Opinion

Home Opinion Page 39

Anti-Woke ‘Radical Libertarian’ Wins Argentine Election, Trump Plans Visit

3
Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

ANALYSIS – In another extremely positive political development overseas, a ‘far-right’ populist, better called an anti-woke radical libertarian, has won the presidency in Argentina.

The leftist-hating, free market advocate, Javier Milei, hopes to shake up South America’s highly statist second-largest economy and its extreme socialist politics.

While Argentina and the U.S. are very different political animals, and former President Trump and Milei don’t share similar views on a lot of things, Trump congratulated Milei on his landslide victory, saying he would “Make Argentina Great Again!”

According to a statement by Milei’s press office after the two spoke on Thursday, Trump will also visit Buenos Aires to meet with the Argentine president-elect.

One thing they do have in common is their hatred of the left and love of incendiary language (read to the end).

A hundred years ago Argentina was one of the six wealthiest countries in the world, but thanks to the socialism of Juan and Evita Perón, and their Peronist party, the beautiful country has dropped to a dismal to 66th place, below Mexico and just above Russia.

Milei, who leads the country’s La Libertad Avanza (Liberty Advances) party, won the presidential run-off with some 56% of the vote, well ahead of left-leaning Peronist Economy Minister Sergio Massa’s 44%. Milei will take office Dec. 10.

The self-described anarcho-capitalist is pledging economic shock therapy, by among other things, slashing bloated government spending, shuttering the central bank, and ditching the thoroughly devalued peso for the U.S. dollar.

These potentially painful reforms resonated with voters angry at the economic malaise. Still, as Fortune noted, Milei’s “party controls only a handful of seats in congress, and policies like dollarization would be an incredibly complex undertaking even with broad political support.”

Meanwhile, many “investors think Milei is the best shot at salvaging the economy after years of market pain.”

Fortune added:

While Milei gained attention for quirks that were atypical for a potential head of state — his unusual hairdo, love of his cloned dogs and a penchant for campaigning with a chainsaw — he won fans among investors for his promise to usher in a business-friendly era for Argentina. Economic growth is elusive, the peso has lost more than 90% of its value in four years, and around 40% of the population lives in poverty.

John Fund writes in National Review:

Milei, a free-market economist, is an ally of both the U.S. and Israel and a sworn adversary of China and Latin American leftists. His plan to dollarize the Argentine economy will blunt China’s effort to undermine the U.S. currency. As analyst Juan P. Villasmil puts it: “Argentina’s economy is the second most powerful in South America, so having it led by an openly pro-US leader in a continent filled with socialists isn’t bad news.”

Milei describes himself as an Austrian economist, but there is also some Chicago School influence. He named two of his dogs after Milton Friedman and Robert Lucas, and a third after Murray Rothbard.

Elon Musk and other U.S. business leaders are already looking forward to an open and more free Argentine economy. Milei has a strong team of advisers from free market think tanks and has forged an alliance with establishment conservative parties to help him govern.

And Milei is a firebrand and fighter much like Trump. Expect him to take a wrecking ball to the socialists. The UK’s Express quoted Milei as saying:

“You can’t give s**t leftards an inch. All collectivists, all kinds of collectivists. […] They are s**t!

“If you think differently from them they will kill you. This is the point. You can’t give s**t leftists an inch, if you give them an inch they will use it to destroy you.

“You can’t negotiate with leftards. You don’t negotiate with trash because they will end you!

Milei added: “And since they can’t beat us with real arguments, they just use the repressive apparatus of the state with loads of taxpayer money to destroy us and yet they’re still losing!”

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

‘Target’ Woke Companies and Huge Investment Firms Behind Them

3
Marcha del orgullo en Paraná, Entre Ríos, Argentina. Noviembre de 2021 via Wikimedia commons

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.

Should the Government Regulate Artificial Intelligence (AI)? Less is Best

6
Image via Pixabay free images.

ANALYSIS – Artificial Intelligence (AI) is basically self-learning software (algorithms) that grows smarter over time using the entire world’s ever-growing library of data as its teacher. It can learn to do myriad complex tasks in a fraction of the time humans could.

It will revolutionize and upend entire economies, and dominate future warfare. It is also developing at an unprecedented rate. 

Many are concerned AI will take away entire career fields and tens of millions of American jobs. AI advancements could eliminate up to 300 million jobs globally, according to Goldman Sachs.

Fox News reported: “Up to 30% of hours currently worked across the U.S. economy could become automated by 2030, creating the possibility of around 12 million occupational transitions in the coming years, according to a McKinsey Global Institute study.”

Others worry that it will make a few corporations extremely rich and powerful. 

And then, many worry that Al may supersede human intelligence in just a few years and eventually make humans redundant.

Few would deny that whoever dominates AI may dominate the world. China certainly believes this and is forging ahead to become the world leader in AI.

The Pentagon is also looking closely at how it can use AI to more quickly make strategic or battlefield assessments and technologically leapfrog over our enemies.

But what about our government? Should it regulate AI?

Democrats tend to favor regulating everything. And they have shown the danger of doing so with social media. I recently wrote on how Joe Biden is already using executive power to weaponize Artificial Intelligence to be woke.

I noted that: “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 this revolutionary, powerful, and dangerous new technology.”

“That ‘woke’ ideology promotes affirmative action under the guise of ‘anti-racism,’ and transgenderism as gender ‘equity.’”

And that is a huge concern.

Republicans tend to be more skeptical of regulation in general, especially in a dynamic, fast-moving technology that few lawmakers understand.

“Let a bunch of guys up here that are wearing JCPenney leisure suits that still have 8-track tape players in their ’72 Vegas start talking about technology, then you got some problems,” Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., told Fox News when asked about regulation keeping pace with the AI sector.

“The problem with AI is that it’s advancing so fast,” Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina said. “It’s very difficult to regulate because you don’t know what the next thing is going to be.”

Republicans, like Burchett and Mace, also worry government regulation will stifle AI innovation and put the U.S. at a strategic disadvantage, especially vis a vis China.

“I don’t know that we need regulation,” Burchett said. “You want to stifle growth; you start putting laws on it.”

“If you overregulate, like the government often does, you stifle innovation,” Mace told Fox News. “And if we just stop AI, nothing is stopping China. We want to make sure that we are No. 1 in AI technology in the world and that it stays that way.”

But we may be losing that race. As Time reported:

“The country that is able to most rapidly and effectively integrate new technology into war-fighting wins,” Alexandr Wang, the CEO of Scale AI, told lawmakers on a House Armed Services subcommittee. China is spending three times more than the U.S. on developing AI tools, Wang noted. “The Chinese Communist Party deeply understands the potential for AI to disrupt warfare, and is investing heavily to capitalize,” he said. “AI is China’s Apollo project.”

But Republicans in Congress aren’t doing anything to take away Biden’s power to regulate AI himself. And time is of the essence.

As a former Democrat Senator, Kent Conrad, and ex-Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss wrote recently in Fox News:

This comes at a pivotal moment. We are on the precipice of a new tech revolution—one in which a collection of next-generation capabilities—such as AI, quantum computing, and biotechnology—promise to fundamentally upend every facet of society.

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

Hunter Biden Admits His ‘Bias’ Towards Pardons, Says Founders ‘Didn’t Imagine Trump’

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

Hunter Biden is openly acknowledging what critics have argued for months: when it comes to his father’s sweeping pardon, he is anything but objective.

“I’m completely biased as it relates to what my dad did for me. I fully understand how uniquely situated I am in being privileged enough to have received a pardon from my father,” Hunter said in an interview published by liberal outlet MediasTouch.

The admission revives scrutiny over former President Joe Biden’s dramatic reversal on the issue. After repeatedly insisting he would not grant clemency to his son, Biden ultimately issued a sweeping pardon—undercutting Democrats’ long-standing “no one is above the law” message as Hunter faced serious federal charges.

Despite conceding his own bias, Hunter declined to weigh in on potential reforms to the presidential pardon system. Instead, he pivoted to attacking former President Donald Trump’s use of the same authority, pointing to the more than 1,000 individuals pardoned in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol protest.

Hunter Biden was granted an unusually broad pardon covering any offense he “has committed or may have committed” between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 1, 2024—a scope that drew bipartisan criticism.

“I was filled with gratitude,” he said of his father’s decision.

The legal backdrop is significant. In September 2024, Hunter pleaded guilty to nine federal tax charges tied to a scheme that evaded more than $1.4 million in taxes. Months earlier, he was convicted in Delaware for lying about his drug use on a federal firearm purchase form.

Still, Hunter sought to shift the focus toward Trump and his family, saying, “I don’t think that the founders ever imagined Donald Trump. I don’t think they ever imagined the Trump family.”

He also attempted to contrast pardon totals: “I don’t think people understand is that, in the first year, I think—I don’t know the exact number—I think my dad gave 80 or so pardons over a four-year period of time. I think that that’s about the number.”

He added, “Donald Trump has given over 1,500 pardons in the first year alone. But I’m obviously—I’m not the one to be, I don’t think, fairly or unbiasedly talking about the presidential pardon vote.”

Trump, notably, did not pardon any of his children during his presidency, though he did grant clemency in 2020 to Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in-law.

The White House defended Trump’s record, with spokeswoman Abigail Jackson saying he has used his authority to pardon individuals who were victims of what she described as a “weaponized justice system.”

Jackson also criticized Biden’s final actions in office, arguing that “the only pardons anyone should be critical of are from President Autopen,” citing clemency for violent offenders and “proactive pardons he ‘signed’ for his family members like Hunter on his way out the door.”

In addition to Hunter, Biden issued pardons to several relatives, including his brother James, sister-in-law Sara, sister Valerie, and brother Francis—moves he framed as necessary protection against political retaliation.

READ NEXT: Congresswoman Resigns In Stunning Last-Minute Exit

New Documents Reveal Biden FBI’s Panicked Attempt To Cover Up Spying On Christians

4

A lawsuit from a non-profit public interest law firm has uncovered documents showing the Biden administration’s rushed efforts to cover up a Federal Bureau of Investigations operation that spied on Catholic churches, even as Catholics were targeted by pro-abortion terrorists.

Judicial Watch, working with CatholicVote Civic Action, received 131 heavily redacted pages of records from the FBI “showing top officials rushing to craft a public response to the leaked FBI intelligence memo that revealed its targeting of Catholics who adhere to traditional beliefs on church issues,” JW reports.

“After seven months of delay and more to come, Joe Biden’s FBI remains committed to one thing: covering up their un-American spying on Catholic citizens,” said former Congressman Huelskamp, Ph.D., Senior Advisor to CatholicVote. “By fully withholding more than 200 pages of public documents, the Biden administration is more interested in hiding the truth than ending this unconstitutional witch hunt of Catholics and other faithful Americans.”

“The FBI launched a vicious spy effort against Catholics and sought to spy on parishioners as they sat in church pews,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These records show top FBI officials were panicked in response about their domestic spying abuse leaking out.”

Judicial Watch received the records “in response to an April 2023 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit it filed along with CatholicVoteCivic Action against the FBI and the Department of Justice after their failure to respond to March 2023 requests for records about an FBI intelligence memo targeting “radical traditionalist” Catholics (CatholicVote Civic Action and Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Federal Bureau of Investigations and Department of Justice (No. 1:23-cv-01166)).”

In February 2023, an FBI intelligence document was leaked that revealed FBI infiltrated and spied on several Catholic churches as part of a fruitless operation that claimed traditional Catholics and pro-life Americans were a terrorist threat – even as the liberal pro-abortion terrorist group “Jane’s Revenge” carried out a nationwide campaign of terrorism and arson attacks.

According to JW, the newly obtained records include a February 8, 2023, email with the subject line “Media Request: FBI Richmond Document cites SPLC” from the FBI’s National Press Office alerting FBI officials regarding media inquiries:

We have inquiries from the Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal (Heritage Foundation) about an article written by [redacted]. It references a January intelligence product from the Richmond Field office. After speaking with SC Goodwater, I am alerting all of you so we can get a copy of the actual document and hear any recommendations on how to respond. I am attaching a cut and paste of the [redacted] article.

JW reports Miriam Coakley of the Office of General Counsel then forwarded the email on to other FBI officials, noting, “Adding InTo [Insider Threat Office], SecD [Security Division] and OPR [Office of Professional Responsibility]. The date of the leaked domain perspective appears to be 23 Jan. 2023.”

“Further along the chain, an official in the Office of Public Affairs forwards the chain to more people, saying, ‘Adding Pamela Bryon from the DI. [Deputy Asst. Director of Intelligence Pamela Byron.] Any info on how this product came about would be appreciated,’” JW repors.

In a heavily redacted reply, Byron responds:

As mentioned on FBINET, the type of product leaked is a Domain Perspective (DP) – the purpose of DPs is to offer information and/or highlight how a shift or new development in an AOR (domain) related to an environmental variable could impact the threat. Environmental variables include demographic shifts, technology development, economic conditions, special events, social/cultural conditions, etc. In particular, the analysis in DPs (as in FBI products in general) is focused on the activity of identified or potential threat actors, not on the environmental variables themselves, and how those threat actors react to shifts in the environment and the subsequent impact on the threat posed by those actors.

In that context, there are a couple of things to note with this situation: [redacted].

We stand by to assist with any other questions.

Additional records secured by JW include a February 9 email with the subject line “Coordination of Draft statement regarding leaked RH intel document” from Office of Public Affairs official Douglas Goodwater to top FBI officials, including FBI Chief of Staff Johathan Lenzner, Asst. Dir. for Intelligence Tonya Ugoretz, Asst. Dir. for Counterterrorism Robert Wells and others:

Draft/pre decision, Coordination for media statement – DI/CTD/OGC [Directorate of Intelligence/Counterterrorism Division/Office of General Counsel]

Potential statement for review/edits-: [Redacted].

Asst. Director for Public Affairs Catherine Milhoan then responds:

All, we have received two new inquiries in addition to the three last night and are making the decision to respond in the next hour. We want to get our statement out before this picks up any steam.

DI/CTD/OCG,

Please review the draft and let us know if you have any edits or concerns.

JW then notes:

Stanley Meador, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Richmond Field Office, replies, “Looks good. One small suggestion in yellow. I would send it out. It is migrating onto Fox. https://www.foxnews.com/media/purported-fbi-document-suggests-agency-targeting-catholics-attend-latin-mass.”

On February 10, 2023, FBI Chief of Staff Jonathan Lenzner emails FBI colleagues with the subject “intel piece that has been withdrawn,” saying, “I don’t know if we are there yet, [redacted].”

Lenzner then follows up on February 13, writing, “Looks like at least one religious organization is speaking out publicly: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/catholic-league-condemns-fbi-internal-memo-targeting-catholics.”

Ryan T. Young, the Executive Assistant Director of the Intelligence Branch replies to Lenzner, “Not a good look … Real frustrating when it is self-inflicted. I’ll be back in town Wednesday. We can look into next best steps.”

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

Amanda Head: A Loss For Zuckerberg is a Win for Humanity

4
Amanda Head screenshot

Boom!

A loss for liberal billionaire Mark Zuckerberg is a huge win for everyone else…

Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

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

Like BLM Riots in US, France’s Race Riots Do Major Damage

2
A protester holds up a Black Lives Matter sign outside the Hennepin County Government Center.

ANALYSIS – While the establishment media has tried to spin France’s recent wave of rioting as a response to unfair or racist French policing, like the Black Lives Matter (BLM) riots of 2020 in the United States, they really aren’t. 

For both, that is only the pretext. But they are very similar in other ways.

As I wrote before, both were about much more. In the case of BLM, it was part of a bigger far-left agenda. 

In the case of France, it is an uprising of racial, cultural and religious resentment with Islamist overtones.

Both also caused substantial physical damage ($1-2 billion) and injured many hundreds of police.

The damages and injuries to police from the BLM riots across multiple cities in the U.S. were larger and spread over a few months. 

In France, the first protests occurred in Nanterre, but then spread to other towns and cities, including Paris, Marseille, Lyon, Toulouse, Strasbourg and Lille.

And in France, they only lasted about a week. France is also smaller in terms of population and its economy. So, overall, the impact was greater, and impossible to downplay as it was in the United States.

The response to the rioting though has been very different in each country.

The damage following a week of violence in France is expected to cost more than $1.1 billion, excluding damage to public buildings.

French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire has promised support as thousands of insurance claims pour in. Insurers have received 5,900-plus claims worth some $305 million, according to the chair of the insurance industry lobby group ‘France Assureurs.’

Rioters lit an estimated 23,000 fires and damaged 273 buildings belonging to the security forces, along with 168 schools and 105 mayor’s offices. In total, more than 1,100 buildings and 5,850 vehicles have been damaged or destroyed.

More than 800 French law enforcement officers have been injured.

According to Fortune, “The videos of the riots that circulated around the world hurt the image of France,” Geoffroy Roux de Bézieux, the outgoing head of the French employers’ lobby Medef, told Le Parisien newspaper.

“It’s always difficult to say if the impact will be long lasting, but there will certainly be a drop in reservations this summer.”

France’s Interior updated senators on the destruction carried out by primarily teenage mobs in ‘multi-ethnic’ areas of French cities. He said about 90 per cent of the 3,502 people arrested during the riots were French nationals.

That doesn’t change the racial or demographic facts that most of the rioters were young Muslims of Arab and North African descent. They were born in France as part of the most recent immigration wave.

The average age of the French rioters was 17.

“What’s happening there is the consequence of a failure to integrate the country’s Muslim immigrant population,” Alan Mendoza, co-founder and executive director of the Henry Jackson Society, told Fox News Digital.

President Macron sparked controversy on Wednesday by suggesting social media could be “cut off” if “things get out of control,” according to media reports.

Macron singled out platforms like Snapchat, TikTok and encrypted messenger Telegram for their role in helping organize and spread images of the violence.

Fox News reported:

Macron has provided a mixed response to the crisis, initially describing the shooting as “inexplicable” and “unforgivable” but then decrying the protests and blaming everything from social media to video games for the increasing violence.

Macron argued that social media platforms, including TikTok, Snapchat and others, helped fuel the riots, especially after the personal information of the officer who shot Nahel ended up circulating on the platforms. He said his government would work with social media sites to take down “the most sensitive content” and identify users who “call for disorder or exacerbate the violence.” Macron also denied there was systemic racism within the country’s law enforcement services.

Meanwhile, as I wrote last August, in a few months in the United States, the BLM riots caused $2 billion in damages and injured 2,000 police officers nationwide. 19 people were killed during just 14 days of BLM rioting – none by police.

The killing of police officers nationwide, though, surged 28% in 2020 during the BLM riots and protests.

Unlike the muted judicial response to BLM rioters, France’s Justice Minister issued an order on Friday that demanded a “ strong, firm and systematic” judicial response.

And unlike the United States, where President Donald Trump was attacked and vilified for trying to send federal officers to quell the violence – in France, Macron eventually deployed 45,000 officers and armored vehicles to control the riots.

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

Feds to Charge Hunter Biden but Offer Sweet ‘No Jail’ Plea Deal

0
President Joe Biden hugs his family during the 59th Presidential Inauguration ceremony in Washington, Jan. 20, 2021. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took the oath of office on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol. (DOD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II)

ANALYSIS – After an outrageously long five-year investigation, federal prosecutors are finally going to charge Hunter Biden for various crimes. He is expected to plead guilty.

The catch?

The charges are minimal misdemeanors, and Hunter will get a sweet deal that allows him to avoid any federal jail time. This is thanks to Biden’s attorneys who have been negotiating with prosecutors for a very long time.

Many will contrast this to the way former President Donald Trump is being treated by federal prosecutors and see the first son getting preferential treatment.

But don’t expect Republicans to just let things go.

Hunter has been under investigation for tax crimes related to his shady overseas business dealings and for illegally possessing a firearm, having allegedly lied about his documented illegal drug use when purchasing a handgun in 2018.

The Blaze reports:

The deal reached between U.S. Attorney David Weiss and Hunter’s attorneys, which a judge still needs to approve, will undoubtedly intensify concerns that Hunter received a sweetheart deal.

According to the Washington Post, Hunter “has tentatively agreed to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges of failure to pay in 2017 and 2018.” Hunter is accused of not paying taxes on a liability of about $1.2 million. But instead of jail, prosecutors agreed to recommend Hunter receive only probation and pay the amount of taxes that he originally owed.

Meanwhile, Hunter will admit to illegally possessing a firearm, but he will not plead guilty to lying on the federal form. Under typical circumstances, possessing a firearm while using illegal drugs is a felony. But Hunter will technically not be prosecuted for the crime. Instead, he will be offered a diversion program and probation.

When Hunter Biden meets the conditions of diversion, the crime will be removed from his record, but he will be banned from owning firearms, the New York Times reported.

The deal would require Hunter to remain drug-free for 24 months and agree to never own a firearm again. Good luck enforcing any of that.

While the Biden’s say, ‘case closed,’ and spin it all as just a wayward son with a drug problem gone astray, it won’t end the superheated politics of the case. 

Republicans have argued for years that Hunter Biden committed an array of crimes that should put him behind bars. They have also argued that his crimes call into question the honesty of his father.

And Republicans won’t be letting go. This sweetheart deal for Hunter will just intensify their efforts. 

The New York Times reports:

Coming less than two weeks after the Justice Department indicted former President Donald J. Trump on charges that he risked exposing national security secrets and obstructed efforts by the government to reclaim classified documents from him, an agreement that allows Hunter Biden to walk free is also sure to bring a torrent of criticism from the right and intensified efforts by House Republicans to portray the Justice Department and the F.B.I. as biased.

As president, Mr. Trump had long sought to tie Hunter Biden’s business deals and personal troubles to his father. Mr. Trump’s first impeachment had its roots in his efforts to persuade the Ukrainian government to help him show wrongdoing in Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, and while in the White House he pressured the Justice Department to investigate.

Republicans still believe, notes The Times, that “the president has been complicit in an effort engineered by his son to enrich his family by profiting from their positions of power.”

The Times even admits about Hunter:

After his father became vice president, he built relationships with wealthy foreigners that brought in millions of dollars, surfacing concerns inside the Obama administration and among government watchdog groups that he was cashing in on his family name…

But the questions about what occurred during that period never led to conduct that prosecutors believed could win them a conviction in court.

Let’s see if the House investigations will find more damning evidence than federal prosecutors did.

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

Amanda Head: Debunking Leftists’ Lies About Thanksgiving

3

Every year as families and friends gather to give Thanks a coalition of left-wing woke harpies descend on the holiday to remind you to make sure to politicize every aspect of your life. In recent years liberals have targeted the controversial story of Thanksgiving as a way to attack White colonizers and sing a song of sympathy for Native Americans.

Watch Amanda de-dunk the biggest lies peddled by the left about Thanksgiving.

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

Will Trump Take Back Our Panama Canal? Cruz Blows Whistle On Communist Chinese Control

1
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America,

U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz met with Panamanian officials about growing Communist Chinese influence over the Panama Canal, a crucial artery for global trade that was built and once controlled by the United States, until it was given away by liberal the-President Jimmy Carter.

Cruz announced in a statement he “recently traveled to Panama and underscored the Panama Canal’s strategic importance to the United States.”

Cruz reports he “met with top Panamanian officials, including the Minister of Economy and Finance, Felipe Chapman; Minister of Public Security, Frank Abrego; and Panama Canal Authority Administrator, Ricaurte Vásquez Morales. During these meetings, Sen. Cruz reiterated the growing threats posed by China and other foreign actors seeking to exert influence over the region, threatening both American and Panamanian national and economic security.”

“The Senate Commerce Committee has primary jurisdiction over the Panama Canal due to its role in the facilitation of global trade and U.S. commerce,” Cruz notes.

“There is undoubtedly a strong Chinese presence, and I believe a threat to the canal. The purpose of my visit is number one, to try to strengthen the longtime friendship and alliance between the United States and Panama. And number two, I’m the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which, among other things, has jurisdiction over the Panama Canal and the Panama Canal is vital, both to national security and economic security of the United States and Panama,” said Cruz.

Cruz summarized the long-brewing issue of Communist Chinese control of the Panama Canal and its threat to the United States, writing:

Previously, Sen. Cruz convened a Senate Commerce Committee hearing to examine the growing number of challenges facing the maritime industry in the region due to capacity limitations and increased transit fees. Sen. Cruz sounded alarms over China’s growing foothold in Panama, which poses a direct threat to U.S. trade. China has exploited Panama’s institutional weakness to evade U.S. sanctions and has taken controlling stakes in critical infrastructure surrounding the Panama Canal. During the hearing, multiple senators raised concerns about Panama’s management of the canal, citing allegations of corruption, suggesting that they may be violating the Neutrality Treaty.

One week after the hearing, a preliminary deal was announced that would give an American company primary control of Port Balboa and Port Cristobal, which are container ports on either end of the canal. However, the deal has faced delay amid pressure from China seeking to secure a stake in the deal, stalling progress to protect both American and Panamanian interests.

Sen. Cruz concluded, “China is not America’s friend, and China is not Panama’s friend, and if God forbid, a military conflict emerges between the United States and China, I believe there is an unacceptable risk that China would act to shut down the Panama Canal, which would have a devastating impact on the United States and an even worse impact on Panama…

“There is strong American interest in expanding and improving commerce and transportation through the Panama Canal. The United States built the Panama Canal more than a century ago and our nations have been close friends for a long, long time. The economies of both the United States and Panama benefit enormously from the Panama Canal, and there are strong American interests in investing in ports on both ends of the Panama Canal and assisting in new infrastructure, whether it is gas pipelines to transport gas from one end to the other, or whether it is building a new reservoir and expanding the ability to ensure there’s