America is waiting…
When will Florida Governor Ron DeSantis officially throw his hat into the ring for the 2024 Republican nomination? Sources close to the governor are spilling the beans…
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ALERT – In what appears to be an idiotic attempt to supposedly kill Joe Biden, a 19-year-old man repeatedly rammed a U-Haul truck into the barriers around the White House at Lafayette Park on Monday night.
To be clear these barriers (or bollards) are designed to stop large vehicles and are a substantial distance from the White House perimeter fence.
There was no mention of explosives or other dangerous materials aboard the truck. Had there been this would be an entirely different story.
Still, the incident prompted the evacuation at The Hay-Adams Hotel on the 800 block of 16th Street.
The driver, Sai Varshith Kandula of Chesterfield, Missouri has reportedly been arrested and charged with multiple crimes, including threatening to kill, kidnap, or inflict harm on the president, vice president or family member.
He was also charged with assault with a dangerous weapon and reckless operation of a motor vehicle.
A man who said he was walking home from his run on the mall videotaped a driver in a U-Haul truck repeatedly ram the barricade at Lafayette Park near the White House.
“I decided it was time to get the hell out of there” he says
See the video below.
According to a United States Park Police statement, the driver “intentionally crashed into the bollards on the outside of Lafayette Park.”
Ya, that looks about right.
The Secret Service spokesman also tweeted:
Shortly before 10:00 p.m. Monday, Secret Service Uniformed Division officers detained the driver of a box truck after the vehicle collided with security barriers on the north side of Lafayette Square on 16th Street. There were no injuries to any Secret Service or White House personnel and the cause and manner of the crash remain under investigation.
Seems to me that the cause and manner of the crash are pretty obvious – the guy kept trying to ram through the barricades.
In a follow-up tweet, the spokesman said: “Charges will be filed by the United States Park Police with investigative support from the #SecretService.”
In the photo below the truck can be seen more clearly after the driver was secured and removed. The bollards can also be more clearly seen.
Meanwhile, is that a swastika flag on the pavement at the police officer’s feet?
The location of the crash is noteworthy since it lies at the south end of 16th St where it is now known as Black Lives Matter (BLM) square. Fox 5 reported:
Had the barriers been breached, two fences providing additional layers of security would have been in-between the driver and the White House. Lafayette Square has long been one of the nation’s most prominent venues for demonstration near the Executive Mansion. The park was closed for nearly a year after federal authorities fenced off the area at the height of nationwide protests over policing following the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, but it reopened in May 2021.
What the news outlet doesn’t say is that during those violent BLM riots at Lafayette Park in 2020 numerous officers were injured, cars and property burned, and the thin blue line of police at the park between the rioters and White House fence were almost overrun.
During the height of the rioting on May 31st, President Trump was also briefly rushed to the underground bunker by the Secret Service.
These barriers are designed to stop vehicles, not mobs of angry rioters.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Yes, it’s a big deal, that former President Donald Trump has been booked and charged in federal court with 37 counts of violating federal law. And we should be talking about it.
It’s definitely not Watergate, but some of the charges, such as obstruction, are similar to those Richard Nixon faced before he resigned in 1974.
Thirty-one of the counts are for violating the Espionage Act through “willful retention” of classified records. The other six counts include obstruction of justice and false statements stemming from his alleged efforts to impede the investigation.
Meanwhile, the media is conveniently ignoring all of Joe Biden’s brewing scandals, which are far worse; even surpassing Watergate.
We should be talking about Biden corruption, not Trump stubbornness.
Many Trump loyalists argue that the Trump indictment proves there is a double standard compared to how Biden is being treated. And I would agree.
The investigation into Hunter Biden should not have taken five years and still be unresolved.
That is an outrage.
And then there are the bribery and foreign influence peddling allegations against Joe Biden himself.
That should be the big story today. Not Trump’s rants on Truth Social about his latest legal woes.
Hillary Clinton was also treated with kid gloves by the Justice Department (DOJ) and FBI, even though she destroyed evidence from hard drives and deleted 30,000 emails, some of which may have contained classified information.
She got off. That was absolutely wrong.
If Republican ex-presidents and current presidential candidates are going to be indicted so should Democrat former Secretaries of State running for president. If not, then we have a partisan, two-tiered justice system.
And I have written about this a lot. But here is where I see things a bit differently.
We are today talking about Donald Trump and his drama, primarily because of Donald Trump. He did this one mostly to himself.
Trump could have avoided this criminal legal battle had he simply turned over all classified materials he had in his possession when asked for them over an 18-month period.
That’s what Joe Biden and former vice president Mike Pence both did when they were discovered to have ‘unknowingly’ kept classified documents after leaving office. They actually turned them over right away.
Did Biden do more than that, we don’t really know yet. But neither have been charged with any crimes.
And Trump was not charged over any materials or records that he returned. Only those he willfully kept.
Trump first made ludicrous claims about the documents, including that he had declassified them, which he hadn’t. And he fought back in court and delayed and delayed until he was forced to finally give 15 boxes of records to the National Archives and Records Administration.
But a lot more remained.
Then he began obstructing and moving the remaining boxes of records, including classified materials at his home in Florida. Despite repeated efforts by the FBI and DOJ to try to get them back, Trump refused.
And like Watergate, the cover-up is what gets you in trouble.
That is why the FBI finally raided Mar-a-Lago in August of last year. It was an unprecedented action, which I condemned at the time.
We have also since learned that the FBI had preferred to continue trying to get Trump’s lawyers to turn over the remaining classified materials and surveil Trump home in case anyone tried to remove materials, but DOJ insisted on the raid.
Maybe the raid could have been (should have been) avoided, but it was legal. And what the raid uncovered was that Trump had hidden a lot of classified materials in numerous unsecure places in his home.
Further investigation showed that Trump also had admitted on tape that he didn’t have the authority to declassify documents after leaving office, and that he hadn’t done so prior to leaving. He also reportedly flashed highly classified plans to attack Iran in front of the faces of uncleared persons visiting him.
None of this is good for Trump or the nation. The classified documents included “defense and weapons capabilities” of the United States and foreign countries.
But none of this would have been a legal issue if Trump simply turned over these extremely sensitive national security materials when requested, or at some point over the 18 months in question.
So, now instead of talking about all of the incredible Biden corruption, we are here again talking about Trump-created drama.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – No, this isn’t a story of a wacky conspiracy theory about global elites and pedophilia, it is real news. And this time the truth is close to the mark.
According to a shocking report produced by legal experts backed by the United Nations, children can consent to sex with adults.
This is not only despicable; it violates the very UN principles that protect children from sexual violence.
The widespread raping of women and children is an especially serious concern in the world’s war zones, where the heinous acts are considered war crimes.
And in other UN documents, allowing sex with children “may amount to grave breaches of international humanitarian law.”
The findings of these supposedly enlightened jurists only blurs the lines of perverse criminal behavior and will embolden those animals who abuse children.
And, in an insult to all women, the report was released on March 8 ‘in recognition of International Women’s Day,’ suggesting some sort of connection between women’s rights and the age of consent.
While the report does not specifically call for decriminalizing sex between adults and minors and doesn’t define an age of sexual consent, it states that children have both the mental ability and legal right to make sexual decisions.
We should note that while there is a difference between mature, sexually active older teenagers, and young children, these experts appear to simply reference all minors under age 18.
Listed under Principle 16 – ‘Consensual Sexual Conduct,’ the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists, aided by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, wrote: “Sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law.”
If that is true, then how long before the UN and ‘global elites’ do in fact decriminalize adults having sex with children?
Well, the commission answers that question when it added in its report, “In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them.”
According to Influencer Ian Miles Chong, “This has been the plan all along.”
The perverse findings which seem to open the door to normalize sex with minors appears in a report with the esoteric and convoluted title: “The 8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty.”
The report is posted prominently on the Commission’s website.
Its deranged conclusions also clash directly with the reality the UN Human Rights Commission reports on the ground in many countries.
As noted by the UN’s own organization “Children and Armed Conflict:
Sexual violence against children during conflict is one of the six grave violations identified and condemned by the UN Security Council . The six grave violations form the basis of the Council’s architecture to monitor, report and respond to abuses suffered by children in times of war. Ending and preventing these violations is also the focus of the Special Representative’s work and advocacy.
Sexual violence is increasingly a characteristic of conflict and is often perpetrated against girls and boys in a rule of law vacuum. In some instances sexual violence has been used as a tactic of war designed to humiliate a population or to force displacement.
The UN group clearly states:
Rape and other forms of sexual violence against children are human rights violations, and may amount to grave breaches of international humanitarian law. If committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population, sexual violence can constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
So, which is it, UN? Where do you draw the line? If children can consent to sex, when is it a humanitarian or war crime and when is it just fine?
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) called Vice President Kamala Harris the clear winner of Tuesday night’s presidential debate.
“Oh, Kamala definitely won the debate,” Sununu said during a Wednesday morning appearance on CNN. “There’s no question about that. So the question is, what does it mean, right? And it’s not just, what does it mean to everybody? What’s going to do that 10 percent of swing voters?”
“I think if you poll those swing voters, they want results,” he said. “They’re results-driven. It’s the cost of living, it’s the border, it’s public safety, those types of issues, you can be the change agent to make that better in their lives.”
The outgoing New Hampshire governor, who considered a presidential run of his own, praised Harris’s debate strategy Tuesday night.
“She kind of talked confidence in her answers, and then she took the last 30 seconds of almost every question and hit him with a personal attack, knowing that that would get under his skin,” Sununu said. “It was a very effective measure, and I give her a lot of credit on that. It kept him on the defensive, to be sure, and it’s ultimately, definitely, stylistically, why she openly won the debate.”
Sununu said the debate would move the needle “a little bit,” but argued neither candidate explained to voters how they would help lower costs for average Americans. The GOP governor added Trump failed to take advantage of openings to go on the offense over the economy.
“He should have talked about price controls,” Sununu said. “He should have talked about the cost of living more. I think he went like an hour, not even talking about inflation and those are real issues.”
Sununu said the ex-president should also draw a bigger contrast on foreign policy with Harris, saying on CNN there “was clearly more peace when” he was in office.
“That is a strength that he has, that he has not exploited in this campaign,” he said. “There is chaos in Ukraine, chaos in Israel. You know, there’s a lot of pressure going on in Taiwan. Let’s not forget about that. Let’s not forget about Afghanistan.”
The family of vice presidential candidate Tim Walz aren’t fans of his politics…
An image circulating online shows family members of vice presidential candidate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz openly supporting former President Trump.
The photo was shared online by former Nebraska Republican gubernatorial candidate Charles Herbster. It shows eight people wearing “Nebraska Walz’s (sic) for Trump” T-shirts.
“Tim Walz’s family back in Nebraska wants you to know something…” Herbster wrote on X.
Family members told Fox News they consider themselves “distant” from Walz and have never met or spoken with him. One person in the photo who wished to remain anonymous said they are supporting Trump because “he supports our values.”
Trump replied on Truth Social to the image, implying that he plans to “meet” with Jeff Walz, the older brother of the Minnesota governor.
A Michigan Democrat congresswoman, now running for a seat in the U.S. Senate, is refusing to explain why she signed a non-disclosure agreement with a Communist Chinese “green energy” company.
Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin has refused to answer questions from the media as to why she signed a hush agreement with the Chinese corporation Gotion to hold closed-door meetings about a proposed electric vehicle battery plant the company is building in Big Rapids.
The plant is not located in her district, and it would appear there would be no sensitive information or corporate trade secrets that could be gleaned from a public tour, drawing speculation from some as to why she was there and what was discussed.
“When it was time for a Michigan voice to speak on the national security threats from the CCP emanating from companies based in the PRC and protect the State of Michigan, Congresswoman Slotkin, and her staff needed to ask for an NDA, never took a position, and said nothing,” former Michigan congressman and U.S. Ambassador Peter Hoekstra tells Fox News Digital.
Fox News reports Hoekstra and fellow former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Cella have raised the alarm on Gotion’s proposed facility and similar projects involving other Communist Chinese companies across Michigan and the United States.
“Congresswoman Slotkin is a former CIA analyst and Defense Department official who knows that state and local officials were warned by our intelligence agencies not to sign deals with PRC-based companies with ties to the CCP,” Cella tells Fox News.
Fox News reports that according to its parent company’s corporate bylaws, Gotion is required to “carry out Party activities in accordance with the Constitution of the Communist Party of China.”
The pair are asking the Justice Department to investigate whether Gotion is engaging in illegal foreign lobbying of U.S. officials. Under federal law, anyone lobbying a member of Congress on behalf of a foreign government or company must register with the Justice Department as a foreign agent. It does not appear Gotion has filed such a registration.
Despite the jobs it brings to an economically-stressed area, many local residents oppose the plant, citing the company’s demand officials sign non-disclosure agreements to meet with what is essentially a Communist Chinese government agent.
“The township’s concerns have all been surrounded by the lack of information given to them to make an educated decision surrounded by NDAs signed by multiple different organizations including the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and our local economic development corporation and The Right Place which is working for Gotion to bring it here,” Penny Currie, the treasurer of Big Rapids Charter Township, tells Fox News.
“That is one of our main concerns and is why we haven’t been able to move forward with a decision of any kind,” she says.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
The former IRS contractor who got a sweetheart plea agreement from the Biden administration after stealing and leaking the private tax information of President Donald Trump, will soon have to answer to Congress.
The House Judiciary Committee reports Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) sent a letter “requesting that Charles E. Littlejohn, a former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) contractor who leaked tax information belonging to hundreds of thousands of Americans, including President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, appear before the Committee.”
“In February, the IRS informed the Committee that Littlejohn had leaked the private data of more than 400,000 taxpayers—nearly six times higher than the 70,000 figure initially reported by the Biden-Harris IRS,” the Committee reports, noting it “raised concerns related to the Department of Justice’s sweetheart plea deal Littlejohn received, which resulted in a light sentence despite the severity of the data breach.”
Despite pulling off what may be the greatest data theft in IRS history, which the presiding judge called “a threat to our democracy,” and exhibiting little remorse, Biden administration prosecutors allowed Littlejohn to plead guilty to only one minor charge, giving him the lightest possible sentence.
Jordan’s letter reads, in part:
“Since the 118th Congress, the Committee has been conducting oversight into the unprecedented leak of protected taxpayer information by your client, Charles E. Littlejohn. On January 29, 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) allowed Mr. Littlejohn, a former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) contractor, to plead guilty to only one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax information for leaking ‘thousands of individuals’ and entities’ tax returns,’ including President Trump’s tax information. Since then, the Committee has obtained information showing that the scope of the leak is much broader than the Biden-Harris Administration led the public to believe—affecting over 400,000 taxpayers. In light of this new information, Mr. Littlejohn’s testimony is critical to the Committee’s oversight efforts and advancement of potential legislative reforms. We therefore respectfully request his testimony.
“In 2017, Mr. Littlejohn applied to work as an IRS contractor with the expressed intention of accessing and disclosing President Trump’s tax returns. Not only did Mr. Littlejohn succeed in obtaining and leaking President Trump’s returns, he also disclosed ‘thousands of Americans’ federal tax returns and other private financial information’ to the New York Times and ProPublica, which together published more than 50 articles relying on the stolen information. Despite the Biden-Garland Justice Department referring to his unauthorized disclosures as ‘unparalleled in the IRS’s history,’ it only charged Mr. Littlejohn with one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax information, which resulted in a five-year prison sentence, three years’ supervised release, and a $5,000 fine. The judge who oversaw Mr. Littlejohn’s sentencing, admitted that she was ‘perplexed’ and ‘troubled’ by the plea agreement.
“After Mr. Littlejohn’s sentencing, the IRS began notifying and assisting affected taxpayers. In May 2024, an IRS spokesman stated, ‘[m]ore than 70,000 people received the initial notice that their information was involved in the breach.’ However, in December 2024, the IRS issued a second wave of notifications to additional taxpayer victims. On February 14, 2025, the IRS disclosed to the Committee that it had ‘mailed notifications to 405,427 taxpayers whose taxpayer information was inappropriately disclosed by Mr. Littlejohn’ and that ’89 [percent] of the[se] taxpayers are business entities.’
“In light of this new disclosure that Mr. Littlejohn leaked hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ information—not just ‘thousands’ as previously suggested—the Biden-Harris Administration’s decision to charge him with just one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax information is even more concerning. The Committee has jurisdiction over criminal law and federal law enforcement pursuant to House Rule X. As such, to develop effective legislation, such as reforms to DOJ procedures governing plea agreements and new statutory limits of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, Mr. Littlejohn’s testimony is necessary.
“Accordingly, we write to request Mr. Littlejohn’s testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary as soon as practicable. Please confirm his appearance before the Committee as soon as possible, but no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 31, 2025. We will also work with the Federal Bureau of Prisons to facilitate his testimony in a timely manner.”
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk.
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.
Former Treasury Secretary’s Portrait Covered Up After His Name Appeared In Epstein Files
A federal watchdog group is going to court to learn more about why a former U.S. Treasury Secretary’s portrait was covered up after the release of a trove of disturbing email correspondence between him and deceased convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced it “filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Treasury for records regarding the covering of former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers’ official portrait in the Main Treasury Building in Washington, D.C., reportedly after his name surfaced in records connected to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Treasury (No.1:26-cv-00446)).”
“Covering Larry Summers’ portrait won’t make the Epstein scandal disappear,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Covering the portrait raises obvious questions. Transparency—not cover-ups—is the proper response.”
“An exchange of emails between Summers and Epstein contained in a trove of Epstein records released by the House Oversight Committee, Epstein called himself Summers’ ‘wing man,’” Judicial Watch notes.
Judicial Watch reports it “filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Treasury Department failed to respond to a January 8, 2026, FOIA request for:”
All records, including communications, about the covering up of former Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers’ portrait in the U.S. Treasury Building in Washington, D.C. Mr. Summers served as Treasury Secretary from July 2, 1999, to January 20, 2001.
“Judicial Watch submitted the FOIA request after a source inside Treasury informed a Judicial Watch lawyer about the portrait-covering incident,” the group notes.
Summers’ portrait was covered up after he announced his resignation from public life.
“In November 2025, soon after his name arose in connection with Epstein, Summers said, ‘I am deeply ashamed of my actions and recognize the pain they have caused.… I will be stepping back from public commitments as one part of my broader effort to rebuild trust and repair relationships with the people closest to me.”
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk.
Sponsored
FROM THE DESK OF DONALD TRUMP JR. Democrats tried to rig the census by counting millions of illegal immigrants — giving blue states more power in Congress. Now we’re making sure only American citizens are counted. But first, we need to verify our own records. CONFIRM YOUR VOTER INFORMATION NOW.