Capitol Hill is in a frenzy over the latest debt deal reached between lawmakers.
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Viewers are leaving Fox News in droves…
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Is your city next? Democrat-run Chicago isn’t just a murder capital; it also has a car theft epidemic. It had more than 21,500 vehicle thefts last year, which includes violent carjackings.
That is 55% more car thefts than last year.
Most of these crimes are committed by teens and gang members.
A recent “Teen Takeover” created violence and chaos as hundreds of teens mobbed Chicago streets and clashed with the police.
Meanwhile, Chicago’s far-left politicians and prosecutors continue to enable the young criminals.
And now it seems the Chicago Police Department is gun shy about charging juvenile delinquents with murder.
Last week, two teenage boys stole a Hyundai car and crashed it into another vehicle, a Ford pickup truck, killing a 6-month-old baby and seriously injuring his 34-year-old mother and her seven and fifteen-year-old daughters.
Both vehicles were demolished. The baby, Cristian Uvidia died in the hospital from damage to his skull.
“He suffered from an impact that fractured his skull, causing his brain to swell and eventually killing him,” Annelisse Rivera wrote on a GoFundMe page created for the family.. “We are devastated, and we are broken. We will miss his sweet smile, as he was a joy to everyone that he met.”
The New York Post reports that the juvenile criminals, ages 17 and 14, were each charged with just one misdemeanor count of “criminal trespassing” in the deadly April 16 crash in the city’s West Garfield Park neighborhood.
That’s an outrage.
Chicago police are saying that additional charges “could be upgraded” when the investigation is complete. But why haven’t they already charged the driver with murder, or at least vehicular manslaughter?
Everyone involved in this horrible crime where a baby was killed was immediately placed at the scene of the crash. How much investigation is needed?
As Hot Air notes:
Criminal Trespass to a Vehicle is a Class A Misdemeanor in Chicago. That carries a penalty of a fine of no more than $2,500 and less than a year in jail. Of course, since the gangbangers in this incident are all under 18, the charges will probably be kicked to the juvenile court, where they likely won’t even be sent to a day behind bars.
Jazz Shaw in Hot Air adds:
Also, what about the other two boys in the car? There are not yet any charges filed against them. I doubt they somehow wound up in the stolen car “accidentally.” It’s a safe bet that if those four haven’t already been indoctrinated into one of Chicago’s gangs, they had a gang contact waiting to buy the car from them if they managed to get away. And you can bet that the city’s gangbangers are watching this case closely and with approval.
Rivera, the injured mother who just lost her baby to these criminal punks, reportedly said the lack of serious charges was “disheartening.”
Chicagoans should be demanding that Kim Foxx, the Soros-funded State’s Attorney get involved, or at least say something. What about incoming Mayor Brandon Johnson?
Have Chicago’s residents become so inured to their city’s crime and the government’s response that they don’t care anymore?
Hopefully not. But without public outrage and political accountability, these soft-on-crime Democrat politicians will only ensure criminals will continue their murderous rampage across Chicago.
And your city may be next.
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.
Oh, the irony…
1990s sex icon Pamela Anderson is releasing a new memoir where she describes an uncomfortable situation involving “Home Improvement” star Tim Allen.
Let Amanda explain the controversy below.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Expert election prognosticator and FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver called on President Biden to immediately resign and let Vice President Kamala Harris carry out the remainder of his term.
Silver’s argument came in response to a Washington Post article about Biden’s recent trip to Brazil that began like this:
MANAUS, Brazil — President Joe Biden was in the middle of the Amazon rainforest, unprotected from mosquitoes, fire ants and loud, squawking macaws. But there was another pest he did manage to avoid: the pack of reporters traveling with him.
For a short speech in front of about two dozen people, the journalists were initially instructed to watch Biden on a flat-screen television placed amid sand and lush trees as the president spoke about 50 feet away, though they were eventually moved closer. As Biden finished his remarks, maracas rattled by a local group prevented him from hearing reporters’ shouted questions about Ukraine.
During a six-day foreign trip to Peru and Brazil that wrapped up Monday, the president rarely spoke in public, answering almost no questions despite repeated efforts to engage him. One television producer took to writing messages on a large pad of paper, holding it up as Biden boarded and departed Air Force One.
The story went on to note that Biden has been conspicuously quiet about the results of the 2024 presidential election, which he “repeatedly called the most important election in history” and “warned would change the country forever if [Donald] Trump prevailed.”
Silver was unamused by Biden’s performance as described by the Post.
“Is there any particular reason to assume Biden is competent to be president right now?” he asked rhetorically on X. “It’s a very difficult job. It’s a dangerous world. Extremely high-stakes decisions in Ukraine. He should resign and let Harris serve out the last 2 months.”
ANALYSIS – Let Freedom ring! – In a major victory for free speech in America, and a major vindication for conservatives who have been warning of Democrats using the government to censor them on social media, a federal judge is blocking federal agencies from communicating with Big Tech firms to censor posts.
The Democrats using federal agencies and other official political bodies to coerce or direct social media firms is being called government “censorship ‘by proxy.”
This injunction is particularly heartening to me, since I was a victim of this censorship when LinkedIn permanently banned my account for ‘multiple violations of their terms of service and user agreement.
In other words, I wrote about Hunter Biden’s laptop, the likelihood that COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology biolab.
All since proven valid.
I also noted that there are only two sexes, based on science, and refused to use ‘preferred gender pronouns.’
All these topics were effectively banned by the major social media companies, and as has since been proven via Elon Musk’s ‘Twitter Files’ expose, and other investigations, much of this banning was done at the behest of the U.S. government, primarily for partisan political or ideological reasons.
In the preliminary injunction, appropriately made on July 4th, the judge, Terry A. Doughty, wrote (pdf) that:
Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed.
He added that government agencies, including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. Department of State, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are prohibited from taking a range of actions related to communicating or dealing with social media companies.
The judge provided very limited exceptions, allowing government officials to contact social media companies to alert them of criminal activity or clear threats to national security.
He also allowed, reported the Epoch Times: “contacts notifying social media companies about posts intending to mislead voters about voting requirements or procedures as well as communicating with companies about suppressing posts that are not protected free speech.”
The decision comes as a response to Republican state attorneys general (AGs) who sued the Biden administration. According to the judge, the AGs “have produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.”
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey hailed the ruling on Twitter.
“The Court has granted our motion to BLOCK top officials in the federal government from violating the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.”
“What a way to celebrate Independence Day.”
In an accompanying memorandum Judge Doughty stated that the plaintiffs are “likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition.”
In an earlier ruling in March, according to The Epoch Times, Doughty wrote: “This suit arises out of the alleged coercion by the Biden Administration and various government agencies and officials of social-media companies, urging those companies ‘to censor viewpoints and speakers disfavored by the Left.’”
He added that the plaintiffs allege that “this censorship was encouraged—perhaps even mandated—by the Biden Administration and several key governmental departments.”
The judge’s current order notes the various nefarious means in which the Biden administration colluded with Big Tech to censor opposing or dissenting views.
These means include, per the injunction, “engaging in any communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”
The Epoch Times reported:
The agencies are also barred from flagging content on posts on social media platforms and forwarding them to the companies with requests for action such as removing or otherwise suppressing their reach.
Encouraging or otherwise egging on social media companies to change their guidelines for the removal, suppression, or reduction of content that contains protected free speech by the government is also not allowed.
To prevent Team Biden and other Democrats from circumventing the order by outsourcing their dirty deeds, it specifically applies to agents, officers, employees, and contractors.
While this is just a preliminary injunction, expect more to come in the fight against Democrat censorship.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
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.
The election of Donald Trump in November 2016 was, for the entrenched political class, a thunderclap. It was not supposed to happen. The experts, the pollsters, the seasoned operatives had assured the country that Hillary Clinton’s victory was inevitable. Yet by the morning of November 9, the White House was preparing to receive a president unlike any in modern history: a political outsider with no government experience, an instinctive distrust of Washington, and a willingness to discard its conventions. For some in the outgoing administration and the permanent bureaucracy, this was not merely a surprise. It was a crisis to be managed, or better yet, undone.
That undoing began in earnest just four months into Trump’s presidency, when Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, with the approval of FBI Counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap and General Counsel James Baker, authorized a criminal investigation into the sitting president of the United States. This probe did not arise from fresh evidence of presidential misconduct. It rested on the same thin reeds that had underpinned the Russia collusion narrative since mid-2016: opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign, laundered through the Steele dossier, and presented as intelligence. It was a case study in how partisan disinformation can metastasize into official action when it finds a willing audience inside the government.
To understand how extraordinary this was, one must appreciate the context. Intelligence reports later declassified in the Durham Annex revealed that, as early as March 2016, the Clinton campaign had hatched a plan to tie Trump to Russian operatives, not as a matter of national security, but as an electoral tactic. These plans were known to senior Obama administration officials, including John Brennan, James Comey, and Andrew McCabe, before the election. Yet when Trump won, the machinery they had assembled did not wind down. It shifted purpose: from preventing his election to destabilizing his presidency.
The first casualty in this internal campaign was Michael Flynn, Trump’s National Security Adviser and one of the few senior appointees with both loyalty to Trump and an understanding of the intelligence community’s inner workings. In late January 2017, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama holdover, warned the White House that Flynn had misled them about conversations with the Russian ambassador. The FBI had already interviewed Flynn, in a meeting arranged by Comey that bypassed standard White House protocol. Even Peter Strzok, one of the interviewing agents, admitted they did not believe Flynn had lied. Nevertheless, the incident was used to force Flynn’s resignation on February 13, with Vice President Pence publicly citing dishonesty over sanctions discussions. In hindsight, it is clear this was less about Flynn’s conduct than about removing a man who might have quickly uncovered the flimsiness of the Russia allegations.
Next came Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a Trump loyalist but a DOJ outsider with no prior experience in its leadership. Under pressure over his own contacts with the same Russian ambassador, Sessions recused himself from any matters related to the 2016 campaign on March 2. This decision, encouraged by DOJ ethics officials from the Obama era and accepted without challenge by Pence and other advisers, effectively ceded control of any Trump-Russia inquiries to deep state officials and Obama holdovers. It was the opening the FBI needed.
By mid-May, after Trump fired Comey at the recommendation of Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the FBI’s leadership was in open revolt. McCabe, Priestap, and Baker, all veterans of the Obama years, debated whether Trump had acted at Moscow’s behest. They even discussed the 25th Amendment and the idea of Rosenstein surreptitiously recording the president. These were not jokes. On May 16, McCabe authorized a full counterintelligence and criminal investigation into Trump himself, premised on the possibility that he was an agent of a foreign power. This was the first such investigation of a sitting president in US history.
The evidentiary basis for this move was paper-thin, much of it drawn from the Steele dossier, a work of partisan fiction that its own author was unwilling to verify. Baker, the FBI’s top lawyer, was a personal friend of Michael Sussmann, the Clinton campaign attorney who had helped funnel the dossier to the Bureau. Priestap, who signed off on the investigation, had overseen its use in obtaining FISA warrants to surveil Trump associates. They knew the source was tainted and the allegations were fiction. They proceeded anyway.
The day after the investigation formally opened, Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel, locking the inquiry beyond Trump’s reach. Mueller’s team, stocked with Democratic donors and Obama DOJ and FBI veterans, inherited the case and its political overtones. For nearly two years, the president governed under a cloud of suspicion, his every move interpreted through the lens of an unfounded allegation.
The impact on Trump’s presidency was profound. Key legislative initiatives stalled. Allies in Congress, warned privately by Pence and others that the investigation was serious, kept their distance. Figures like John McCain, Paul Ryan, and Jeff Flake acted in ways that hampered Trump’s agenda, from blocking Obamacare repeal to threatening his judicial nominations. Inside the executive branch, FBI Director Christopher Wray, another newcomer with no institutional knowledge of the Bureau’s internal politics, declined to purge the officials who had driven the investigation, allowing them to operate until they were forced out by Inspector General findings.
By the time Mueller submitted his report in March 2019, concluding there was no evidence of collusion, the damage was done. Trump’s first term had been defined in large part by a manufactured scandal. The narrative of foreign compromise, though disproven, had justified a Special Counsel, sustained hostile media coverage, and ultimately greased the skids for an unfounded impeachment over Ukraine.
The Durham Annex, unearthed years later, stripped away any lingering doubt about intent. It documented that the Russia collusion story was conceived as a political hit, that it was known to be false by the time it was weaponized in 2017, and that senior intelligence and law enforcement officials chose to advance it rather than expose it. In Madison’s terms, the accumulation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same hands, here, the unelected leadership of the FBI and DOJ, amounted to tyranny.
That Trump survived this onslaught is remarkable. Few presidents, faced with a hostile bureaucracy, disloyal appointees, and a media eager to amplify every leak, could have done so. That the plot failed to remove him does not make it less a coup. It makes it a failed coup, one whose near-success should alarm anyone who values electoral legitimacy.
The lesson is clear. The intelligence and law enforcement apparatus of the United States must never again be allowed to become an instrument of partisan warfare. The use of fabricated opposition research to justify surveillance, investigations, and the effective nullification of an election result is a violation not just of political norms but of the constitutional order. It took years for the facts to emerge. It will take far longer to repair the trust that was lost.
If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing: https://x.com/amuse.
Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.
ANALYSIS – Please hold the door! Well, it can’t get more ironic or infuriating than this.
A new video appears to show a U.S. soldier, apparently, a female National Guard troop activated by Joe Biden, unlocking and opening a gate in Texas to allow a large group of illegal aliens to cross into the United States.
And Biden thinks it’s funny.
This, after Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas shamelessly said on ABC’s “This Week” that Team Biden had succeeded in getting the word out that the nation’s borders were not open.
The video tweeted by Fox News Channel (FNC) Los Angeles bureau reporter Bill Melugin, is dated May 15, just after Biden allowed the Trump-era Title 42 to expire. The specific location in Texas was Eagle Pass in the U.S. Border Patrol Del Rio Sector.
It is not an official Customs and Border Protection (CBP) entry point. In fact, the gate is part of a Texas state border barrier, and the land is reportedly private property.
And to be clear, the soldier was reported to be acting under orders, and the migrants were loaded on a U.S. government bus.
Texas officials quickly highlighted that the soldier is not a member of the Texas National Guard deployed by Governor Greg Abbott under Operation Lone Star.
Instead, she is a Missouri Army National Guard (ARNG) member deployed to “assist” Border Patrol agents under Title 10 by Team Biden.
But the joke is on us.
It seems Biden’s understanding of “assisting the Border Patrol” involves opening the gates to allow illegal migrants to enter the country before being symbolically “processed” and released into the country.
Many of the migrants are being given immigration court date appearances set so far into the future as to be meaningless. Others are let go without any specific court dates.
One Venezuelan told the Washington Examiner that his mother “was told to wait 10 years before she can see a judge.” Another Venezuelan man was told to appear in court in March – 2027.
When asked by reporters about how he believed things were proceeding after Title 42 expired, Biden responded with a laugh, saying: “Much better than you all expected.”
Of course, they are better than expected when you are facilitating their entry to avoid images of mass chaos at the border. “Thank God there’s a camera there so we can watch them all come through in a nice orderly fashion,” one Twitter user commented.
Even disgraced and fired liberal CNN host Chris Cuomo bashed Biden about this:
…we have our president laughing, “Ha ha ha. It’s not as bad as you expected.” Really? With record numbers being processed and released into America. It’s no laughing matter, but if it is a joke, the joke is on us, because the people in power are allowing this to continue.
And while the border looks less chaotic than in recent months, illegal migrants are filling processing centers to capacity, with an unbelievable backlog of two million pending court cases.
Meanwhile, Mayorkas also touted a 50% drop in illegal migrant encounters on the border since Title 42 was rescinded, with 6,300 encounters on Friday and about 4,200 on Saturday.
But their numbers had exploded right before the end of the pandemic-era restriction, topping more than 10,000 a day, so a big drop isn’t hard to achieve.
And with U.S. troops deployed, order is restored – because the border gates are now officially open. The joke really is on us.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
