Their latest stunt isn’t new to the woke ice cream brand…
On the Fourth of July Ben and Jerry’s ice cream released a statement bashing America’s heritage.
Watch Amanda explain the latest controversy below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is in possession of a document in which a Bureau source details a scheme to bribe then-Vice-President Joe Biden in exchange for policy decisions – but the agency is refusing to turn it over to congressional investigators.
House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-KY), working with and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-IA), has subpoenaed the FBI to produce the unclassified record alleging a criminal scheme involving Biden and a foreign national.
“The document, an FBI-generated FD-1023 form, allegedly details an arrangement involving an exchange of money for policy decisions,” Comer’s office reports. An FD-1023 form records the details of an interview with a source.
Comer subpoenaed the record on May 3, 2023 with a return date of May 10, 2023.
The FBI has defied the subpoena, at a time when polls show a majority of Americans now view the FBI as steeped in partisan bias and working to defend Biden politically.
“It’s clear from the FBI’s response that the unclassified record the Oversight Committee subpoenaed exists, but they are refusing to provide it to the Committee,” said Comer in a statement.
“The FBI’s delay in producing a single, unclassified record is unacceptable,” said Comer. “The information provided by a whistleblower raises concerns that then-Vice President Biden allegedly engaged in a bribery scheme with a foreign national. The FBI must provide this record to Congress without further delay. The American people demand the truth and accountability for any wrongdoing. That starts with getting this record.”
“We’ve asked the FBI to not only provide this record, but to also inform us what it did to investigate these allegations. The FBI has failed to do both. The FBI’s position is ‘trust, but you aren’t allowed to verify.’ That is unacceptable,” Comer added.
“The FBI’s well-documented failures in politically sensitive investigations have eroded public confidence over the past few years. Just a few days ago, the Durham Report found that the FBI relied on unverified and inaccurate information as the foundation of its debunked Russia collusion probe. The FBI needs to take steps to restore public confidence. Flouting a legitimate congressional subpoena and dodging oversight is no way to rebuild the public trust. The FBI’s credibility is on the line, and their continued failure to cooperate will have long lasting consequences,” said Grassley.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Joe Biden’s Chinese spy balloon fiasco keeps getting worse. As I noted earlier, almost all of the Biden spin about the Chinese balloon that spent eight long days surveilling military and strategic sites across the United States, was misleading or outright false.
Contrary to the furious pro-Biden spin, the 200ft tall balloon with a jetliner-sized surveillance package strapped to it, did pose an intelligence and military threat.
It could also have been shot down much earlier without undue risk to those on the ground – especially since it first cruised over the Aleutian Islands and parts of Alaska.
And no, President Trump did not know or ignore prior Chinese balloon incursions when he was in office.
Reports of brief crossings of Chinese balloons over peripheral parts of the U.S., like Florida, or U.S. territories far from the continental U.S. like Guam, did not surface until well after Trump left office.
Apparently, the Pentagon didn’t detect those extremely brief forays at the time, displaying a major gap in our surveillance capabilities.
But this incursion was of a whole different scope and scale.
I earlier argued that the primary goal of this latest extended cross-country balloon incursion for China was political.
It was a clear test. What would Biden and the U.S. military do? And their answer was, basically nothing until after the airship completed its 8-day surveillance mission.
However, an added, and more dangerous goal was potentially to test how to use a stratospheric balloon to employ a small nuclear device at an extremely high altitude to produce a massive electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that would fry communications, power networks and almost all electronics across much of the United States.
For more on that see my previous piece.
But let’s return to the more mundane intelligence-gathering functions of this airship.
While the Biden spinners rushed to say that the balloon could not gather intel not already gained by Chinese satellites in low earth orbit, this simply ignorant, and untrue.
One left-leaning intelligence news site, SpyTalk, edited by the elderly Jeff Stein, wrote in an almost knee-jerk fashion without waiting for more facts: “Pssst: Chinese Satellite Not a Threat. Experts say news media hysteria over the floating orb not at all warranted.”
Stein then brought in his usual suspects to buttress his pro-Biden spin.
The liberal Stein quoted one of his regular minions, Paul Cobaugh, a left-leaning retired Army information operations specialist with no intelligence or technology background, as saying we have a “variety of capabilities to render it unusable or mitigate the threat.”
This is partly true. We do have means to mitigate the threat.
A senior U.S. defense official said on Feb. 2 that when the Chinese balloon was detected near Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana, home of the 341st strategic intercontinental ballistic missile wing, the Pentagon “acted immediately to protect against the collection of secretive information.”
That likely meant shutting off signals-emitting systems and moving secretive aircraft and sensitive equipment under cover or into a hangar.
The Pentagon can take similar steps to stop satellites from gathering intelligence, but it is far more disruptive to have a giant airship looming overhead for long periods of time, as it was in this case.
But SpyTalk’s Cobaugh takes his uninformed argument about the balloon to an extreme, adding with no nuance or uncertainty:
“It’s not a threat.”
SpyTalk didn’t stop there though and added the always predictable, hyper-partisan, Trump-hating former Air Force general and CIA director Michael Hayden to the mix, who totally dismissed the Chinese balloon, and Biden’s inaction, by saying:
“Really, it’s not a big deal.”
Well, this is all just nonsense. It was a very big deal.
Beyond the various risks noted above and in my earlier piece, the ability to vacuum up valuable Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) unavailable to satellites, makes the balloon threat unique.
As Defense News reports:
Experts say balloons loitering at high altitudes can offer some advantages over satellites and drones — or could at least augment their intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities.
Tom Karako, director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, said one benefit of these balloons is their ability to hover closer to the ground than satellites, and they may be able to intercept communication or electronic signals that orbiting systems can’t.
“It could be thermal infrared, it could be signals intelligence. One of the reasons there are advantages to the suborbital position is you might not be able to do all of that from space,” he told C4ISRNET in a Feb. 3 interview. “There’s a whole lot of value to something other than space.”
Bryan Clark, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Defense Concepts and Technology, said balloons also offer more persistent, less predictable coverage over an area of interest. While satellites follow a known orbit, airships use wind currents and automated controls to maneuver in different directions. They can also hover in one place for a long period of time.
Clark told C4ISRNET: “With a satellite, you know when they’re going to go overhead, so you stop doing whatever you’re doing for the time it’s overhead. If you have a balloon, it could be out there for days or months, and you’re sort of left either having to stop whatever you’re doing that’s generating intel — or you live with it.”
And there is much more our intelligence experts and agencies can’t yet divulge about this balloon.
Hopefully, once it is fully recovered we can expect a full damage assessment.
So, yes, the high-tech, high-altitude, Chinese surveillance airship that spent 8 days traversing the U.S. was a threat, and the leftist partisan spin machine continues to churn out uninformed nonsense.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Tucker Carlson’s misguided attempt to use cherry-picked moments of the newly released video of Jan. 6 to argue that nothing bad happened at the Capitol that day, is horribly timed and very dumb.
As I wrote the day after I personally observed events at the Capitol that day, January 6 was neither a deadly coup, insurrection nor peaceful guided tours of the Capitol.
It was a mixture of some of those things, none of those things, and everything in between.
And Tucker would have been far more effective, and credible had he used the video to show that the Left’s Jan. 6 narrative was incomplete, distorted, and totally one-sided, rather than trying to say it was totally false.
Because the truth is that Jan 6 was like the story of the blind men and the elephant, each one grasping one part of the animal, like the leg, tail, or trunk, and describing the giant beast as something totally different.
On Jan. 6 what began as a massive peaceful rally of tens of thousands of pro-Trump protesters, soon degraded when smaller elements (a few hundred) of the much larger peaceful crowd broke off and did conduct a violent attack on parts of the Capitol.
Hundreds more just stupidly followed the initial ‘attack mob’ inside.
In the first group, some had military training, used stack formations, and were very organized and intent on forcefully breaching the building.
While none were found with, or used firearms, during the riot, there was violence with sticks, flagpoles, and pepper spray.
I called these violent rioters, thugs, and criminals.
They were similar to the violent BLM rioters who had violently attacked police at the White House in the summer of 2020 or besieged the Portland Federal Courthouse for months.
On Jan. 6 police officers were similarly attacked and beaten, and the Capitol was ultimately breached unlawfully.
Inside, one non-violent protester, Ashley Babbitt, an Air Force security forces veteran, was shot by a Capitol Police Officer. Likely, unjustly.
She was the only person killed during the riot.
All this occurred in the span of just a few hours.
But the Capitol complex is massive, and what was happening violently on one end was not being replicated at other parts of the Capitol.
As much of the Tucker video showed truthfully, in many places and entrances, Capitol Police had allowed protesters inside, in some cases escorted them around.
In other cases, the police simply stood by as the ‘tourist’ protesters milled around and took selfies or acted stupidly.
Still, ever since then, there has been a profound narrative battle pitting those fanatics on the right who said nothing at all happened and the fanatics on the left who claim Jan. 6 was worse than Pearl Harbor or 9/11, and an insurrection that risked the essence of American democracy.
Sadly, neither side is correct, but only the most extreme one-sided ‘insurrection’ narrative was put forward by the left and last Congress’ Democratic-run Jan. 6 committee, and repeated daily by the partisan, anti-Trump media.
The insurrection narrative was pushed by cherry-picked videos and photos of the same short-lived Capitol violence from different views and angles, repeated in a nearly constant loop for the most distorted and dramatic effect possible.
But now Tucker has done the same.
Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger wrote in an internal message to officers that Carlson’s Monday night primetime program “conveniently cherry-picked from the calmer moments of our 41,000 hours of video” to incorrectly portray the violent assault as more akin to a peaceful protest. He added that Carlson’s “commentary fails to provide context about the chaos and violence that happened before or during these less tense moments.”
And many Republican leaders agreed.
The timing is also horrible.
As Politico reported:
“It’s definitely stupid to keep talking about this … So what is the purpose of continuing to bring it up unless you’re trying to feed Democrat narratives even further?” Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) said in an interview, noting the videos didn’t show “anything we don’t already know.”
“I don’t really have a problem with making it all public. But if your message is then to try and convince people that nothing bad happened, then it’s just gonna make us look silly.”
So how should we view the events of the January 6 riot accurately and fairly?
Probably the best description was provided by Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.) when he said he has “a hard time with all of it.”
He added that Jan. 6 “was not a peaceful protest. It was not an insurrection. It was a riot that should have never happened. And a lot of people share the blame for that. The truth is always messier than any narrative.”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Who saw this coming?
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Leonard Leo, a billionaire activist often credited as the architect of the conservative supermajority on the U.S. Supreme Court, has announced a $1 billion investment aimed at countering what he calls “liberal dominance” in corporate America, the media and entertainment sectors.
In a rare interview with the Financial Times, Leo detailed his plans through his nonprofit group, the Marble Freedom Trust, which will focus its resources on the private sector. “We need to crush liberal dominance where it’s most insidious,” Leo said, explaining that the initiative will build talent and capital pipelines in industries where he believes left-wing extremism is most pervasive.
Leo also emphasized targeting companies and financial institutions that he claims are influenced by “woke” ideology. “Expect us to increase support for organizations that call out companies and financial institutions that bend to the woke mind virus spread by regulators and NGOs,” he said, vowing that these entities would face consequences for prioritizing “extreme left-wing ideology” over consumers:
Leo has spent more than two decades at the influential Federalist Society, guiding conservative judges into the federal courts and the Supreme Court itself. In 2018, conservative justice Clarence Thomas joked that Leo was the third most important person in the world.
Leo’s efforts culminated under Trump’s presidency, when three Federalist Society-backed judges were appointed to give conservatives on the Supreme Court a 6-3 supermajority, and profound influence over US law. The court has since then ruled to overturn the right to an abortion, among other long-sought rightwing causes.
In 2020, after Trump lost the election, Leo stepped back from running the daily operations of the Federalist Society, while remaining its co-chair.
The following year, Leo founded Marble, with a $1.6bn donation from electronic device manufacturing mogul Barre Seid, to be a counterweight to what he said was “dark money” of the left. He spent about $600mn in its first three years, according to public financial disclosures.
During the interview, Leo identified several potential targets for his campaign, including banks, China-friendly corporations and companies that have institutionalized diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) frameworks, as well as those adhering to environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing principles.
He added that his goal is to find “very leveraged, impactful ways of reintroducing limited constitutional government and a civil society premised on freedom, personal responsibility and the virtues of Western civilization.”
Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News.
Even more sports teams seem to be regressing into the painfully woke ideology, and this time the National Hockey League is on the hook.
Watch Amanda break down the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Joshua Steinman, the former senior director for cyber on President Trump’s National Security Council (NSC), has issued a stark warning to the incoming president that demands immediate attention. Steinman, who loyally served from Trump’s first day in office to his last, cautions that mistakes in NSC staffing could spell disaster for the administration’s second term, leading to either ineffectiveness or outright betrayal. His insights form a compelling argument for a complete overhaul of the NSC as the cornerstone of Trump’s efforts to govern effectively.
The NSC, as Steinman explains, is not merely a bureaucratic appendage. It is the quarterback of the White House—the entity tasked with ensuring that the president’s directives are executed seamlessly across the vast machinery of the federal government. “If the president is the owner of the football team, the NSC is the quarterback,” he asserts, underscoring the centrality of this institution in driving the administration’s policy agenda. And yet, Steinman’s concerns suggest that the team surrounding this quarterback may not be up to the task.
Reflecting on Trump’s first term, Steinman identifies a critical error: the decision to retain approximately 50% of the NSC staff from the Obama administration. This hesitation to implement a sweeping purge, according to Steinman, allowed disloyal actors to undermine Trump’s policies. Some of these holdovers allegedly continued to operate under Obama-era guidance until explicitly instructed otherwise. Steinman’s message is clear: “Removing people like this isn’t personal; it’s just prudent.”
The stakes are high. Steinman contrasts Trump’s initial approach with the swift and decisive action taken by President Biden, who executed a comprehensive purge of Trump-aligned NSC staff upon taking office. This move ensured that Biden’s team could implement his agenda without interference from ideological adversaries. Critics labeled Biden’s actions a “purge” and raised concerns about the politicization of traditionally non-partisan roles, but his administration’s determination to align its personnel with its policies proved effective in consolidating its power.
Steinman’s critique does not stop at holdovers. He raises alarms about new hires, questioning their loyalty and expertise. Among those rumored to join Trump’s team is Adam Howard, GOP Staff Director for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), who is set to take the critical role of senior director for intelligence programs. Steinman questions whether Howard’s background equips him to confront potential interference from the intelligence community—a task vital to ensuring Trump’s agenda is not derailed.
The urgency of Steinman’s warning lies in the fundamental truth that personnel is policy. For Trump’s administration to succeed, the NSC must be staffed with individuals who are not only loyal to his vision but also possess the subject-matter expertise to navigate the complexities of their roles. Steinman’s concerns about Anne Neuberger, the Biden-appointed NSC cybersecurity director, exemplify this need. Her alignment with policies on artificial intelligence and tech censorship could undermine Trump’s objectives, should she remain in place.
Trump’s response to these challenges is beginning to take shape. Key appointments to his NSC include:
While these appointments reflect a renewed emphasis on loyalty and alignment, Steinman’s cautionary tale lingers. The success of Trump’s second term hinges on avoiding the missteps of the first. The NSC’s ability to serve as an effective quarterback depends entirely on the quality of its staff. As Steinman aptly puts it, “The Intel Senior Director position is one of the most CRITICAL posts in U.S. Government.”
The broader implications of Steinman’s warning extend beyond Trump’s presidency. The debate over Biden’s NSC purge highlighted the tension between ensuring policy alignment and maintaining non-partisan governance. Critics, including the Heritage Foundation, argued that Biden’s actions undermined the apolitical nature of advisory roles, while supporters contended that loyalty is essential for effective governance. Trump’s administration must navigate this delicate balance, prioritizing mission alignment without descending into the partisanship that critics decry.
As Trump prepares to assume office once more, the lessons of his first term and Biden’s purge are clear: the NSC must be reimagined, restructured, and resolutely loyal to the President’s agenda. Failure to act decisively could jeopardize the very goals Trump has championed—from ending unnecessary conflicts to revitalizing the economy. Steinman’s call to action is both a warning and a roadmap: “Fix the NSC, fix the presidency.”
Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.
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.
“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.
Who would ever want to be a liberal?
A new study found women who identify as conservatives are often more attractive and happier than their liberal counterparts…but is it true?
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
