Amanda Head: Will Trump Be Arrested?
Will authorities arrest former President Donald Trump this week?
Watch Amanda explain the controversy below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
George Santos Deserves Prison, Not A Pardon
George Santos did not stretch the truth. He did not fudge numbers. He did not run afoul of technicalities in campaign finance law. He stole, lied, and exploited vulnerable people for personal and political gain. These were not victimless crimes, nor were they victimless lies. They were part of an elaborate scheme to build a fraudulent political career on a foundation of stolen funds, fictitious wealth, and unearned trust. It is time conservatives stop equivocating. If George Santos were not a thief, he might have been a talented, even promising political figure. But he is a thief, and a spectacularly cynical one at that. He stole from the old and the sick, he stole from donors, he stole from the US taxpayer. He is not a misunderstood maverick or a casualty of overzealous prosecution. He is a con man, and a criminal.
Let us begin, as the law did, with the false image he built. Santos, through deliberate lies to the Federal Election Commission and his own party, fabricated a story of fundraising success. In early 2022, he claimed to have raised over $250,000 in a single quarter from third-party donors, including a personal loan of $500,000 to his own campaign. These were lies. He did not have the money. He did not receive these donations. But this mirage of financial viability was just enough to secure his acceptance into the National Republican Congressional Committee’s “Young Guns” program, granting him financial, logistical, and strategic support. The GOP, believing they were backing a legitimate, self-sustaining candidate, diverted valuable resources to a fraud.
But Santos did not merely fake donor support. He invented donors. Using the identities and financial information of real people, Santos charged their credit cards repeatedly, funneling the proceeds into his campaign, other political committees, and even his own bank account. Nearly a dozen people were victimized, including individuals least capable of defending themselves. One woman, suffering from brain damage, had thousands of dollars withdrawn without her consent. Two elderly men in their eighties, each suffering from dementia, had their identities stolen and their cards charged. These were not passive accounting errors or clerical mistakes. These were acts of intimate, cold exploitation. Santos knew these people, spoke with them, thanked them for their support, and then used their vulnerability against them.
In one egregious instance, a donor who had already given the legal maximum found his credit card charged an additional $15,800 without authorization. Santos disguised this theft by attributing the funds to fabricated family members in his FEC reports, a maneuver that allowed him to continue the ruse while avoiding contribution limits. In another, he charged $12,000 to a donor’s account and deposited the majority into his personal bank. From there, it funded clothing, cosmetics, credit card bills, and gambling trips. The campaign, the candidacy, the public service, all were secondary to a lifestyle of luxury paid for by other people’s money.
Perhaps the most hypocritical of Santos’s frauds involved the pandemic. In 2020, he applied for and received over $24,000 in unemployment benefits from the state of New York. At the time, he was gainfully employed as a regional director at a Florida-based investment firm, earning over $120,000 a year. He did not miss a paycheck. He was not laid off. He did not qualify. And yet, each week, he falsely certified his jobless status, drawing taxpayer-funded aid designed for those hit hardest by COVID-19, the unemployed, the underemployed, the financially desperate. In an act of gall that would be laughable if it were not so despicable, Santos later sponsored legislation in Congress to crack down on pandemic unemployment fraud. The man who stole from the system claimed he would reform it.
Nor did the deception stop there. Santos lied on his congressional financial disclosures, the forms meant to ensure transparency for public officials. He claimed to have earned $750,000 in salary from a private company that paid him nothing. He reported receiving $1 to $5 million in dividends that never existed. He declared hundreds of thousands in bank holdings, when in fact his accounts were often in the low thousands, if not lower. In reality, his only actual income came from the investment firm and the unemployment checks he falsely obtained. The lies were not incidental. They were comprehensive, deliberate, and aimed at creating an illusion of wealth and competence.
Even more brazenly, Santos fabricated an independent expenditure group, a supposed political action committee called RedStone Strategies. He solicited two donors for $25,000 each, promising that the funds would be used for media buys and campaign efforts. They were not. Santos transferred the money into accounts he controlled and spent it on Ferragamo, Hermes, Botox, and credit card bills. This was not merely unethical. It was embezzlement. It was theft. It was a fraud perpetrated with full knowledge and intent.
In total, Santos stole or misappropriated approximately $578,750. The court ordered him to pay $373,749.97 in restitution and to forfeit an additional $205,002.97. These numbers were not speculative. They were calculated against real losses to real people, individuals whose credit was damaged, whose money was siphoned away, whose trust was obliterated. Santos’s 87-month sentence, or just over seven years, was not an outlier in the federal system. It was a typical penalty for this kind of sprawling, malicious financial fraud. Defendants with no political profile, who defrauded the government or private individuals out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, routinely receive similar sentences. That Santos was a congressman did not result in his being singled out. If anything, it spared him scrutiny longer than he deserved.
There is no serious argument for clemency here. Clemency is for excess, for injustice, for punishment that outstrips wrongdoing. Clemency is not for grifters who fake their way into office by stealing from pensioners and pandemic relief funds. One does not defend George Santos by invoking freedom, fairness, or limited government. To the contrary, every dollar Santos stole weakened the legitimacy of our electoral system, diverted support from legitimate candidates, and degraded the moral clarity conservatives must offer in a dishonest age. The true conservative position is to say plainly: this man is a crook.
Yes, Santos was charismatic. Yes, he had a knack for commanding attention. And yes, in another life, with honesty and principle, he might have served well. But we do not excuse embezzlement because the embezzler is clever. We do not overlook theft because the thief is funny. Our movement has spent decades insisting that character matters. If that is still true, then George Santos is not a man to be platformed or pitied. He is a cautionary tale.
Some will argue that Santos’s sentence was harsh. Perhaps. But that is not a reason to pardon him. It is a reason to scrutinize sentencing guidelines for all non-violent financial offenders. Santos should be treated like any other fraudster, no worse, no better. And by that measure, he has been.
Others say we should forgive him because the media was against him. But the media is against every Republican. What makes our side different, or should, is our insistence on personal responsibility. George Santos did what he did. He admitted it. He pled guilty. He is being punished in accordance with the law. He is not a martyr. He is a criminal.
Those who now seek to rebrand Santos as a political prisoner or conservative folk hero are doing damage not only to the movement, but to the truth. And that matters. For if we cannot call theft what it is, if we cannot call fraud what it is, if we cannot reject the normalization of criminality in our own ranks, then we are not a movement of principle. We are just another racket.
If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing: https://x.com/amuse.
Controversial Lefty-Feminist ‘Barbie’ Movie Tops $1 Billion at Box Office
Barbie was released in cinemas worldwide on July 21. Since then, according to Warner Bros., the colorfully controversial, left-leaning, gender-bender, fantasy-comedy movie has drawn in $459m so far in the U.S. and $572m internationally.
That means it has already topped $1 billion overall. This is a huge global smash. But what does it say about us?
Oscar-nominated Barbie writer and director Greta Gerwig also became the first female filmmaker to surpass the billion-dollar benchmark as a solo director, Warner Bros. said.
Other female directors have helmed films that have surpassed the $1bn-mark, but they were working with others. Frozen, the animated blockbuster, and its sequel have generated more than $1.4bn in box office takings and were co-directed by Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck.
Meanwhile, Captain Marvel, starring Brie Larson and co-directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck, generated more than $1.1bn at the box office.
But what is the very pink themed movie, starring Margot Robbie (the primary Barbie) and Ryan Gosling (the primary Ken), about? What is its messaging?
The feminist comedy with a PG-13 rating’s plot hinges on Barbie leaving her fake but perfectly idealized world behind and, like Pinocchio before her, becoming “real.”
That’s when it gets political and goes straight into lefty social issues like ‘the patriarchy,’ and gender confusion-fusion.
Elon Musk mocked the film on ‘X,’ formerly known as Twitter, saying: “If you take a shot every time Barbie says the word ‘Patriarchy,’ you will pass out before the movie ends.”
Conservatives have derided the Barbie movie’s anti-male themes, and inclusion of a trans-gender actor/actress playing one of the Barbies. The critics include journalist Piers Morgan and commentator Ben Shapiro. Newsweek reported:
“If I made a movie mocking women as useless dunderheads, constantly attacking ‘the matriarchy,’ and depicting all things feminist as toxic bulls***, I wouldn’t just be canceled, I’d be executed,” Morgan wrote in his columns for British newspaper The Sun and The New York Post after seeing the Barbie movie.
Shapiro meanwhile went as far as to burn a Barbie and Ken doll on Saturday, after seeing the movie the night before. The following Monday he claimed he had received death threats for his stunt.”
Writing for the New York Post, Morgan added: “the movie achieves exactly what it wanted to achieve and that is to establish the matriarchy as the perfect antidote to the patriarchy when in fact it’s just the same concept that they asked us all to detest in the first place.”
The movie “forgets its core audience of families and children while catering to nostalgic adults and pushing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender character stories,” wrote a contributor to Movieguide, a site with a conservative Christian bent.
Ginger Gaetz, wife of conservative Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz, posted on ‘X’ that at the premiere, she saw “disappointingly low T from Ken,” referring to testosterone, and she also called him a “beta” male, not an alpha.
Less politically, Time said: “Barbie never lets us forget how clever it’s being, every exhausting minute.”
Mattel has a lot riding on its $100m Barbie movie, the first of a planned slew of films from the toy-making behemoth that include Masters of the Universe, Barney, Hot Wheels and Magic 8 Ball, to name but a few.
The Barbie doll was launched by Mattel in 1959, when the toy-maker itself was only 14 years old, and has sold over a billion units over six decades.
Today, Barbie is still considered Mattel’s crown jewel, driving about a third of its $5 billion annual revenue.
Since 2018, Mattel has been working on a strategy to license its intellectual properties to Hollywood, to reverse a sales decline over recent years. The new movie was a big gamble for Mattel Films.
A hit would boost toy sales, a flop would have done the opposite – threatening other projects currently in pre-production. But the gamble has clearly paid off.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Mexico’s Hosts Russian and Chinese Military Units in Independence Parade
ANALYSIS – In the ‘what the h*ll are you thinking’ category – a contingent of Russian soldiers marched in the annual Mexican Independence Day parade over the weekend.
Russian troops had participated before, but not since Moscow launched its war of aggression against Ukraine.
This year marked 213 years since the end of Spanish rule in Mexico.
And even as deadly fentanyl precursor ingredients are entering Mexico, to then be made into the deadly drug and flood the U.S., a Communist Chinese military honor guard from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) also marched alongside Mexican troops.
The presence of the Russian troops drew criticism because of the Russia’s brutal invasion of its neighbor. Mexico, which has long harbored bitterness against the United States for intervening militarily in Mexico in the 1800s, has condemned Russia’s invasion but has adopted a policy of ‘neutrality’ and has refused to participate in sanctions.
Populist socialist Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador (known as AMLO) noted that a contingent from China also participated. “All the countries that Mexico has diplomatic relations with were invited,” he said.
AMLO admitted the issue had become “a scandal,” but blamed it on the news media being against him.
Ukraine’s Ambassador to Mexico, Oksana Dramaretska, posted online that “The civic-military parade in Mexico City was stained by the participation of a Russian regiment; the boots and hands of these war criminals are stained with blood.”
But this is only the latest Russian flirtation by AMLO.
As Arturo Sarukhan writes in his commentary for Brookings: “…it would seem that some in Mexico, unwittingly, or wittingly, seem intent on opening a ‘second front’ for Moscow from there.”
What’s behind all of this? Given that Mexico trades in two days with the United States what it trades in a whole year with Russia, ideology seems to be paramount. The traditional left in Mexico — and throughout Latin America in general — tend to support policies that push back against “Western imperialism” but is also skeptical of liberalism and what it perceives as its institutions and stakeholders, which — like many authoritarian regimes — it considers to be tools of Western values and hegemony.
It should therefore come as no surprise that the Mexican left is inclined to swallow and regurgitate Russian disinformation and propaganda (“NATO aggression,” “denazification of Ukraine”), see sanctions as another form of “imperialism” and an attempt to corner Russia, and resort to RT and Sputnik as sources of valid information.
The Kremlin, creating a contrast with U.S. troops on Russia’s borders, has also asked frequently, if rhetorically, what if Russian troops were stationed across the border in Mexico?
Maybe this is one way for Moscow to make that point. But there is more to the story.
As ABC News reported:
Some members of López Obrador’s Morena party have publicly expressed affection for Russia even after the invasion, and López Obrador has frequently criticized the United States for sending arms to Ukraine.
López Obrador’s administration has continued to buy Russia’s Sputnik COVID vaccine and intends to use it as a booster shot later this year, along with Cuba’s Abdala vaccine.
Experts have questioned the use of those vaccines, along with Mexico’s own Patria vaccine, as a booster for new variants, because all of them were designed in 2020 to combat variants circulating at the time.
Mexico would rather buy old and likely ineffective vaccines from Russia, than be on better terms with the United States. Under AMLO Mexico is also a helpful tool for Moscow in other ways.
As Sarukhan wrote:
…Viktor Koronelli, Russia’s ambassador to Mexico, who said during the recent launching of the Mexico-Russia friendship caucus that “Mexico will never join anti-Russian sanctions” and that “across the world, there are countries like China, like India, like Mexico, that will never say ‘Yes, Sir’ to Uncle Sam’s orders.”
Despite all this Russian bravado and bluster, I would be just as concerned, or more so, about the Chinese military presence in the parade. As AMLO noted, a contingent from China also participated, and no one complained about that.
But China’s influence in Mexico is likely far more significant than Russia’s, and far more threatening to the United States.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Black Mom Charged With Same Crime As Hunter Biden Cites His Case In Asking For Leniency
A Virginia mother charged with lying about her drug use when purchasing a handgun, which her six-year-old son took to school and used to wound a teacher, is asking a federal court for leniency – citing the light sentence given to President Joe Biden’s adult son Hunter for the same crime.
“Deja Taylor, 25…has pleaded guilty to lying about her marijuana use when she applied for a gun purchase. Her 6-year-old son used the 9 mm semi-automatic pistol on Jan. 6 to shoot his elementary school teacher in Newport News, Virginia, in a case that has received massive media coverage,” The Washington Times reports.
Taylor faces as much as two years in federal prison for not reporting her drug use on her gun purchase application, but her sentencing will come weeks after Biden, the wealthy white son of the President, got a sweetheart plea deal to his offense of not reporting his drug use.
While Taylor’s marijuana use is legal under Virginia law, Biden’s crack cocaine was illegal under both Delaware and federal law.
Biden received no jail time for his offense, and will likely have his guilty plea erased from his criminal record after participating in a pretrial diversion program.
Taylor may not be as lucky.
“In our sentencing memo, we will surely raise the inconsistency in the government’s approach to a vulnerable and scared very young mother, who does not have a privileged background and connections,” defense attorney Eugene Rossi told The Washington Times.
“Why does the prodigal son of a president get diversion on the same gun charge — along with the sweetheart deal on the tax crimes?” Rossi told the Times. “The disparity is a bit hard to comprehend — let alone swallow.”
While Taylor’s gun was left unsecured, and used in a school shooting, observers note Biden’s handgun was left discarded in a public trash can near a Delaware school.
Others are noticing the double standard, too.
“Biden’s DOJ is giving Hunter a sweetheart deal for lying on a firearm background check,” tweeted U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN.) “Meanwhile, the same DOJ is sending Deja Taylor to prison for 18-24 months for the exact same offense.”
“What happened to equal justice under the law?,” Blackburn asked
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
We Should Be Talking About Biden Corruption not Trump-Created Drama
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.
Marine Vet – Hero or Criminal?
ANALYSIS – Everyone knows crime has exploded in New York City (NYC). This is especially true in the city’s subway system where aggressive mentally ill vagrants and homeless people abound.
But when a white, 24-year-old Marine veteran on the subway tries to subdue a “threatening” black, mentally ill man (with a rap sheet as long as his arm – including an outstanding warrant for felony assault) – the left can only see one thing – ‘racist murder.’
The Marine vet used a chokehold to subdue the aggressive 30-year-old homeless man, Jordan Neely on Monday.
The hold reportedly lasted 15 minutes. He was assisted in subduing Neely by at least two other riders, one of whom was black.
The apparent effort to protect passengers on the F train from Neely’s “threatening” behavior proved to be fatal. Sadly, Neely later died.
Many argue the Marine was justified. One witness told the New York Post that the man was screaming in a threatening manner.
“He said he had no food, he had no drink, that he was tired and doesn’t care if he goes to jail,” said Juan Alberto Vazquez. “He started screaming all these things, took off his jacket, a black jacket that he had, and threw it on the ground.”
But before the coroner had issued a cause of death, leftist agitators were calling it murder.
“NYC is not Gotham. We must not become a city where a mentally ill human being can be choked to death by a vigilante without consequences. Or where the killer is justified & cheered,” City Comptroller Brad Lander tweeted Tuesday.
The next day, in response to a cautious and responsible statement from NYC mayor Erik Adams, where he said he was going to wait for more facts, Democrat NYC Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pushed back on a statement, calling the incident a “public murder,” and saying fellow Democrat Adams had reached “a new low” with his response.
Adams, who was once a transit cop during his career with the NYPD, seemed to focus on the mentally ill Neely then also called on elected officials and advocacy groups to: “Join us in prioritizing getting people the care they need and not just allowing them to languish.”
The far-left Working Families Party ripped the initial response from Adams, calling the death “a modern-day public lynching,” said in a statement.
The New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner ruled the death a homicide Wednesday evening, though it needs to be clear that this does not equate to murder.
Homicides can be accidental or unintentional.
And even the conservative news outlet Daily Caller sensationalized the Marine’s action in their tweet:
While leftists tried to demonize the blonde, shaggy-haired Marine, and make Neely into an innocent victim, Newsweek reported that Neely had 42 prior arrests between 2013 and 2021, including four for assault.
And considering NYC’s violent subway crime wave, including people getting shoved in front of trains, subduing Neely seems reasonable.
The New York Times (NYT) reports that since 2019, the rate of violent crimes — murder, rape, felony assault and robbery — has more than doubled in the New York City subway system, even as ridership has dramatically decreased.
“There were 10 killings on the subway last year, compared with an average of two annually in the five years before the pandemic.”
This fear was highlighted in January 2022 when Michelle Alyssa Go, a 40-year-old Asian-American woman who worked at the consulting firm Deloitte, was shoved in front of an R train in Times Square by a homeless man who police said had a history of crime and mental illness.
Meanwhile, the Soros-backed, ‘progressive,’ Manhattan District Attorney, or DA (yes, the same one gunning for Trump), Alvin Bragg, who is black, has said his office is now investigating the incident.
In a statement, the DA’s office said:
As part of our rigorous ongoing investigation, we will review the Medical Examiner’s report, assess all available video and photo footage, identify and interview as many witnesses as possible, and obtain additional medical records. This investigation is being handled by senior, experienced prosecutors and we will provide an update when there is additional public information to share.
Much more to come, but maybe not as quickly as some would like.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Many in Gen Z ‘Love Big Brother,’ Want State Surveillance in Homes
ANALYSIS – Be afraid, Be very afraid. 1984 is almost here. A recent poll by the Libertarian CATO Institute showed that a big chunk of our latest and brightest Generation Z (Gen Z or Zoomers) actually favors having the government watch them 24/7.
Including surveillance in their homes and bedrooms.
Zoomers are officially those under the age of 26. And come right after Millennials.
After the horrors of World War Two showcased the brutal dangers of modern totalitarian dictatorships such as Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union, George Orwell penned his classic dystopian tale titled ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ (1984).
In the novel, written in 1949, the pervasive government of the fictional nation Oceania was known as ‘Big Brother,’ and it watched its citizens incessantly via two-way video devices called ‘telescreens.’
This was of course before the advent of television or modern surveillance.
Government agents known as the ‘Thought Police’ were able to monitor everyone at home, at work, on public streets, in shops, even in bathrooms. It was a terrifying existence.
The book and term ‘Big Brother’ have since been widely referenced when warning about government overreach and expanding state control.
Sadly, it seems that almost 30 percent of Gen Z (and some Millennials) haven’t read the book or understand the danger.
CATO’s Blog notes that:
In a newly released Cato Institute 2023 Central Bank Digital Currency National Survey of 2,000 Americans, we asked respondents whether they “favor or oppose the government installing surveillance cameras in every household to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity.”
Fortunately, the poll shows that 75 percent of Americans oppose or are strongly opposed to this insane idea.
However, CATO also notes that the younger you get, the less concerned Americans are about state surveillance and control:
…Americans under the age of 30 stand out when it comes to 1984‐style in‐home government surveillance cameras. 3 in 10 (29 percent) Americans under 30 favor “the government installing surveillance cameras in every household” in order to “reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity.” Support declines with age, dropping to 20 percent among 30–44-year-olds and dropping considerably to 6 percent among those over the age of 45.
Support for 24/7 surveillance was especially high among those younger than 30. Almost a third of those born after 1993 said they would welcome round-the-clock monitoring by the government.
Those respondents in their 40s, 50s, and 60s were almost totally opposed. That is a terribly disturbing trend that bodes ill for liberty in America in the next decades.
In his Boston Globe Email Newsletter, Jeff Jacoby provides his explanation for this sad state among Zoomers:
…perhaps, [it] is that Generation Z has been indoctrinated to regard safety, not freedom, as the highest good — so much so that many would rather be under the nonstop watch of the state than face the possibility of being abused or endangered.”
If so, they are in for a fearful awakening. What little protection they might gain from being under the authorities’ constant watch is nothing compared with the peril they would face. Benjamin Franklin’s famous admonition is as relevant as ever: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Inviting Big Brother into your home will not keep Gen Z-ers safe. And by the time they realize what they have given up, it will be too late to get it back.
Jacoby adds that the protagonist of Orwell’s novel, Winston Smith, is a weak man who resents the regime — and is ultimately broken for it. And the must-read book’s final words are haunting: “He loved Big Brother.”
Yet, after all we have seen and know about tyranny, almost a third of Generation Z is still prepared to love Big Brother too. Yes, we must be afraid. Very afraid.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Conservative Pundit Walks Off Washinton Post Live Show
Tensions are running high…
On Friday, Conservative radio host and political pundit Hugh Hewitt stormed off a Washington Post live event after an argument over former President Trump’s rhetoric on election integrity ahead of Election Day.
“Is it me or does it seem like Donald Trump is laying the ground work for contesting the election,” Post host Jonathan Capehart asked Ruth Marcus, who was appearing with Hewitt as part of the live event. “By claiming that cheating was taking place, but suing Bucks County [Pennsylvania] for alleged irregularities … ”
Marcus replied Trump has been “laying the ground work” to contest the election for months, setting Hewitt off.
“Jonathan, I’ve gotta speak up,” he tried to interject.
“Let Ruth finish, Hugh,” Capehart shot back.
“Well, I’ve just got to say, we’re news people, even though it’s the opinion section,” Hewitt said after Marcus finished. “It’s got to be reported. Bucks County was reversed by the court and instructed to open up extra days because they violated the law and told people to go home. So, that lawsuit was brought by the Republican National Committee, and it was successful. The Supreme Court ruled that Glenn Youngkin was successful,” he added, referring to the GOP Virginia governor’s efforts to purge some 1,600 people from the voter rolls.
“We are news people, even though we have opinions, and we have to report the whole story if we bring up part of the story. So, yes, he’s upset about Bucks County, but he was right and he won in court. That’s the story,” Hewitt said.
After a brief pause, Capehart told Hewitt, “I don’t appreciate being lectured about reporting when, Hugh, many times you come here saying lots of things that aren’t based in fact.”
“I won’t come back, Jonathan, I’m done,” Hewitt said, ripping his earpiece out and standing up.
“I’m done. This is the most unfair election ad I’ve ever been a part of,” Hewitt continued, his face no longer visible on the screen. “You guys are working, that’s fine, I’m done.”
Watch:
The host was eventually forced to end the event early, saying, “Everybody if you’ve been watching … you know these conversations can be interesting, contentious.”
“You just saw Hugh Hewitt leave which is lamentable, unfortunate. It is what it is. Thank you very much for joining us,” he continued and urged viewers to subscribe to the Post.
After the incident, Hewitt announced his resignation from the Washington Post.
“I have in fact quit the Post but I was only writing a column for them every six weeks or so,” Hewitt told Fox News Digital, adding he’d recently offered to write another pro-Trump column for the paper ahead of the election. He informed editorial page editor David Shipley on Friday morning.
Top Democrat Senate Recruit in Free-fall After Being Caught Using Racist Slur
A top Democrat recruit for United States Senate has fallen behind his Republican opponent and is backing out of a Democrat debate after he used a racist slur in a congressional hearing.
A planned April 23 debate between two Maryland Democrat candidates, Congressman David Trone and Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks, was canceled after Trone “refused to commit” in the wake of the incident.
During a March 21 House Budget Committee hearing, Trone asked about tax policy with Shalanda Young, who is both White House Director of the Office of Budget and Management, and black, “So this Republican j-gaboo that, it’s the tax rate that’s stopping business investment, it’s just completely faulty by people who have never run a business.”
Trone says he meant to say “bugaboo,” but instead used a racial slur for black people when speaking to the black official.
The incident could derail Trone, who is leading Alsobrooks in polls ahead of the May 21 primary to see who will succeed retiring three-term Democrat Senator Ben Cardin as the Democrat nominee. Not only is Trone white and Alsobrooks black, in a state whose Democrat primary sees large black turnout.
Trone, a millionaire businessman, has flooded TV with ads featuring black women supporting him.
Trone is still considered the favorite to win the Democrat nomination in the heavily Democrat state.
But Trone’s expected easy win to claim the seat in November was upended when popular Republican former governor Larry Hogan jumped into the race.
Hogan leads Trone by an average of 4.4% in polls of a hypothetical November matchup.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk. Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News.