President Donald J. Trump participates in a roundtable discussion on immigration and border security at the U.S. Border Patrol Calexico Station Friday, April 5, 2019, in Calexico, Calif. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
ANALYSIS – Joe Biden’s border disaster is getting worse by the day as thousands of illegal immigrants swarm U.S. border entry points daily. And as I have repeatedly noted the Mexican drug cartels essentially control the border regions of Mexico.
Across the entire southwest border, as many 9,400 migrants have crossed into the US in a single 24-hour period. That is tens of thousands a week or over 100,00 per month. Over a million a year.
And now, thanks to Joe Biden and his band of merry leftists, the cartels essentially control the U.S. side of the border as well, flooding our border with illegal migrants to overwhelm our border patrol agents and divert them from the drug smuggling points.
As the New York Post reported: “The way it’s being orchestrated through the cartels, I believe it’s meant to overwhelm the system. The [places] that are being impacted the most are border communities,” said former El Paso City Councilmember Claudia Rodriquez.
The Post added:
Cartels unleashed turmoil on the city before, stirring up rumors of the border being open to all back in March and again in April, prompting hundreds of migrants to storm one of El Paso’s international bridges.
“If you’re at the border, go this morning,” a social media screenshot of the rumor said. “Don’t miss this opportunity.”
Aid workers previously told The Post how migrants are particularly susceptible to tricks orchestrated by the cartel, as most are in a vulnerable position and in unfamiliar territory.
“A lot of the folks that are waiting in Juarez [across the border from El Paso] are very desperate, and they’ll believe anything,” Crystal Sandoval of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center said in March.
These waves of migrants egged on by cartel-driven misinformation online on social media overwhelms and distracts the Border Patrol, and diverts federal resources, when they are most needed to combat the smuggling of fentanyl into the U.S.
It also overwhelms the local communities.
BREAKING: The city of Eagle Pass, Texas, issued an emergency declaration today as thousands of migrants crossed the Rio Grande from Piedras Negras, Mexico. Watch:https://t.co/0EYYEO6Oo9
Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), who represents both Eagle Pass and El Paso, has warned about the raw numbers of illegal migrants.
“Eagle Pass is completely overrun right now. El Paso is getting overwhelmed right now. Arizona is getting overwhelmed right now.”
“The only way we can regain control of the southern border is by enforcing the laws that are on the books. That’s exactly what the administration needs to do. That’s exactly what Congress needs to focus on.”
Meanwhile, as Fox News reported, things are getting so bad that a Mexican railway company has halted operations after a video showing migrants packed into freight cars riding into the U.S. went viral earlier this week.
Often called the ‘train of death,’ for many migrants, this days-long journey is the only shot they have at making it to the U.S.-Mexico border. Here’s a glimpse at their experience.
Note, the rail company didn’t halt the trains because the migrants were swarming into the U.S., but because some were getting hurt along the way, and it was becoming too public.
According to Fox: “Migrants have long used the trains, known collectively as ‘The Beast,’ [or ‘train of death’] to hitch rides to the U.S. border, and a video of a Ferromex train out of Zacatecas, Mexico, packed with migrants — heading toward the U.S. southern border — went viral on Sunday.”
As long as Biden continues his deliberately disastrous open border policy, the cartels will continue to push waves of illegal migrants into the U.S., overwhelm the Border Patrol, and send more deadly drugs into America across the Rio Grande.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Things are heating up in President Biden’s Department of Justice. The bombshell discovery of classified documents from Biden’s time as vice president at numerous locations months after the FBI raided former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home has ruffled some feathers, to say the least…
Watch Amanda break down the ongoing scandal below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – As a former Marine Corps officer and military attaché who served at several embassies overseas in the 1990s, it has infuriated me to see partisans and ideologues impose their radical agendas on our foreign embassies during Joe Biden’s tenure at the White House.
Flying extremely divisive, and to many host countries, offensive, flags representing controversial sexual agendas (LGBTQ+), which includes the extreme ‘trans’ movement, and private groups which espouse hate toward one race and law enforcement (Black Lives Matter – BLM), has been an egregious abuse pushed hard by the Biden State Department since last year.
Our embassies and consulates are official extensions of the United States. They are even considered sovereign U.S. territory.
They are there on behalf of the entire U.S. nation, as represented by our national flag, not sectarian views, or radical and controversial agendas.
This is true, even when these same radical agendas are being forced on our executive branches of government.
Thankfully, the new GOP House is proposing to quickly change that abuse.
The Old Glory Only Act, introduced Monday by South Carolina Republican Rep. Jeff Duncan would prohibit any flag other than the American flag to be flown over U.S. embassies and consulates.
“Our beautiful flag, Old Glory, should be the only flag flying and representing our country over our diplomatic and consular posts worldwide,” Duncan said in a press release announcing the bill’s introduction in the House Monday. “The American flag is a beacon of liberty, and no other flag or symbol better portrays our shared values than the Stars and Stripes. It is important to ensure that Old Glory only is flown at American embassies to represent our ideals abroad.”
The New York Times previously reported that Biden Secretary of State Antony Blinken authorized U.S. embassies to fly ‘gay pride’ flags in April 2021, prior to May 17, which is the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, and to continue displaying the flag through the end of the month.
The push to fly the rainbow ‘gay pride’ flag actually began in 2014, under the Obama-Biden term. That flag has flown over U.S. embassies in more than a dozen countries since then, including Russia, Spain, Sweden and South Korea.
President Trump’s Secretary of State banned the ‘pride’ flags from being flown but his order was quickly reversed by Blinken.
In May, another cable from Blinken’s State Department authorized flying Black Lives Matter flags at U.S. diplomatic facilities worldwide, Foreign Policy reported at the time.
The BLM flag has been flown at U.S. embassies in Brazil, Greece, Spain, Bosnia, Cambodia and South Korea, according to Duncan’s office.
This, even though violent BLM rioters had spent months attacking the federal courthouse in Portland and laying siege to dozens of cities nationwide just months earlier in 2020.
The BLM riots caused over $2 billion in property damage, more than any other similar event in U.S. history, injured over 2,000 local and federal police officers, and resulted in numerous deaths of civilians.
According to the NYT, a cable from the State Department at the time gave the chiefs of missions (COMs), who lead our overseas diplomatic stations, a “blanket written authorization” to display the flags if it was “appropriate in light of local conditions.”
While the Times noted this was an “authorization, not a requirement,” few COMs will ignore the pressure to follow the boss’ lead, and the more woke embassies and consulates quickly started flying these unofficial flags.
Republicans are optimistic the new GOP leadership will hold a vote on the bill since there is broad GOP support for the idea.
But why stop there? Why not ban these divisive flags from being flown over any federal buildings, period – including all of the ones here at home?
According to the General Services Administration (GSA), More than 40 federal buildings across the country opted to raise the Pride Flag to show their support of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” in the federal workforce.
What they are actually doing is flying the flags of exclusive, divisive and radical private groups on federal property paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
This too must end.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Former President Donald Trump is right: There’s no reason he should sign a GOP loyalty oath in order to participate in the candidates’ debates.
Such oaths, which the Republican National Committee employed in the 2016 presidential primary – only to see the last remaining candidates, including Trump, abandon it – aren’t just signs of a party’s weakness; they are also profoundly silly and even un-American.
Yes, we swear plenty of legally enforceable oaths – in court cases, for example, or declarations on tax forms and other legal documents. But oaths binding candidates to support someone who they’ve campaigned against, throwing elbows, mud and other rhetorical barbs at them for months to convince voters the guy was a bum?
I’ll defer to what Sen. Ted Cruzsaid of such an oath back in the 2016 presidential primary:
Cruz has dodged the question of whether the pledge still holds by insisting he will be the nominee. Though on Friday, in an apparent reference to Trump, Cruz said, “I don’t make a habit out of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my family.”
We all know that Cruz eventually did support Trump’s candidacy and became one of his biggest defenders in the Senate (which was amusing).
But the oath? Nah. The 2016 primary should have been instructive to party leaders that such commitments are transactional at best and unenforceable in fact. Which brings us to the state parties.
They have been long-time players in loyalty oaths, often attempting to bind voters to the party’s eventual nominees. While such pledges are even sillier and utterly unenforceable, that hasn’t stopped new ones from cropping up this year. Consider the case of Florida‘s pledge:
Christian Ziegler, the chairman of the Florida GOP, said in an email that the loyalty pledge is an effort to “ensure maximum unity” headed into the 2024 general election.
“The days of outlier party grifters – such as Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger – using Republican Party resources to secure a title and then weaponize that title against our own team must end,” Ziegler said, referring to two former House members, who are among Trump’s most vocal GOP critics.
“Contested primaries are part of the process,” he said, “but we must always remember that the Democrats are the true threat to the America we love and we must be unified to defeat every single one of them.”
The true threat to America is noxious oaths that bind us to men rather than pledges or oaths that bind individuals to uphold the law or tell the truth.
You know, like the only oath that should ever matter for a presidential candidate: the one the Constitution requires:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Every other partisan oath is legally dubious, intellectually suspect and, in the end, not worth the paper it’s printed on.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It first appeared in American Liberty News.
Without a whisper, David Brock once again took his seat in that deep club chair, the one upholstered in battered oxblood leather and steeped in quiet menace. He reached for his tailor-crafted inner pocket, drawing from it a fresh Davidoff 702 Double R. The oily Ecuadorian leaf caught flame with practiced ease, releasing those same familiar notes of dark chocolate and café crema. Nearby, a Baccarat tumbler appeared in a silent ritual of service, filled just so with Pappy Van Winkle, as though it had always been there. This wasn’t just habit. It was stagecraft, and the man in the chair was directing a performance with constitutional consequences.
There was no need for preamble. Those in the room knew why they were there. Brock was about to reintroduce the legal profession to its own velvet-clad nightmare. His audience, a quiet circle of left-wing patrons and media barons, leaned in as he explained the next phase of his campaign, not against Donald Trump per se, but against anyone daring to offer him or his allies a legal defense. This wasn’t about winning court cases. This was about ensuring those cases were never filed at all.
The 65 Project, Brock explained, was not an electoral effort. It was not a messaging campaign. It was war. A war against the 6th Amendment, that slender but essential clause guaranteeing every American the right to legal counsel. Its aim? To deprive Republicans, particularly those challenging elections or government orthodoxy, of any capable legal defense.
Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]
Run through Brock’s network of nonprofits and housed under Law Works, the 65 Project deployed seasoned political operatives to file bar complaints, ethics charges, and sanctions motions against Trump-affiliated attorneys. The power of the model lay in its asymmetry. A single complaint, even meritless, could cost an attorney tens of thousands of dollars and a year or more in disciplinary review. And even if dismissed, the stain was permanent.
In 2025, this campaign has not slowed. In February, the 65 Project filed a high-profile complaint against Edward Martin, then the interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia. His offense? Alleged conflicts of interest tied to representing January 6 defendants before his federal appointment. The complaint cited violations of Rule 4-1.7 of professional conduct, a detail blasted across the headlines of friendly media outlets. As of June, there is no word on whether the complaint succeeded, but that isn’t the point. The accusation is the punishment.
Incredibly, the 65 Project also targeted the sitting Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi. On June 5, 2025, a coalition including the 65 Project, Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law filed a 23-page ethics complaint with the Florida Bar, accusing Bondi of “serious professional misconduct.” The complaint alleged that Bondi threatened DOJ lawyers with discipline or termination for failing to pursue President Trump’s political objectives, particularly via a February 5 “zealous advocacy” memo. It claimed her actions led to resignations and firings in violation of DOJ norms and Florida Bar rules. Yet, on June 6, the Florida Bar summarily rejected the complaint, citing a policy against investigating sitting officers appointed under the US Constitution. It was the third such complaint against Bondi, and the third rejection. Critics like DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle called the filings “vexatious” and politically motivated. That the 65 Project would go after a sitting Attorney General at all illustrates the sheer audacity, and absurdity, of their campaign. They have announced they will be filing more complaints against Bondi.
Even more outrageous, the same coalition named two additional Trump administration officials in their June 5 complaint: Emil Bove, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General and Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General. The complaint accused them contributing to a culture of unethical conduct within the Justice Department by pressuring career lawyers to ignore professional responsibilities and instead pursue political objectives at the behest of President Trump. The goal was clear: not just to intimidate one leader, but to undermine the credibility of an entire legal team working within the bounds of the law.
This complaint, like so many others, underscores the project’s enduring mission: to ensure lawyers think twice before defending Trump or any of his associates. Public defenders and private litigators alike have been swept into the net. Whether you were in court for Giuliani, or simply filed an amicus brief on election integrity, the 65 Project likely has your name on a list.
This strategy, weaponizing legal ethics as a partisan bludgeon, would have made Boss Tweed grin from ear to ear. Backroom operators like Col. George Brinton McClellan Harvey would recognize it instantly. Harvey, managing editor of the Democratic Party’s press empire at the turn of the 20th century, orchestrated conventions from smoke-filled rooms in Chicago’s Blackstone Hotel, where policies were written not in law books, but on cocktail napkins between puffs of Havana cigars. Brock, in many ways, is his spiritual heir, using legal bureaucracy the way Harvey used ink and influence.
The Biden-appointed judiciary has not resisted. In Michigan, Democratic activists succeeded in convincing a federal judge to sanction every lawyer who filed election-related litigation for Trump in 2020. Among them: Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, and Stefanie Junttila. Each was ordered to pay legal fees to Democratic Party groups and attend re-education courses, under the euphemism of continuing legal education. The court referred them for possible disbarment, fulfilling Brock’s vision.
Michael Teter, managing director of the 65 Project, has filed complaints against more than 100 attorneys across 26 states. The targets include high-profile figures like Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, and Cleta Mitchell. And while many of these complaints were dismissed by mid-2023, the damage to reputations and client relationships lingers.
The project’s tactics have drawn sharp rebuke. Congressman Lance Gooden, in April 2025, called the 65 Project a “political hit squad” and demanded a Justice Department investigation. Others on social media have accused the group of colluding with establishment Republicans to kneecap Trump’s legal allies. Yet Brock’s defenders frame the group as guardians of democracy, protecting the legal profession from ethical collapse.
Such framing is dishonest. When Alan Dershowitz defended Al Gore in 2000, no one suggested he should be disbarred for challenging election results. But now, lawyers challenging questionable election conduct on behalf of Republicans face professional ruin. This is not accountability. It is ideological warfare.
Critics may point out that the 65 Project has not secured many disbarments. That may be true, but they have achieved some high-profile penalties. Jenna Ellis was publicly censured by a Colorado judge in March 2023. Rudy Giuliani had his law license suspended in New York and is facing permanent disbarment proceedings in Washington, DC. John Eastman was disbarred in California following a March 27, 2024, decision by State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland, who found him culpable of 10 out of 11 disciplinary charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. His license was placed on involuntary inactive status days later, rendering him ineligible to practice law in California. Eastman has appealed, but as of June 15, 2025, no reversal has been reported. He was also suspended from practicing law in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2024, pending resolution of the California case. Lin Wood surrendered his law license in Georgia under pressure from multiple complaints. These results are rare but not insignificant. Still, the goal was never just disbarment. It was deterrence. It was a public display of consequence, a digital scarlet letter. No need to win in court when you can win in LinkedIn’s HR department.
The project has inspired imitators including the Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law. The Lincoln Project also targets law firms, encouraging junior associates to pressure partners against accepting GOP clients. Shutdown DC and the Un-American Bar maintain lists of “insurrectionist” lawyers. Others push the American Bar Association to adopt rules banning election challenges altogether, cloaking censorship in the rhetoric of professionalism.
Marc Elias, the left’s court general, has taken the mission even further, seeking to disqualify GOP candidates under the 14th Amendment, resurrecting post-Civil War measures to bar Trump allies from holding office. Lawsuits against Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, and others reflect this broader ecosystem of lawfare. It is a constellation of coordinated attacks designed to render conservative legal advocacy untenable.
And what of the Constitution? The Sixth Amendment was never meant to be partisan. It exists not to protect the powerful, but the accused. In America, even pariahs have lawyers. Even the guilty deserve defense. The 65 Project’s perverse genius is to flip that premise, treating legal representation as complicity, and enforcing political loyalty through professional terror.
David Brock did not build this machinery alone. Melissa Moss, a Clinton veteran, helped architect the effort. She recruited Democratic grandees, Tom Daschle, ABA presidents, former state judges, to lend legitimacy. Their goal? To make conservative legal advocacy professionally radioactive.
And it may be working. Some lawyers are declining GOP clients outright. Others fear disciplinary complaints, X mobs, or worse. The chilling effect is real, and precisely what the architects intended. The War on the Sixth is a war on courage, a war on professional independence, a war on the idea that justice should be blind.
In the end, Brock’s smoke-filled rooms are not about cigars or cocktails. They are about control. They are about ensuring that when Republicans step into a courtroom, they do so alone.
CBP Photography, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
ANALYSIS – Totally ignored or hidden by the establishment media is how powerful and deadly Mexican drug cartels are using Joe Biden’s deliberately open border to access the United States and cause chaos.
They do this in various ways. One of course is their bread and butter — drugs.
The cartels have drastically ramped up their supply of drugs to the U.S., especially deadly fentanyl, since Biden took office.
This is shown by the record number of fentanyl captures at or near the Mexican border.
But they are also clearly involved in human trafficking and in sending operatives to swell the ranks of their already large criminal networks inside our country.
These organized criminal networks distribute drugs, are involved in human sex trafficking, and many other serious crimes (potentially including terrorism), all within our borders.
The Republican-led House must do all it can to investigate and thwart Biden’s damaging border policies beginning in January.
Beyond the difficult political task of ending Biden’s disastrous border and immigration policies while he remains in office, and the Democrats control the Senate, there are other measures that could be taken.
In an opinion piece for Fox News, Robert S. Wells, a retired U.S. Navy Captain, and former Special Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney explain one way to help our law enforcement and Homeland Security team fight back.
This involves revamping the National Security Council (NSC) at the White House to properly address the cartel threat by “connecting the dots.”
Every day the leadership in the Homeland Security and Justice Departments receive comprehensive reports from the Intelligence Community (IC), but those findings fail to translate into effective policy and strategy that strengthens our network against the cartels.
Those findings include the “known-known” Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) reports on drug cartel distribution of fentanyl distribution and the limitations of Customs and Border Protection (CBP)’s capability to scale to address the threat.
Unfortunately, under Biden, despite this deluge of valuable intel, these law enforcement agencies are not organized to use the information to succeed in an organized response.
Wells then recommends using a revised version of President GW Bush’s Executive Order 13228 to coordinate the fight against the cartels at the NSC.
That order, which created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was signed after the terror attacks on 9/11 2001 precisely to help our Intelligence Community (IC) “connect the dots” after a massive intelligence failure allowed al-Qaeda terrorists to fly jetliners into the Twin Towers in New York City, the Pentagon, and almost one into the Capitol.
The order also created the Homeland Security Council (HSC) within the Executive Office of the President.
Sadly, in the Biden NSC, Homeland Security has been downgraded, and coordinating the fight against the cartels now has to compete with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.
Wells states that a revised Executive Order 13228 could be drafted and implemented by Biden in a day and a new newly established Homeland Security Council could be up and operational within a week:
Once established, the IC and agency professionals at Justice (DEA), Defense (SOUTHCOM), Homeland Security (CBP and USCG) can bring forward their recommendations against the cartels and their networks throughout the US.
This focus would help “connect the dots” through strategic communication that provides Colin Powell-style efficiency using a macro slide that illustrates the cartel networks operating in the US, the top 3 focal points to “cut off and kill” the cartel networks and executive authority to surge homeland security task forces to the top three areas.
Once rebooted, the office of the Homeland Security Adviser would be able to strategically communicate and lead efforts to “connect the dots” on the growing drug cartel threat.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
