’
I added:
According to a senior U.S. intelligence official, as Russia pounded Ukraine’s energy facilities Tuesday with the largest barrage of missile strikes to date, some reportedly ‘stray’ Russian missiles crossed into NATO member Poland and struck a site in Poland about 15 miles from the Ukrainian border.
The allegedly errant strike killed two persons in the Polish village of Przewodów and provoked an emergency crisis meeting of Poland’s national security team, which will be held Tuesday evening.
While I did refer to a Ukrainian Air Force spokesman who said Russia used X-101 and X-555 cruise missiles in the latest attacks against Ukraine, and reports that expressed the belief that “one or more of these cruise missiles were the ones that struck Poland,” I was very careful in how I reported all this.
Note the extensive use of the words “accidental,” “allegedly,” “reportedly,” “errant,” and “stray” missiles in my report. I also explained that the incident had provoked an “emergency crisis meeting” in Poland.
The rest of my piece focused on the confirmed, massive Russian barrage of missile strikes against Ukrainian energy and infrastructure targets throughout the country.
In the end it appears that the missile that struck Poland was a Russian-made Ukrainian air defense missile that missed its mark and fell back to earth rather than self-destructs.
And even after its country of manufacture was known, outlets like CNN kept calling it a ‘Russian-made missile’ without adding that Ukraine uses lots of Russian-made missiles.
Of course, in my view, Russia is still to blame for this, albeit indirectly, since no one would be firing armed missiles near a NATO country if it weren’t for the unprovoked Russian invasion, and its reckless and dangerous strikes near NATO’s borders.
The Blaze added that:
After having updated the initial report several times, the AP indicated [November 16] that a new assessment from three U.S. officials “contradicts information” in the original article. Shortly thereafter, the article was reportedly taken offline.
The AP issued a retraction later that day…
On Nov. 21, LaPorta was fired.
But let’s use this incident as a teachable moment.
Lesson one – as sophisticated news consumers, be circumspect with the news you read until it is fully verified.
Lesson two – be wary of reports using only one or two anonymous sources.
And lesson three – journalists, and social media posters, should use words like ‘reportedly’ a lot more, and make it clear that there is room for doubt or questions when the reports are still fresh and early.
The most important rule I’ve learned in journalism, and in intelligence, and also during my stint on Wall Street, is that – it’s never as good (or as bad) as first reported.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
