Random

    Opinion

    Home Opinion Page 39

    Biden Lied About Classified Documents Found at His Homes and Office

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0
    Photo via Pixabay images

    ANALYSIS – While much of the establishment media dutifully informed us that Special Counsel Robert Hur’s recent interview of Joe Biden regarding his alleged mishandling of classified materials signals the investigation is ending, ‘with nothing there,’ it could just be the beginning.

    In a bombshell new discovery, it appears that Biden may have been lying about those classified documents all along.

    I have previously noted that former president Donald Trump improperly held on to classified documents mostly out of vanity, gave multiple bogus justifications for having them, refused to give them all back, moved them around, and essentially dared the Biden Department of Justice (DoJ) to come after him – which it did.

    Had he returned all the materials he had in his possession, I have argued, DoJ likely would not have raided his Mar-a-Lago home and found damning evidence to indict him. None of the charges against Trump in that case are tied to materials he earlier returned to authorities.

    Biden, and former vice president Mike Pence, seemed to have behaved quite differently when they discovered classified materials. Both supposedly quickly returned documents they had held improperly at their homes or private offices. 

    This was a big difference with Trump’s actions.

    Well, that may be true of Pence, but not of Biden, who seems to have a much more tangled web of deceit surrounding his classified materials that date back to his time as vice president and even senator.

    As Jonathan Turley, Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School notes in The Hill: “The most glaring problem [with Biden’s case] is that, after they were removed at the end of his term as vice president, the documents were repeatedly moved and divided up.”

    That sounds a lot like what Trump did, but going back much farther, and for potentially far more sinister motives.

    Turley added:

    Biden made clear from the beginning that he expected the investigation to be perfunctory and brief. He publicly declared that he has “no regrets” over his own conduct and told the public that the documents investigation would soon peter out when it determined that “there is no ‘there’ there.”

    Now, however, it appears that a critical claim by the White House in the scandal may not only be false but was knowingly false at the time it was made. The White House and Biden’s counsel have long maintained that, as soon as documents were discovered in the D.C. office, they notified the national archives. Many asked why they did not call the FBI, but the White House has at least maintained that, unlike Trump, they took immediate action to notify authorities.

    However, it now appears that this was not true. One of the closest aides to Biden and a close friend to Hunter Biden is Annie Tomasini. She referred to Hunter as her “brother” and signed off messages with “LY” or “love you.”

    Tomasini was once a senior aide to Joe Biden and, according to the Oversight Committee, inspected the classified material on March 18, 2021, two months after Biden took office — nearly 20 months before they were said to be found by the Biden team.

    The Oversight Committee released a new timeline of when the classified documents were discovered.

    As Turley notes, “the committee now alleges that the White House “omitted months of communications, planning, and coordinating among multiple White House officials, [Kathy] Chung, Penn Biden Center employees, and President Biden’s personal attorneys to retrieve the boxes containing classified materials.”

    This is huge. It means Biden repeatedly lied about when his staff discovered classified materials in his private residences and offices, and Team Biden had 20 months to tamper with, hide or otherwise dispose of evidence.

    While a sitting president can’t be indicted according to existing DoJ policy, that could be changed. Beyond that, this new information has already been added to an increasingly heated impeachment inquiry by the GOP-led House.

    The question being asked now by House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) is: How many of the documents improperly kept by Biden related to the countries the Biden family engaged with as part of their alleged foreign influence peddling scheme?

    If there were any, that could mean there is “a lot more ‘there,’ there,” than Biden claimed.

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

    Judge Blocks Biden-Big Tech Censorship Collusion on July 4th

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    1
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    ANALYSIS – Let Freedom ring! – In a major victory for free speech in America, and a major vindication for conservatives who have been warning of Democrats using the government to censor them on social media, a federal judge is blocking federal agencies from communicating with Big Tech firms to censor posts.

    The Democrats using federal agencies and other official political bodies to coerce or direct social media firms is being called government “censorship ‘by proxy.”

    This injunction is particularly heartening to me, since I was a victim of this censorship when LinkedIn permanently banned my account for ‘multiple violations of their terms of service and user agreement. 

    In other words, I wrote about Hunter Biden’s laptop, the likelihood that COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology biolab.

    All since proven valid.

    I also noted that there are only two sexes, based on science, and refused to use ‘preferred gender pronouns.’

    All these topics were effectively banned by the major social media companies, and as has since been proven via Elon Musk’s ‘Twitter Files’ expose, and other investigations, much of this banning was done at the behest of the U.S. government, primarily for partisan political or ideological reasons.

    In the preliminary injunction, appropriately made on July 4th, the judge, Terry A. Doughty, wrote (pdf) that: 

    Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed.

    He added that government agencies, including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. Department of State, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are prohibited from taking a range of actions related to communicating or dealing with social media companies.

    The judge provided very limited exceptions, allowing government officials to contact social media companies to alert them of criminal activity or clear threats to national security.

    He also allowed, reported the Epoch Times: “contacts notifying social media companies about posts intending to mislead voters about voting requirements or procedures as well as communicating with companies about suppressing posts that are not protected free speech.”

    The decision comes as a response to Republican state attorneys general (AGs) who sued the Biden administration. According to the judge, the AGs “have produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.”

    Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey hailed the ruling on Twitter.

    Tweet

    “The Court has granted our motion to BLOCK top officials in the federal government from violating the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.”

    “What a way to celebrate Independence Day.”

    In an accompanying memorandum Judge Doughty stated that the plaintiffs are “likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition.”

    In an earlier ruling in March, according to The Epoch Times, Doughty wrote: “This suit arises out of the alleged coercion by the Biden Administration and various government agencies and officials of social-media companies, urging those companies ‘to censor viewpoints and speakers disfavored by the Left.’” 

    He added that the plaintiffs allege that “this censorship was encouraged—perhaps even mandated—by the Biden Administration and several key governmental departments.”

    The judge’s current order notes the various nefarious means in which the Biden administration colluded with Big Tech to censor opposing or dissenting views.

    These means include, per the injunction, “engaging in any communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.” 

    The Epoch Times reported:

    The agencies are also barred from flagging content on posts on social media platforms and forwarding them to the companies with requests for action such as removing or otherwise suppressing their reach.

    Encouraging or otherwise egging on social media companies to change their guidelines for the removal, suppression, or reduction of content that contains protected free speech by the government is also not allowed.

    To prevent Team Biden and other Democrats from circumventing the order by outsourcing their dirty deeds, it specifically applies to agents, officers, employees, and contractors. 

    While this is just a preliminary injunction, expect more to come in the fight against Democrat censorship.

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

    Prominent Trump Critic Stands Up For Alito Following Second Incident With Jan. 6-Aligned Flag

    By
    admin
    -
    0
    The White House from Washington, DC, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    Critics are calling for a Supreme Court justice to recuse himself from two cases involving former President Donald Trump, asserting that failing to do so will cause “irreparable damage” to the Court.

    On Wednesday, The New York Times reported that another Jan. 6-aligned flag was seen flying at one of Justice Samuel Alito‘s residences, this time at his New Jersey vacation home. Last week, the paper published a report detailing how an upside-down American flag flew at the Alitos’ Northern Virginia home days after the U.S. Capitol riot. 

    In light of recent developments, some of the most vocal critics of Trump, such as Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), are calling for Justice Alito to recuse himself from the landmark Trump presidential immunity case. They are also requesting his recusal from a case involving a former Pennsylvania police officer and Jan. 6 participant, specifically regarding whether obstruction charges against him should stand.

    “If Justice Alito does not recuse himself from the Trump immunity case and the Fischer January 6 case, he will do irreparable damage to the Supreme Court. And Chief Justice Roberts must step in.” @RepDanGoldman on Alito’s widening insurrectionist flag scandal pic.twitter.com/YQ1rt5VQR2— Alex Wagner Tonight (@WagnerTonight) May 23, 2024

    The calls don’t appear to be subsiding. So far, Alito has not responded. Surprisingly, former National Security Adviser John Bolton strongly defended the conservative justice on CNN, despite being a prominent critic of the 45th president himself.

    As The Hill reports:

    “Absolutely not,” Bolton told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer when asked whether the recent reporting about the flag raised concerns about whether he can serve impartially on the Supreme Court.

    “I think it is outrageous, outrageous and unacceptable, for people to take a flag from the American Revolution and say that because some January 6 protesters flew it, that it’s now unacceptable to fly that flag, and I’d like to hear a Democratic Party politician say that expressly,” added Bolton, who has frequently been critical of former President Trump and the risk he says Trump poses to the country’s national security.

    An “Appeal to Heaven” flag – which has origins dating back to the Revolutionary War but is associated with Christian nationalism and “Stop the Steal” efforts today – was seen flying outside Alito’s New Jersey beach home in July and September 2023, the Times reported, around the same time a high-profile Jan. 6 case arrived at the Supreme Court.

    The flag was also toted by rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    “The January 6 people flew a lot of flags,” Bolton maintained. “They don’t have the right or the ability to expropriate a patriotic symbol of the United States, and then have everybody else say it belongs to them and condemn Sam Alito or anybody else for flying that flag.”

    Bolton’s remarks are particularly notable as he took the opportunity with Blitzer to insult Nikki Haley for pledging her support to Trump.

    Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News.

    Mexico’s Hosts Russian and Chinese Military Units in Independence Parade

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    3
    Kremlin.ru, via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – In the ‘what the h*ll are you thinking’ category – a contingent of Russian soldiers marched in the annual Mexican Independence Day parade over the weekend. 

    Russian troops had participated before, but not since Moscow launched its war of aggression against Ukraine.

    This year marked 213 years since the end of Spanish rule in Mexico. 

    And even as deadly fentanyl precursor ingredients are entering Mexico, to then be made into the deadly drug and flood the U.S., a Communist Chinese military honor guard from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) also marched alongside Mexican troops.

    The presence of the Russian troops drew criticism because of the Russia’s brutal invasion of its neighbor. Mexico, which has long harbored bitterness against the United States for intervening militarily in Mexico in the 1800s, has condemned Russia’s invasion but has adopted a policy of ‘neutrality’ and has refused to participate in sanctions.

    Populist socialist Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador (known as AMLO) noted that a contingent from China also participated. “All the countries that Mexico has diplomatic relations with were invited,” he said.

    AMLO admitted the issue had become “a scandal,” but blamed it on the news media being against him.

    Ukraine’s Ambassador to Mexico, Oksana Dramaretska, posted online that “The civic-military parade in Mexico City was stained by the participation of a Russian regiment; the boots and hands of these war criminals are stained with blood.”

    But this is only the latest Russian flirtation by AMLO.

    As Arturo Sarukhan writes in his commentary for Brookings: “…it would seem that some in Mexico, unwittingly, or wittingly, seem intent on opening a ‘second front’ for Moscow from there.”

    What’s behind all of this? Given that Mexico trades in two days with the United States what it trades in a whole year with Russia, ideology seems to be paramount. The traditional left in Mexico — and throughout Latin America in general — tend to support policies that push back against “Western imperialism” but is also skeptical of liberalism and what it perceives as its institutions and stakeholders, which — like many authoritarian regimes — it considers to be tools of Western values and hegemony. 

    It should therefore come as no surprise that the Mexican left is inclined to swallow and regurgitate Russian disinformation and propaganda (“NATO aggression,” “denazification of Ukraine”), see sanctions as another form of “imperialism” and an attempt to corner Russia, and resort to RT and Sputnik as sources of valid information.

    The Kremlin, creating a contrast with U.S. troops on Russia’s borders, has also asked frequently, if rhetorically, what if Russian troops were stationed across the border in Mexico?

    Maybe this is one way for Moscow to make that point. But there is more to the story.

    As ABC News reported:

    Some members of López Obrador’s Morena party have publicly expressed affection for Russia even after the invasion, and López Obrador has frequently criticized the United States for sending arms to Ukraine.

    López Obrador’s administration has continued to buy Russia’s Sputnik COVID vaccine and intends to use it as a booster shot later this year, along with Cuba’s Abdala vaccine.

    Experts have questioned the use of those vaccines, along with Mexico’s own Patria vaccine, as a booster for new variants, because all of them were designed in 2020 to combat variants circulating at the time.

    Mexico would rather buy old and likely ineffective vaccines from Russia, than be on better terms with the United States. Under AMLO Mexico is also a helpful tool for Moscow in other ways.

    As Sarukhan wrote:

    …Viktor Koronelli, Russia’s ambassador to Mexico, who said during the recent launching of the Mexico-Russia friendship caucus that “Mexico will never join anti-Russian sanctions” and that “across the world, there are countries like China, like India, like Mexico, that will never say ‘Yes, Sir’ to Uncle Sam’s orders.”

    Despite all this Russian bravado and bluster, I would be just as concerned, or more so, about the Chinese military presence in the parade.  As AMLO noted, a contingent from  China also participated, and no one complained about that.

    But China’s influence in Mexico is likely far more significant than Russia’s, and far more threatening to the United States.

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

    Chicago Teens Kill Baby with Stolen Car Last Week, Still No Serious Charges

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    6
    Image via Pixabay images

    ANALYSIS – Is your city next? Democrat-run Chicago isn’t just a murder capital; it also has a car theft epidemic. It had more than 21,500 vehicle thefts last year, which includes violent carjackings. 

    That is 55% more car thefts than last year.

    Most of these crimes are committed by teens and gang members.

    A recent “Teen Takeover” created violence and chaos as hundreds of teens mobbed Chicago streets and clashed with the police.

    Meanwhile, Chicago’s far-left politicians and prosecutors continue to enable the young criminals.

    And now it seems the Chicago Police Department is gun shy about charging juvenile delinquents with murder.

    Last week, two teenage boys stole a Hyundai car and crashed it into another vehicle, a Ford pickup truck, killing a 6-month-old baby and seriously injuring his 34-year-old mother and her seven and fifteen-year-old daughters.

    Both vehicles were demolished. The baby, Cristian Uvidia died in the hospital from damage to his skull.

    “He suffered from an impact that fractured his skull, causing his brain to swell and eventually killing him,” Annelisse Rivera wrote on a GoFundMe page created for the family.. “We are devastated, and we are broken. We will miss his sweet smile, as he was a joy to everyone that he met.”

    The New York Post reports that the juvenile criminals, ages 17 and 14, were each charged with just one misdemeanor count of “criminal trespassing” in the deadly April 16 crash in the city’s West Garfield Park neighborhood.

    That’s an outrage.

    Chicago police are saying that additional charges “could be upgraded” when the investigation is complete. But why haven’t they already charged the driver with murder, or at least vehicular manslaughter?

    Everyone involved in this horrible crime where a baby was killed was immediately placed at the scene of the crash. How much investigation is needed?

    As Hot Air notes:

    Criminal Trespass to a Vehicle is a Class A Misdemeanor in Chicago. That carries a penalty of a fine of no more than $2,500 and less than a year in jail. Of course, since the gangbangers in this incident are all under 18, the charges will probably be kicked to the juvenile court, where they likely won’t even be sent to a day behind bars.

    Jazz Shaw in Hot Air adds:

    Also, what about the other two boys in the car? There are not yet any charges filed against them. I doubt they somehow wound up in the stolen car “accidentally.” It’s a safe bet that if those four haven’t already been indoctrinated into one of Chicago’s gangs, they had a gang contact waiting to buy the car from them if they managed to get away. And you can bet that the city’s gangbangers are watching this case closely and with approval.

    Rivera, the injured mother who just lost her baby to these criminal punks, reportedly said the lack of serious charges was “disheartening.”

    Chicagoans should be demanding that Kim Foxx, the Soros-funded State’s Attorney get involved, or at least say something. What about incoming Mayor Brandon Johnson?

    Have Chicago’s residents become so inured to their city’s crime and the government’s response that they don’t care anymore?

    Hopefully not. But without public outrage and political accountability, these soft-on-crime Democrat politicians will only ensure criminals will continue their murderous rampage across Chicago.

    And your city may be next.

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

    FBI Retaliated Against Whistleblowers Who Exposed ‘Politicized Rot’

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    2

    ANALYSIS – Things at the FBI just seem to get worse. A new House report shows that FBI special agents, and other key employees, who exposed the “politicized rot” within the bureau were suspended or had their security clearances revoked.

    The interim staff report from the House Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government describes that ‘rot’ as the deep partisan politicization of the FBI’s leadership and the concerted weaponization of the law enforcement agency against conservatives.

    The report, released Thursday morning, also described the FBI’s alleged “retaliatory conduct” against the whistleblowers “after making protected disclosures about what they believed in good faith to be wrong conduct.”

    The committee’s report likened the bureau’s actions to “engaging in a ‘purge’ of agents who hold conservative beliefs.”

    The FBI has responded to the accusations in a letter discussed below.

    The Bureau’s politicized rot spiked after the Capitol Riot in 2021, and the subsequent Democrat effort to highlight the alleged threat of Domestic Violent Extremism (DVE), also known as MAGA Republicans, pro-life Christians, and other traditional conservatives.

    Among the whistleblower’s key accusations is that the bureau opened improper investigations into a large group of individuals who simply attended the pro-Trump political rally in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021. 

    They claimed that the Bureau had “no specific indication” that 138 of the people “were involved in any way in criminal activity.”

    “The only basis for investigating these people was that they shared buses to Washington with two individuals who entered restricted areas of the Capitol that day,” they explained in the report.

    But it’s more than that.

    The committees’ report reveals new whistleblower testimony from several current and former FBI employees that exposes other “abuses and misconduct in the FBI.”

    The report states that:

    Some of these employees—Special Agents Garret O’Boyle and Stephen Friend, Supervisory Intelligence Analyst George Hill, and Staff Operations Specialist Marcus Allen—have chosen to speak on the record about their experiences. The disclosures from these FBI employees highlight egregious abuse, misallocation of law-enforcement resources, and misconduct with the leadership ranks of the FBI.

    It added that, in order to bolster the Democrat narrative that DVE was “organically rising around the country,” the FBI pressured staff to “reclassify cases as domestic violent extremism, and even manufactured DVE cases where they may not otherwise exist.”

    Friend specified that the FBI’s handling of Jan. 6-related investigations “deviated from standard practice and created a false impression with respect to the threat of DVE nationwide.”

    This is something I have argued and written about repeatedly.

    The deliberate mishandling of these cases greatly inflated the number of alleged DVE cases in the country and has been used as an excuse to divert massive amounts of federal law enforcement funds and resources to this grossly exaggerated threat.

    One of the whistleblowers called the bureau “cancerous” because it has “let itself become enveloped in this politicization and weaponization.”

    Allen reportedly had his security clearance suspended for performing case-related research using open-source news articles and videos about the Capitol riot and sending his results to his task force colleagues for “situational awareness.”

    Meanwhile, the FBI argued in a letter to the Committee Chairman, that the clearance suspensions and other disciplinary actions were taken purely out of security concerns or violations by the FBI employees.

    However, among the counter allegations in its letter, the FBI said:

    Specifically, the Security Division found Mr. Allen espoused alternative theories to coworkers verbally and in emails and instant messages sent on the FBI systems, in apparent attempts to hinder investigative activity.

    The letter noted that despite multiple directives from his supervisor to “stop circulating these materials,” Allen “continued.” 

    The report states that: “Because these open-source articles questioned the FBI’s handling of the violence at the Capitol, the FBI suspended Allen for ‘conspiratorial views in regard to the events of January 6th.”

    To come to your own conclusions, I recommend reading the House report and the FBI’s letter linked above. 

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

    Amanda Head: Dodgers Host Christian Faith Event!

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0

    We had to see this for ourselves! Los Angeles Dodgers hosted a Christian faith event at the ballpark…

    See how the night went:

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

    ‘Top Gun’ Blowback – Pentagon Won’t Help Hollywood if They Submit to China

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    1
    Austin Green, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – In an unexpected, but long overdue move, the Pentagon has stated it will no longer work with directors if their movies will be censored by Beijing. This follows directly on the heels of Vietnam banning the movie ‘Barbie’ over its inclusion of a China-friendly map of the South China Sea.

    That movie’s producers apparently caved to Chinese pressure and included the map showing China essentially owning the South China Sea, which it does not, despite its claims. And Vietnam wasn’t happy.

    But, as I previously wrote, this Chinese censorship problem really exploded with last year’s release of Tom Cruise’s blockbuster “Top Gun: Maverick.” 

    And now the Pentagon, thanks to GOP Senator Ted Cruz, has made it clear it now bans any military assistance to directors who plan to comply (or will likely comply) with censorship demands from the Chinese regime in order to distribute their movie in China.

    In trailers for the ‘Maverick’ film shown in 2019, the flags of Taiwan and Japan had been removed from Capt. Pete “Maverick” Mitchell’s flight jacket worn by Cruise in the 1986 original “Top Gun” movie.

    The flags were part of a Far East Cruise patch commemorating the 1963-64 deployment by the USS Galveston off Japan and Taiwan. In the preview clip for the movie in 2019, those two historically accurate flags were replaced by generic nonsensical symbols.

    This shameless kowtowing was an apparent attempt to appease Chinese investor Tencent. But after serious blowback in the U.S. — and after Tencent reportedly dropped its investment in the film – the flags were restored in the final version of the film.

    In another example, Chinese government censors actually pushed the producers of “Spider-man: No Way Home” to remove the Statue of Liberty, according to Puck. This, likely due to its association with the Tiananmen Square protests.

    Thankfully, the studio did not comply, and that movie wasn’t shown in China.

    The Defense Department updated its rules for working with movie studios after Cruz (R-Texas) inserted language, known as the SCRIPT Act. into the fiscal 2023 defense policy bill.

    Cruz has strongly condemned Beijing’s censorship of Hollywood films.

    “What does it say to the world when Maverick is scared of the Chinese communists?” he said at the time.

    tweet

    The latest Top Gun movie also reportedly showed us a peek at what might be the SR-72 – the super-secret experimental hypersonic spy plane under development by Lockheed Martin. It was called the ‘Darkstar’ in the film.

    Providing more context, Politico reported:

    According to a new Defense Department document obtained by POLITICO, filmmakers who want the U.S. military to help with their projects must now pledge that they won’t let Beijing alter those films.

    The DOD “will not provide production assistance when there is demonstrable evidence that the production has complied or is likely to comply with a demand from the Government of the People’s Republic of China … to censor the content of the project in a material manner to advance the national interest of the People’s Republic of China,” the document reads.

    Hollywood and the Defense Department have enjoyed a symbiotic relationship for decades. The Pentagon has allowed filmmakers to shoot their projects on military bases, Navy ships, or other locations, and weighs in on filmmaking processes. The military benefits from positive portrayals of service members, and moviemakers benefit from authentic settings and technical expertise.

    But as China’s ruling Communist Party has developed increasingly advanced censorship and surveillance tools, countless American companies — including Hollywood studios — have sought to comply with Beijing’s demands while attempting to dodge stateside pushback.

    However, from now on, producers of films greenlighted by the Defense Department must notify the Pentagon “in writing of such a censorship demand, including the terms of such demand, and whether the project has complied or is likely to comply with a demand for such censorship.”

    But not just that. DoD will also weigh any “verifiable information” from people not involved in the production who indicate that producers could comply with a censorship demand.

    So, hopefully Hollywood will stop caving to China’s blackmail, or risk losing access to their much-loved Pentagon collaboration.

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

    Amanda Head: Is Bud Light Feeling Enough Pain?

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    1
    Mike Mozart, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    Bud Light’s latest partnership with transgender activist and influencer Dylan Mulvaney has proved to be a public relations nightmare for the brand. Will Bud Light recover?

    Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

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

    Amanda Head: Who’s Smarter? Cats or Democrats?

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    6

    Amanda Head welcomes a special guest today.

    Today woke dialogue surrounding the topic of gender has exposed just how dumb some people can be…

    Watch Amanda explain the latest controversy below:

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

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