As Americans continue to wait for official midterm results to trickle in Republicans are already diving themselves into two camps: Ron DeSantis or Donald Trump.
Who are you siding with?
Watch Amanda break it down below.
WASHINGTON — Time magazine is facing backlash over its latest cover photo of President Donald Trump, after online critics and media outlets pointed out a visual similarity to a portrait the magazine used 60 years ago featuring convicted Nazi industrialist Alfried Krupp.
The image, shot by photographer Stephen Voss, shows Trump looming over the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, dramatically lit from below. According to a report by The Daily Beast, the composition bears a striking resemblance to a 1963 photo of Krupp taken by the Jewish photographer Arnold Newman — a photograph widely studied for its chilling and deliberate framing of a man convicted of facilitating some of history’s most heinous crimes.
Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach inherited control of the Krupp industrial empire from his father, Gustav Krupp, who had supported Adolf Hitler and helped finance the Nazis’ rise to power. Under Alfried’s leadership during World War II, Krupp factories supplied the Third Reich with armaments and heavy machinery vital to its war efforts, including tanks, submarines, and artillery.
After Germany’s defeat, Krupp was tried by the U.S. Military Tribunal in the Nuremberg Krupp Trial (officially The United States of America vs. Alfried Krupp, et al.), which took place from 1947 to 1948.
He was convicted primarily for:
He was sentenced to 12 years in prison and had his property confiscated.
Newman’s portrait of Krupp is iconic in photographic circles. In the image, Krupp is seated at a desk under harsh lighting, his posture and setting portraying him as both powerful and ominous, reminiscent of a devil or a fiendish creature. Critics argue that Time’s Trump cover bears such a resemblance to Newman’s portrait that it cannot be a coincidence.
Voss, the photographer behind the Trump image, has not publicly commented on the comparison. However, he reportedly “liked” social media posts highlighting the resemblance — a move many interpret as a subtle acknowledgment of influence.
A spokesperson for Time magazine rejected the claims outright, telling The Daily Beast that “any suggestion of an intentional reference is completely untrue.”
The controversy cuts across political and cultural lines:
This episode adds fuel to a long-running debate over how the media portrays political leaders — especially those it opposes editorially. It also highlights the power images have in shaping public perception.
In an era when symbolism is parsed as carefully as language, even a magazine cover can carry profound consequences.
North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley joins Liberty & Justice to discusses challenges facing his state and the United States of America.
Per Matt Whitaker:
Drew Wrigley is a fourth generation North Dakotan with family roots in Walsh County and Burke County, where Wrigley Brothers Farm still thrives. Wrigley was born in Bismarck and grew up in Fargo. After graduating from Fargo South High School in 1984, Wrigley attended the University of North Dakota, graduating in 1988 with honors in economics and philosophy. He graduated from the American University, Washington College of Law, in 1991, followed by a year-long judicial clerkship in Delaware. Wrigley then worked as an Assistant District Attorney for the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office, prosecuting every variety of crime in one of our nation’s most violent cities.
Wrigley and his wife Kathleen married in 1998 and moved home to North Dakota. In 2001, Wrigley was nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate as North Dakota’s 17th United States Attorney. Wrigley led his office’s successful efforts to combat violent crime, large-scale narcotics trafficking, illegal immigration, financial fraud and ground-breaking investigations focused on Internet crimes against children. Under Wrigley’s leadership, the office’s Civil Division worked diligently to promote and protect legal and contractual interests of the United States, while battling to ensure the protection of civil rights and the promise of landmark legal protections such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. Even while serving as United States Attorney, Wrigley personally tried several noteworthy cases, including North Dakota’s first federal Internet child-luring case, and the successful death penalty prosecution of Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr., who kidnapped, assaulted, and viciously murdered University of North Dakota student Dru Sjodin. That was North Dakota’s first and only federal death penalty case, for which Wrigley served as lead trial and appellate counsel. From 2004 to 2009, Wrigley was appointed by three successive Attorney Generals of the United States to serve on the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee, a select group of United States Attorneys tasked with advising the Attorney General of the United States and other Department of Justice leaders.
After stepping down as United States Attorney in 2009, Wrigley served as vice-president of a national Medicare and Medicaid contractor based in Fargo. He subsequently served as North Dakota’s 37th Lieutenant Governor, from December 2010 through December 2016. Wrigley served as the President of the State Senate, chaired the State Investment Board and its oversight of then-$11 billion in pension and other state assets, chaired the state’s International Trade Office Board, chaired the Governor’s Cybersecurity Task Force, and led the economic development efforts and oversight authority for North Dakota’s FAA-sanctioned unmanned flight systems testing facility. In 2016, Wrigley and Governor Jack Dalrymple chose to not seek re-election, and in early 2017 Wrigley once again returned to the private sector, serving in a senior advisory role for a regional healthcare, insurance, research and philanthropy enterprise, Sanford Health. In 2019, Wrigley was nominated by President Donald J. Trump and confirmed by the United States Senate as North Dakota’s 19th United States Attorney, becoming the first North Dakotan to twice serve as our state’s chief federal law enforcement officer. Wrigley stepped down in February of 2021 and worked as counsel with his family’s industrial/mechanical/commercial contracting firms, Wrigley Mechanical, Inc. and BDT Mechanical LLC, both located in Fargo. Wrigley maintains an ownership interest in both companies.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
A group of United States senators are sounding the alarm on an effort by President Joe Biden to give illegal aliens free taxpayer-funded housing while thousands of American veterans are homeless.
To head off announced plans by the Biden administration to give free housing to illegal aliens, U.S. Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced the Heroes Over Aliens Act to “prohibit the use of federal dollars to house illegal aliens in the United States when veterans remain homeless,.”
“Veterans sacrificed for our country and deserve our thanks and support. The Heroes Over Aliens Act would prevent the Biden administration from prioritizing illegal immigrants over homeless heroes,” said Kennedy.
Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) are cosponsoring the legislation.
“With so many Americans, especially veterans, struggling thanks to Joe Biden’s failed economic policies, our country should not spend money housing the millions of migrants that his administration let cross our border. This bill will ensure that not a cent can be spent on shelter for illegal immigrants until our veterans are taken care of first,” said Cotton.
“In Joe Biden’s America, illegal immigrants are prioritized over our veterans. As homelessness increases across the nation, it is unthinkable that taxpayer funds are used to house those who break the law instead of American heroes. It’s common sense to stop all federal funding for this offensive practice while there are still thousands of veterans living on the streets,” said Blackburn.
“The Biden administration’s backwards border policies prioritize housing assistance for illegal aliens while neglecting homeless veterans. We must take care of each and every one of our own American heroes before using federal funds to house undocumented migrants,” said Cramer.
The bill is in response to announced plans by the Biden administration to give illegal aliens housing at federal taxpayer expense, after some liberal cities and states have ordered hotels to give rooms to illegals and reportedly kicked out veterans and schoolchildren so government facilities can be used as illegal alien housing.
“On June 12, 2023, August 21, 2023, and April 12, 2024, the Biden administration announced three separate actions to fund housing for immigrants—the majority of whom crossed the border illegally,” Kennedy’s office reports.
“The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 2023 Annual Homeless Assessment Report found that there were 35,574 homeless veterans living in the U.S.—a 7.4 percent increase from the previous report and the largest increase in 12 years,” Kennedy’s office adds.
“The Biden administration’s open border policies have consumed federal and local resources and made it harder for states and localities to address veteran homelessness effectively,” Kennedy’s office concludes.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – The incessant drumbeat of the left’s campaign to keep the Capitol Riot in the news every day for nearly two years had some of its intended effects.
It probably helped persuade some voters not to pull the lever for those ‘dangerous’ MAGA Republicans during the midterm elections.
It also may dissuade others not to vote for Trump or the GOP in 2024.
And some of that concern may be justified.
But the GOP and the right also failed miserably by not forcefully pushing the truth about the ‘other insurrection’ – the one against Trump and the White House by violent leftists under the BLM flag in May/June 2020.
I was a risk advisor to foreign TV news crews during both violent riots.
I also strongly condemned both, writing of the Capitol rioters at the time: “…many were goons and criminals, and yes, ‘terrorists.’ No better than Antifa or BLM, or the #NotMyPresident rioters who disrupted Trump’s Inaugural four years ago.”
I added of the violent Capitol rioters: “Whoever they were, they should be seen and treated as criminals. Arrested and prosecuted.”
This sentiment didn’t apply to the hundreds who simply entered the Capitol non-violently, but that’s another issue altogether.
Unfortunately, the left, colluding with the establishment media and Democrats in Congress and the White House, only ‘remembers’ one riot and erased that other one from history.
If they mention the violent BLM riot at the White House at all, they focus on Trump’s Bible photo op the next morning at St John’s Episcopal Church, the site across from the White House of an attempted arson the night before.
They also forget how they aggressively attacked any attempt by Trump, and federal and local authorities, to bring order to the violence.
I even had a Canadian TV news reporter claim to me months after the protests at the White House that they were totally peaceful.
She said this nonsense despite the fact that the violence was reported, albeit briefly.
And I had to forcibly intervene to protect one of her colleagues, a cameraman who was savagely beaten by two ‘BLM’ assailants without justification, while the crew was simply changing batteries and reorganizing away from the main battle lines.
The cameraman fortunately was wearing a helmet at my suggestion, and ‘only’ suffered a mild concussion.
I personally witnessed hundreds of rioters almost break through the thin improvised line of U.S. Park Police and Uniformed Secret Service in the park, while DC Metropolitan Police, for political reasons, assembled on the sidelines.
As a security expert, I was concerned that there weren’t enough police to stop the large violent mob from crashing the fence at the White House; a concern apparently shared by the Secret Service who at one point that night rushed Trump to the protected underground bunker.
A claim Trump sadly denied.
I also witnessed everything described by CNN below, and more.
As CNN reported at the time on May 31, 2020:
More than 60 US Secret Service Uniformed Division officers and special agents were injured starting Friday night through Sunday morning near the White House as protests rocked Washington, DC, following the death of George Floyd last week, according to a statement from the Secret Service.
The officers and agents were injured when protesters threw “projectiles such as bricks, rocks, bottles, fireworks and other items,” according to the statement. “Personnel were also directly physically assaulted as they were kicked, punched and exposed to bodily fluids.”
CNN teams were on hand for much of the protests and witnessed protesters throwing objects at officers and pulling temporary fencing away from them.
Eleven Secret Service employees were transported to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries. A secret service officer suffered a head injury after being assaulted by BLM & far-left rioters trying to storm the White House. Dozens of other Secret Service agents were injured as well.
This was also a violent riot, or call it an insurrection, but in this case against President Trump, the Executive Branch, and the politically sacred space of the ‘People’s House.’
Perhaps with GOP control of the House, we can see a real congressional investigation of this ‘other insurrection.’
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
*Warning: This article contains some graphic language.
ANALYSIS – For those conservatives who say that Republicans are weak or ineffective, take note of all the actions this GOP-led House has taken so far. And with only the slimmest of majorities. The latest effort targets a distasteful anti-Christian group that focuses on influencing Pentagon policy.
While operating under the misleading name of the ‘Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), this advocacy group is anything but an organization for religious freedom. Its real mission is to attack and remove any Christian influences from our entire military.
In February, for example, the MRFF convinced Merchant Marine Academy leaders to move a massive historical painting titled “Christ on the Water” from a public space to a chapel.
This move was attacked by Republican lawmakers and Christian groups as gross overreach, especially since it was a historical item and part of the Academy’s proud heritage.
But the Academy caved quickly to the group’s outrageous demand.
The aggressive actions of the group have raised concerns among lawmakers for years, with ill-informed military staffers often overreacting to the group’s incessant, and at times inappropriate, demands without following proper review procedures.
Thankfully, the GOP House has it in its sights.
Under an amendment to the House draft of the annual defense authorization bill last week, reported Military Times, Defense officials and troops would be barred from communicating with the Foundation or from making “any decision as a result of any claim, objection, or protest made by MRFF without the authority of the Secretary of Defense.”
While the language for the amendment was offered by Republican Rep. Mike Turner, of Ohio, the amendment was adopted with unanimous, bipartisan support in the House Armed Services Committee.
The amendment is designed to simply ensure that military staffers don’t overreact to the group’s demands without following proper protocols. And its bipartisan support shows that it is very reasonable.
But that didn’t stop the group from issuing a profanity-laced tirade.
Confirming its bigoted anti-Christian bias, not to mention lack of professionalism and decorum, the MRFF’s president and founder Mikey Weinstein, angrily lashed out, calling his opponents “bastards” and “enemies.”
More specifically he said, according to Military Times: “If they don’t like what we do at MRFF … they can take a number, pack a picnic lunch and stand in line with the rest of those fundamentalist Christian extremist bastards who constitute our enemies.”
But he didn’t stop digging his anti-Christian hole there. He went on:
If the fundamentalist Christian nationalists who are behind this are trying to execute us through legislation, we’ll take that as validation of the positive effect that we’re having for our clients and for the Constitution.”
“And they can go fuck themselves.”
Well, Mr. Weinstein, we won’t do that, but we will fight him and his group tooth and nail legislatively.
The Senate Armed Services Committee’s draft of the defense authorization bill does not include any similar restrictions on communications or response to MRFF requests, but it should. Expect intense efforts to ensure that they are included in a final bill.
House Republicans will also likely add more amendments on abortion and transgender issues when the bill is debated in the full chamber next month.
If you want to be part of the solution, then contact your Senators and tell them how you feel about far-left extremists pushing a bigoted, anti-Christian agenda on our military.
Religious freedom means our troops are guaranteed the right to express their religion, even on military bases and facilities. And defending that right is a fight worth having.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Americans may soon learn more about how a FBI agent worked with a liberal group to target President Donald Trump in a criminal investigation.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced in a statement it “filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for communications between former Assistant Special Agent in Charge Timothy Thibault and the anti-Trump organization American Oversight.”
“It’s a shame that we must sue to get these records about how the Biden gang at the FBI and DOJ tried to rig an election by jailing Trump for disputing the 2020 election,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It’s past time for these institutions to focus on transparency under law, so the American people can know the full truth on the lawfare attack perpetrated on Trump.”
Judicial Watch reports it filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia “after the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) failed to respond to a January 31, 2025, FOIA request for:”
Records and communications between Timothy Thibault, former [Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Washington Field Office] and the non-profit organization American Oversight, 1030 15th St. NW, B255, Washington, D.C. 20005, email domain: @americanoversight. The search terms for this request are a) Trump b) Electors c) Investigation d) election
According to Judicial Watch, “in July 2022, U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) reportedly warned then-Attorney General Merrick Garland that Thibault and an official in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, Richard Pilger, were ‘deeply involved in the decisions to open and pursue election-related investigations against President Trump. At the time, whistleblowers told Grassley that the Thibault-Pilger investigation’s predicating document was based on information from “liberal nonprofit American Oversight.”’ Thibault retired in August 2022.”
Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) have revealed in a statement that:
Internal FBI emails and predicating documents provided to Grassley and released jointly by the two senators show Timothy Thibault, a former FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) who was forced to retire from the Bureau after Grassley exposed his public anti-Trump bias, authored the initial language for what ultimately became Jack Smith’s federal case against Trump regarding the 2020 presidential election. Records show Thibault essentially opened and approved his own investigation.
Judicial Watch reports American Oversight describes itself as “founded in 2017 in response to the unprecedented challenges that the Trump administration posed to our nation’s democratic ideals and institutions.…” Earlier this year, Politico described it as, “A left-leaning watchdog group … working to gather materials that could feed Congressional investigations into the Trump administration.”
A novel legal theory from two conservative legal scholars published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review that a section of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to run for president may be getting a court hearing in Florida.
As Ballot Access news editor emeritus Richard Winger notes:
On August 24, a Florida voter, Lawrence Caplan, filed a federal lawsuit seeking to bar former President Donald Trump from being placed on 2024 ballots as a presidential candidate. Caplan v Trump, s.d., 0:23cv-61618.
Caplan, who appears to be representing himself in the case, writes:
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which provides for the disqualification of an individual who commits insurrection against our government has remained on the books for some one hundred and fifty plus years without ever facing question as to its legitimacy. While one can certainly argue that it has not been thoroughly tested, that fact is only because we have not faced an insurrection against our federal government such as the one while we faced on January 6, 2021. It should also be noted that President Trump has since made statements to the effect that should he be elected, he would advocate the total elimination of the US Constitution and the creation of a new charter more in line with his personal values.
Winger believes Caplan’s suit is “misguided:”
The Fourteenth Amendment “insurrection clause” bars individuals from being sworn in to certain offices, but it does not bar them from seeking the office. When the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, there was no mechanism to prevent any voter from voting for any candidate.
Caplan appears to be taking the law review article’s authors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulson, at their word:
“No official should shrink from these duties. It would be wrong — indeed, arguably itself a breach of one’s constitutional oath of office — to abandon one’s responsibilities of faithful interpretation, application, and enforcement of Section Three,” Bode and Paulsen write.
Alternatively, ordinary citizens could file challenges on the same grounds with state election officials themselves.
And other such suits may emerge over the coming weeks. I’m not convinced any federal judge will be willing to read Section 3 like Baude and Paulson say it should be. It’s not because the Section’s words aren’t clear – they are.
My concerns are akin to those of Cato’s Walter Olsen, who writes:
…no one should assume that just because Baude and Paulsen have made a powerful intellectual case for their originalist reading, that the Supreme Court will declare itself convinced and disqualify Trump. Justice Antonin Scalia memorably described himself as a “faint‐hearted originalist,” which captures something important about the thinking of almost every Justice—if overruling a wrongly decided old case threatens to disrupt settled expectations to the point of spreading chaos and grief through society, most of them will refrain. Stare decisis, and a general preference for continuity in law, still matters.
Exactly. While some judges may nurse images of themselves as bold crusaders for justice, most jurists aren’t eager to upset established practice and precedent on a whim. Though, to be fair to the times when such upsets have occurred – Brown v. Board of Education, for example, or Griswold v. Connecticut – have been warranted, necessary, and beneficial.
Does that apply in the Caplan case? A court will decide. But as I’ve long said about Trump, the only court he cares about is public opinion. If voters reject him, that will carry more weight and sanction than any court could ever deliver.
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. Republished with permission.
ANALYSIS – As if we need any more evidence, testimony from former Obama-era CIA director and part-time partisan hack John Brennan confirms the letter smearing Hunter Biden’s bombshell laptop story as ‘Russian disinformation’ was a purely political move to help Joe Biden beat Donald Trump.
I’ve repeatedly referred to this outrageous and unprecedented letter, signed by 51 senior former intelligence community officials, as Democrat domestic disinformation and election interference.
The New York Post calls the entire charade – “the spies who lie.”
While all the officials who signed the letter saying the laptop appeared to have earmarks of a “Russian information operation” were private citizens at the time, they all signed with their government titles prominently listed below their names.
Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., a member of the investigating House subcommittee, told the Post that what is already known about the letter points to federal agencies clearly being weaponized to help Biden win the 2020 presidential election.
According to Cammack, Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper and others helped get the letter quickly through the CIA’s pre-publication classification review board.
“To me, that is absolutely crazy. If that’s not weaponization of our federal government, I don’t know what is,” she added.
Cammack is confirming what I’ve noted previously – that the unprecedented letter by dozens of supposedly nonpartisan spooks was used by the Biden campaign and its allies in the media to discredit, and help suppress, the mounds of incriminating emails, photos and other materials found on Hunter’s forgotten laptop.
The election-eve laptop story was first reported by the New York Post, but after this letter was published and widely disseminated by the establishment media, the story was crushed. Social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn went so far as disabling links to the story and censoring or removing posts about it.
Big Tech and Big Media labeled the story ‘disinformation’ – first based on their own bias, then justified by this Democrat disinformation.
The laptop and most of its contents have since been independently verified as real and proven legitimate. But when Trump brought up the laptop report during their debate, Biden cited the letter as proof that the story was Russian disinformation.
Had the story not been suppressed it could have swayed the election in favor of Trump.
And it was all a Democrat con job.
According to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan R-Ohio, appearing on Fox News, R-Ohio “[Brennan] sat for a four-hour interview, and he further confirmed that this thing was all political.”
Brennan was seemingly eager to add his name to the letter. Responding to former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell’s request (Morell testified before the Judiciary Committee earlier in May), Brennan said:
“Ok, Michael, add my name to the list. Good initiative. Thanks for asking me to sign on.”
Jordan also recounted what I have previously written, the fact that then-Biden 2020 campaign adviser Antony Blinken, now Biden’s Secretary of State, was the “impetus” behind the letter, and it didn’t come organically from anyone inside the community of intelligence veterans.
As I noted then, at Blinken’s behest, the letter was drafted and organized in part by Morell who had also served as acting CIA director. At the time he was drafting the letter and seeking approval from the CIA, Morell was considered a front-runner to lead the agency if Biden were elected.
It appears Morell thought that putting out a false letter to help Team Biden might cinch him the job. It didn’t.
In his testimony, Morell referred to the letter as a “talking point” to help Team Biden against Trump during their debate. On Fox News, Jordan mused why Biden, or the Democrats, believed they needed a “talking point” if they truly believed Hunter’s laptop was not real.
Morell also reportedly told the CIA’s Prepublication Classification Review Board (PCRB) which approves all public information released by former agency employees, that he needed the letter approved as a “rush job.”
The board approved the letter in a record five and a half hours.
An active CIA employee working for the same board then solicited a signature for the same letter from former CIA analyst David Cariens, according to a written statement by Cariens.
Yes, this is what some call the leftist ‘Deep State.’ Others simply know it as ‘the Swamp.’ But most dangerously, it is part of our federal government and intelligence agencies being weaponized for partisan and ideological goals.
Next week, another partisan intelligence hack, and ‘Spy Who Lied,’ the Obama-era Director of National Intelligence (DNI), James Clapper, will appear before the committee. Let’s see what he will be forced to admit.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Will they ever listen? The Republican National Committee (RNC) has been caught red-handed yet again…
Watch Amanda explain the controversy below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
