Is the month of June not enough? Now, the LGBTQ+ group wants the entire summer.
Will you put your foot down?
Watch Amanda explain the controversy below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Vice President JD Vance took aim at the Democratic Party’s likely 2028 presidential contenders during a lighthearted but pointed exchange on Fox News, joking that the party’s “dumbest” candidate is most likely to emerge from the primary.
In an exclusive interview released Wednesday on Jesse Watters Primetime, Watters raised speculation about California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s national ambitions, noting the governor’s frequent media appearances and rumored White House aspirations.
“Gavin Newsom, obviously, is running for president. Have you seen this guy cross his legs? Have you ever seen anyone cross their legs like that?” Watters asked jokingly.
“My legs don’t cross like that, Jesse,” Vance replied with a laugh. “You can interpret that however you want to.”
Watters went on to frame the looming Democratic contest as a showdown between Newsom and Vice President Kamala Harris.
“Gavin and Kamala are on a collision course,” Watters said. “Who’s gonna win?”
“The dumbest candidate will probably win,” Vance quipped. “That’s my guess with the Democratic Party.”
Vance argued that the current Democratic bench reflects deeper structural problems within the party, particularly its fixation on identity politics over competence.
“I mean, look, the Democrats have a couple of big issues, and one is that they lean so far into wokeism that they can’t see the obviousness of the fact, which is that Kamala Harris is not qualified to be president of the United States,” Vance said.
“That’s why she got the vice presidential nomination. That’s why she got the presidential nomination. This is who Kamala Harris is.”
Vance contrasted Harris with Newsom, describing the California governor as emblematic of failed progressive governance.
“Now, the flip side is, I think you have an unbelievably corrupt and incompetent governor in Gavin Newsom,” he said. “The fact that those are the two frontrunners just suggests how deeply deranged the Democrat Party is. Let them fight it out. We’ll figure it out.”
While Newsom and Harris dominate early speculation, Democrats face a thin and fractured 2028 field. Other frequently mentioned names include Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—each of whom carries significant liabilities with general-election voters. Many Democrats privately acknowledge that the party lacks a unifying figure with broad national appeal, particularly as voters continue to recoil from progressive economic and cultural policies.
Republicans, by contrast, are positioning themselves as the party of stability, affordability, and public safety heading into the next election cycle.
Watters noted that Democrats are expected to campaign heavily on cost-of-living issues in upcoming elections, a strategy Vance dismissed as deeply hypocritical.
“That’s a pot-meet-kettle situation,” Vance argued, pointing to Democratic-led policies that fueled inflation, higher energy costs, and housing shortages.
He credited the Trump administration with reversing those trends.
“We haven’t even been in office for a year, and you’ve already seen prices start to come down. You’ve seen rents start to come down. You’ve seen groceries leveling off,” Vance said.
“Is there more work to do? Absolutely. But the people who are going to do that work is the Trump administration, is the president of the United States, who is solving the Democrats’ affordability crisis.”
“You don’t give power back to the very people who set the house on fire,” he added. “You give more power to the person who put the fire out.”
When asked whether Democrats would attempt to impeach President Trump again if they regain control of Congress, Vance said such a move would be predictable—and revealing.
“I’m sure he’ll get impeached,” Vance said. “Look, they have nothing to actually run on or govern on.”
“Their entire obsessive focus of that party is they hate Donald Trump,” he continued. “So, if they ever get power, are they going to lower Americans’ taxes? No. Are they going to make your life more affordable? No. Are they going to solve the crime crisis? No.”
“What they’re going to do is they’re going to spend all their time and all of your money trying to get Donald Trump.”
Vance urged voters to focus on results rather than partisan theatrics.
“I think the American people should vote for the people who want to make their life more affordable, who want to make their neighborhoods safer,” he said. “That’s what we’re trying to deliver every single day.”
Newsom’s office responded to the interview with a digitally altered image of Vance crossing his legs in an exaggerated pose, captioned: “We all know JD copies Daddy.”
With former President Donald Trump now indicted and facing prosecution from an activist liberal prosecutor, while criminals roam free in his city, one member of Congress is taking action to stop the use of federal funds to prosecute political opponents while ignoring violent crime.
Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ) introduced two bills to strip federal taxpayer funding from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and other “reform” prosecutors elected with the backing of liberal billionaire George Soros.
Biggs’ “Accountability for Lawless Violence In Our Neighborhoods Act” or “ALVIN Act “prohibits federal funds from being awarded to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and requires Bragg to repay federal funds granted after January 1, 2022.
Biggs has also introduced the “No Federal Funds for Political Prosecutions Act,” which prohibits state or local law enforcement agencies from using funds or property seized through asset forfeiture, to investigate or prosecute the President, Vice President, or a candidate for the office of President in a criminal case.
“District Attorney Alvin Bragg ran on a campaign pledge to indict President Trump. Bragg took the unprecedented action of converting alleged minor business misdemeanors to 34 individual felonies in an attempt to put President Trump behind bars and humiliate him and his supporters,” said Biggs.
“This weaponized prosecutor’s office has spent thousands of federal taxpayer dollars to subsidize this political indictment and is demanding millions more in federal grants,” said Biggs.
“It’s disturbing to see District Attorney Bragg waste federal resources for political purposes rather than addressing the serious crime in his city,” Biggs added.
“As a member of the House Judiciary and Oversight & Accountability Committees, and with an almost insurmountable national debt that exceeds $31 trillion, the nation simply cannot afford to support Mr. Bragg’s politicization of the criminal justice system,”
Cosponsors of the Accountability for Lawless Violence In Our Neighborhoods Act or the ALVIN Act include: Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL), Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ), Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC), and Rep. Bob Good (R-VA).
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – The communist regime in China raided a private U.S. investigations company’s office in Beijing on March 20.
This brazen, and likely unlawful, act against the New York-based due diligence firm, the Mintz Group, follows the FBI raid last fall of an illegal Chinese overseas ‘police station’ in New York City.
And some see it as a heavy-handed, and non-symmetrical retaliation.
But the raid in Beijing is also likely tied to Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s draconian security crackdown on the information inside China.
“Red alerts should be going off in all boardrooms right now about risks in China,” said one source in the New York Post.
The same U.S. business person also said that the Mintz Group raid sent a “remarkable signal” that Beijing will suck up foreign money and technology but won’t accept credible U.S. firms conducting research and investigations on Chinese partners or the country’s business environment.
Reuters reported that the company confirmed that “Chinese authorities have detained the five staff in Mintz Group’s Beijing office, all of them Chinese nationals, and have closed our operations there.”
The detained employees are reportedly being held somewhere outside Beijing. The company has not been able to contact the employees since they were detained.
Unlike the official police status of the Chinese outposts raided in NYC, the Mintz Group is a purely private company.
The firm describes itself as “a corporate investigations firm that gathers information before hiring, before transactions, during litigation disputes and after frauds, all over the world.”
According to its website, the company has over 450 investigators in 18 offices worldwide, but its Beijing office is the only one in mainland China. It has a second office in Hong Kong.
It also does background checks, asset tracing, and fraud and corruption investigations for businesses planning acquisitions or other large investments.
This corporate mission will likely be used by Chinese authorities to accuse the company of being spies.
And it wouldn’t be the first time western due diligence companies have gotten into trouble with Chinese authorities.
British corporate investigator Peter Humphrey and his American wife Yu Yingzeng, who ran a risk advisory firm, ChinaWhys, were detained in 2013 for work they did for a giant British pharmaceutical firm.
They spent two years in jail.
But there is an added twist to this latest raid.
While there may not be a direct link, the New York Post reported that: “Randal Phillips, a partner at the firm [Mintz Group] who heads its Asia operations but is based outside of China, is listed on its website as the Central Intelligence Agency’s former chief representative in China. Phillips worked in Beijing for years after leaving the CIA.”
Even though the raid can be seen as a response to the FBI raid against Beijing’s illegal NYC police outpost, one of 100 stations around the world, the additional motive is also clear.
As the New York Times reports:
…the move [also] highlighted the risks that firms involved in due diligence face in China as Xi Jinping, the country’s top leader, has repeatedly called for a greater emphasis on security and has tightened the ruling Communist Party’s grip on information.
The firm stated that it “has not received any official legal notice regarding a case against the company and has requested that the authorities release its employees.”
Perhaps not coincidentally, reported the Wall Street Journal, the Mintz Group raid is putting foreign companies in China on alert just as the country hosts an international economic conclave called the ‘China Development Forum’ set for this weekend.
The high-profile event is expected to be attended by Apple CEO Tim Cook, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, Ray Dalio, who founded the world’s biggest hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates, and other top executives.
According to a survey by the American Chamber of Commerce in China, with increasing tensions between the U.S. and China, U.S. businesses already operating in China are increasingly pessimistic about their prospects.
Maybe this latest Chinese act will make more U.S. firms think twice about investing there.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
An ethics watchdog is suing two top prosecutors for documents that may reveal a collusion scheme against President Donald Trump intended to influence the 2024 presidential election.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced in a statement it “filed a lawsuit against Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes for her communications with former Special Counsel Jack Smith.”
“On January 13, 2025 several media outlets reported that Attorney General Mayes had formally requested case documents from U.S. Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith’s criminal investigation into President Donald Trump regarding the 2020 presidential election,” Judicial Watch.
“12News reported that ‘Mayes said the documents could ensure defendants in Arizona’s fake electors case would be held accountable,’” Judicial Watch notes.
That case refers to supporters of President Trump from states whose Electoral College votes went to Joe Biden, who alleged the results were fraudulent offered themselves to the Electoral College as “alternate electors” under a theory the Electoral College could refuse to accept a state’s official slate of electors.
Many of them in states like Arizona now face prosecution on charges of fraud.
Critics argue there were no “fake electors” because the accused persons never mislead anyone about their identity, publicly identified themselves as alternate electors to be considered only in the event the slate of electors submitted by state officials could be rejected by the Electoral Congress and even held press conferences to explain what they were doing.
Judicial Watch reports it “filed the Arizona Public Records Law complaint in the Superior Court of Arizona after the attorney general failed to respond to a January 13, 2025, request for:”
Any communications and/or documents with Jack Smith and/or the DOJ Special Counsel group/team from January 1, 2022, to the completion of this request.
“Collusion against President Trump by Democratic politicians with Jack Smith and the weaponized Biden Justice Department are of great public interest,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “Attorney General Mayes is acting as if she has something to hide.”
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – FBI Director Christopher Wray has steadfastly refused to provide the House Oversight and Accountability Committee an internal Bureau document that alleges Joe Biden took a $5 million bribe from Chinese sources.
The committee issued a subpoena for it a while ago. Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) has said he learned about the allegations from a whistleblower whom he declined to identify but has described as “very credible.”
With the committee’s deadline passing yesterday, Comer has said he will seek to hold Wray in contempt of Congress, rejecting Wray’s offer to allow lawmakers to view the FD-1023 form in a secure location instead of handing over the document.
A contempt vote would be the most significant confrontation between House Republicans and federal law enforcement since the GOP took control of Congress in January.
Wray insists that the FD-1023 form contains unverified claims from a single confidential human source (CHS), and that turning it over is irresponsible. Sources need to know their identities will be protected.
And allegations shouldn’t be publicized without being corroborated.
Wray is right.
In the past, neither party would push much on an issue like this because they understood that need. But they also trusted the Bureau to be nonpartisan.
As the National Review notes:
…the mere fact that a CHS may have alleged that Biden took part in a bribery scheme doesn’t mean it happened. It can’t be dismissed out of hand — there’s too much indication of Biden’s sleazy self-dealing and outright lying for that. But people in positions of authority get falsely accused of wrongdoing all the time. The FBI rightly keeps such allegations under wraps because those people are presumed innocent and the bureau can’t investigate without being discrete. Congress has traditionally given the FBI a wide berth because lawmakers know secrecy is a necessity for competent investigations — and it has assumed that the FBI is competent and non-partisan.
Unfortunately, those days are gone, and the FBI director can’t decide what part of a Congressional subpoena to honor or reject. Wray has no legal basis to keep it hidden.
And due to the recent history of partisanship and politicization at the Bureau, most egregiously the Trump-Russiagate hoax, this is only part of a much bigger problem.
The Bureau can no longer be trusted to be fair and apolitical. As the National Review explains:
[The FBI] is a contented cog of the progressive administrative state. In the Obama years, it was put in the service of the Democratic Party. It marched to President Obama’s beat, whitewashed and abetted Hillary Clinton’s malevolence, undertook to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency, spent years covering its tracks, and insulated his 2020 opponent from scrutiny. It has spent the Biden years helping Democrats craft a political narrative of a nation besieged by white-supremacist domestic terrorism — all the while slow-walking the investigation of the Biden family’s influence-peddling business.
National Review continues:
[FBI] abuses have proceeded under Wray’s stewardship — the FBI’s (a) illegal surveillance under FISA; (b) general participation in the suppression of political speech on social media; (c) specific complicity in the Democrats’ and the intelligence community’s suppression of the Biden influence-peddling scandal; (d) collaboration in the Democrats’ crafting of a political narrative that the country is overrun by white-supremacist domestic terrorists; and (e) retaliation against whistleblower agents who’ve reported to Congress about some of these issues (at least according to three of those agents, who testified under oath at a recent House hearing).
So, while normally, I would be understanding of the director’s arguments and attempts to limit dissemination of a form that could expose investigative sources and methods, in this case, the FBI simply can’t be trusted.
It needs to turn over the document to the committee, with minimal redactions, or Wray should be held in contempt. This is about a much bigger problem.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
A new poll finds overwhelming majorities of Americans oppose the U.S. government’s military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and believe the federal government should stay out of other countries’ disputes.
Reuters/Ipsos reports their new poll finds “most Americans support immediately ending U.S. involvement in the conflict with Iran. The poll also finds that Americans oppose U.S. military involvement in the Middle East unless the U.S. is directly threatened and that most Americans do not feel that U.S. airstrikes against Iran make America safer.”
Only 36 percent of Americans support the strikes, with 45 percent opposing.
A whopping 69 percent of Americans, including 57 percent of Republicans, oppose “any military action in the Middle East unless America is directly threatened”.
58 percent of Americans say “it is better for the nation if the U.S. stays out of the affairs of other nations”
Republicans generally opposed U.S. strikes on Iran when Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden were president, warning it would lead to “World War 3.” They now report supporting the policy under Republican President Donald Trump.
Reuters summarized the findings, noting:
* Seven in ten say they have been following the U.S. airstrikes against Iran (70%) or the war between Israel and Iran (67%) very or somewhat closely. Republicans are slightly more likely to say they are following the U.S. airstrikes very closely (39%) compared to Democrats (32%), independents (31%), and the general population (33%).
* Four in five Americans say they are concerned with the conflict growing between the U.S. and Iran (84%) and U.S. military personnel stationed in the Middle East (79%). In comparison, similar numbers of Americans are concerned about rising inflation (81%) and growing U.S. debt (78%).
* Republicans (69% support, 17% oppose) are significantly more likely to support the strikes compared to Democrats (13% support, 74% oppose) and independents (29% support, 48% oppose).
* Just over one in three Americans (36%) say they agree that U.S. airstrikes against Iran make America safer, while 60% disagree and 4% refused or skipped. This is heavily divided along partisan lines, with 12% of Democrats, 29% of independents, and 67% of Republicans agreeing with this statement.
* Most Americans say the U.S. should not become involved in any military action in the Middle East unless America is directly threatened (69%). Majorities across partisanship feel this way, with 57% of Republicans, 73% of independents, and 80% of Democrats agreeing with this statement.
“This Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted June 21-23, 2025. The poll began fielding immediately after the June 21 U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. The poll closed before the June 23 Iranian strikes on a U.S. military base in Qatar, which has reportedly caused no fatalities,” Reuters notes.
The Biden administration is unable to locate 85,000 child migrants initially processed at the U.S. border, and now members of Congress are demanding an explanation amid reports the children are being trafficked.
Seventy-six House Republican reveal in a letter that Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas are “knowingly and recklessly discharging unaccompanied children to adults across the country and doing nothing to find the tens of thousands they had lost touch with,” the Washington Examiner reports.
The letter was issued after the New York Times reported the Biden administration cannot locate 85,000 children initially processed as migrants seeking asylum, and many are being forced into child labor.
Lawmakers “referenced reports by the New York Times that concluded children were extorted by smugglers to pay off the thousands they owed through forced labor, including sex trafficking. Other children were trafficked against their will and are effectively slaves within the U.S.,” the Examiner reports
“The border crisis is not a stand-alone crisis. It has created a new catastrophe in every direction,” said Congressman Morgan Luttrell (R-TX)
“Unaccompanied migrant children are crossing our border, and Joe Biden’s failed policies aren’t leading them to the American Dream. Instead, these children are released with no follow-up and are facing forced labor, sex trafficking, and abuse,” said Luttrell.
“The policies of the Biden Administration are failing everyone. Secretary Mayorkas and President Biden not only need to address the ongoing exploitation and lack of contact with minors, but also secure our southern border and ensure people seeking to come to our great country are going through the proper, legal channels,” Luttrell added.
Even worse, it appears many of the children tried to contact U.S. officials to seek help.
“We are particularly heartbroken to read reports of children contacting HHS after their release to their sponsors in hopes of the agency intervening, with no follow up,” the letter reveals.
“The policies of this administration are enriching the cartels and transnational criminal organizations, who are profiting from the pain, abuse, and exploitation of these children as they smuggle them into the country,” the lawmakers conclude.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Americans may know more about the man who attempted to assassinate President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, after a legal watchdog filed a federal lawsuit for documents being concealed by the Justice Department.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced in a statement it “filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for all records regarding Thomas Matthew Crooks, who attempted to assassinate President Trump on July 13, 2024.”
“No more delays and excuses, the FBI should release what it has on the man who tried to kill President Trump a full year ago in Butler. Attorney General Pam Bondi should direct a full and immediate records response to this Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Judicial Watch notes it sued after the FBI “failed to respond to a July 24, 2024, FOIA request for:”
All records, including but not limited to, investigative reports, interview summaries (Forms 1023), letterhead memoranda, photos, audio/visual recordings, database inquiries, interagency communications, and any other records, whether contained in the Central Records System or cross-referenced files, related to Thomas Matthew Crooks, born September 20, 2003 in Butler Township, PA and died on July 13, 2024, who attempted the assassination of former President Donald Trump on July 13, 2024.
All records of communication in any form, including but not limited to emails, text messages, encrypted app communications and voice recordings, between FBI officials and/or FBI sources, contractors, and assets on the one hand, and Thomas Matthew Crooks on the other hand.
“On July 13, 2024, then-Republican presidential candidate Trump survived an assassination attempt while speaking at an open-air campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Trump was shot and wounded in his upper right ear by 20-year-old Crooks, who fired eight rounds from his perch on top of a nearby building,” Judicial Watch explained, adding, “Crooks also killed one audience member, firefighter Corey Comperatore, and critically injured two others. Crooks was shot and killed by the counter sniper team of the United States Secret Service.”
Judicial Watch has been pursuing the information for nearly a year, noting:
In March 2025, Judicial Watch sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for records related to security provided for the July 13, 2024, rally in Butler, PA, during which there was an assassination attempt on President Trump (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:25-cv-00704)).
In September 2004, Judicial Watch sued the Department of Homeland Security for Secret Service and other records regarding potential increased protective services to former President Trump’s security detail prior to the attempt on his life at his July 13 campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:24-cv-02495)).
In August 2024, Judicial Watch obtained records from the district attorney’s office in Butler County, PA, detailing the extensive preparation of local police for the rally at which former President Trump was shot. The preparation included sniper teams, counter assault teams and a quick response force. On August 9, in response to a separate open records request, Judicial Watch obtained bodycam footage of the July 13 assassination events from the Butler Township Police Department.
Feds to Charge Hunter Biden but Offer Sweet ‘No Jail’ Plea Deal
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 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:
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:
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.