Hollywood actor Woody Harrelson is facing intense criticism after his recent Saturday Night Live appearance…
Watch Amanda break down the scandal below…
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – None dare call it hate. The recent horrific mass killing in Nashville is even more tragic when we understand who the killer was – and how the mass media has either ignored or downplayed her ‘trans’ identity.
Or has made it a point of calling her a man rather than a mentally ill woman.
It’s also tragic, no – outrageous – that none in the establishment media, or Joe Biden or anyone in his administration, has labeled the shooting a ‘hate crime’ even though it was.
Local law enforcement has called it a targeted attack against a Christian school.
The heavily armed 28-year-old mass murderer Audrey Hale who committed the massacre at Covenant School used two AR-style rifles and a pistol to kill three 9-year-old children and three adults.
Reportedly a former student, she was was killed by police.
Her ‘manifesto,’ discovered at her home, has still not been made public.
The killer was first reported correctly as a woman.
Then the media fell all over itself apologizing for its mistake and quickly began stealth editing its initial reports and started calling her a ‘transgender male’ (which in most cases is actually a female claiming to be male).
It is now mostly downplaying the trans issue and the fact that she was being treated for ’emotional’ issues.
And unlike the rhetoric often employed by Democrats after a shooter targets any minority community – like an LGBTQ club or killings simply in a neighborhood with a high number of Asian Americans – they aren’t calling this a ‘hate crime.’
The left is usually very quick to identify any crime it can committed by white conservatives, MAGA Republicans or Donald Trump supporters.
Sometimes it is valid. Most of the time it is not.
As my Georgetown roommate, and colleague, Quin Hillyer writes in the Washington Examiner:
The message is clear: The media will bend over backward to kowtow to transgender ideology when it benefits the gender bender yet will also do backflips to hide a transgender status if somebody might draw negative inferences. Too bad the media honchos aren’t concerned about contributing to inaccurate characterizations of conservative people as dangerous and unhinged.
First, let me be clear, most conservatives despise the ‘hate crime’ moniker because, well, a crime is a crime. Murder isn’t more of a murder because of the races or identities of the victims or perpetrators.
But if you are going to use the term and have it impact how cases are investigated, tried and suspects are sentenced, then call this what it was – a hate crime against Christians by a lunatic transgender person.
Federal law considers violence that causes bodily injury to a person to be a hate crime if it is motivated by race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.
Of course, the fact that this killer was ‘trans’ shouldn’t become the sole focus, nor should it be used to unfairly label other trans persons.
But it should be noted by the media and included in the entire process.
And the targeting of Christians by a trans person should be a major focus.
Senator Josh Hawley, R-Mo., who has opposed hate crime legislation in the past as too broad, quickly took action to ensure this anti-Christian hate crime perpetrated by a self-described transgender was treated as such.
He called on federal authorities Tuesday to investigate Monday’s massacre as a hate crime against Christian believers.
The New York Post reported:
In a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Hawley described Audrey Hale’s rampage through the Tennessee school that left three adults and three 9-year-old children dead as a “targeted” assault “against Christians” and called for “the full resources of the federal government” to be deployed to determine why the 28-year-old former student carried out the heinous crime.
“It is commonplace to call such horrors ‘senseless violence.’ But properly speaking, that is false,” Hawley writes. “Police report that the attack here was ‘targeted’ — targeted, that is, against Christians.”
“I urge you to immediately open an investigation into this shooting as a federal hate crime. The full resources of the federal government must be brought to bear to determine how this crime occurred, and who may have influenced the deranged shooter to carry out these horrific crimes.
Now, let’s see how Team Biden and the establishment media react.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
In the quiet corridors of Republican power, something unprecedented is happening. For decades, party leadership maintained a mostly unspoken, but deeply respected ethic: do not intervene in open-seat primaries, especially in safely Republican districts. Let the voters decide. Let the grassroots rise. Let the contest unfold without the heavy thumb of Washington tipping the scale. This was not merely tradition. It was a matter of trust, a recognition that voters, not donors, not operatives, not Majority Whips, should choose the next Republican standard-bearer. Today, that ethic is being cast aside.
The stage is Arizona’s 5th Congressional District, a deep-red seat held by House Freedom Caucus (HFC) stalwart Andy Biggs, who is stepping down to pursue the governorship. Historically, this would be the moment for conservative insurgents to rise, for HFC allies to present their case to voters without interference from party brass. Instead, what we are witnessing is an unmistakable effort by House Republican leadership to erase one of the Freedom Caucus’s most reliable seats.
Three separate leadership PACs have now contributed directly to Jay Feely, a former NFL kicker and establishment-favored Republican who is not aligned with the Freedom Caucus. Majority Whip Tom Emmer’s “Electing Majority Making Effective Republicans” PAC gave $5,000. NRCC Chair Richard Hudson’s “First in Freedom PAC” gave $2,500. And Rep. Juan Ciscomani, of neighboring AZ-6, added $1,000 from his own “Defending the American Dream PAC.” These are not idle contributions. They are targeted, strategic, and meant to shape the outcome of a race that should have been left to the people.
Only one candidate in the race, Daniel Keenan, a local home builder, has pledged to join the Freedom Caucus. His candidacy represents continuity with Biggs’s conservative legacy. Feely’s candidacy, by contrast, is backed by leadership precisely because it promises rupture. That is the point. The goal here is not merely to elect a Republican, but to deny the seat to the Freedom Caucus entirely.
To grasp the seriousness of this act, one must understand just how rare it is. Leadership PACs, particularly those operated by high-ranking figures like the Majority Whip and NRCC Chair, have historically stayed neutral in Republican primaries unless protecting incumbents. This was not a legal requirement, but a moral one. Rick Scott, as NRSC chair, was emphatic on this point during his tenure: “We should remain neutral in primaries, except in the cases of GOP incumbents. The voters will decide.”
In fact, neutrality in safe-seat primaries was such a bedrock value that during the contentious 2023 Speaker’s race, conservative holdouts demanded that Kevin McCarthy enshrine it in writing. The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), the House GOP’s main super PAC aligned with McCarthy, publicly promised not to interfere in open safe Republican primaries. CLF president Dan Conston declared, “CLF will not spend in any open-seat primaries in safe Republican districts, and CLF will not grant resources to other super PACs to do so.” That promise secured enough support for McCarthy to win the gavel. It was a recognition that such meddling would constitute a betrayal.
And yet, here we are, watching as Emmer, Hudson, and Ciscomani appear to do precisely what CLF promised not to do. They are not spending millions, but the act is significant because of who they are and what it signals. A whisper from the Majority Whip carries weight. A nod from the NRCC chair is not an idle gesture. Their PAC money announces a clear intention: the Republican Party must no longer accommodate the Freedom Caucus.
To call this behavior unethical is not hyperbole. The entire point of leadership PACs is to strengthen the party against Democrats, not to wage civil war within it. Donors to these PACs do not expect their money to be used to sandbag fellow Republicans who happen to believe in a stricter reading of the Constitution, in tighter budgets, in actually following the rules. They expect their money to be used to expand the majority, not to hollow it out ideologically.
This is why even modest interventions like these cause such a stir. They are not just financial acts, but symbolic declarations. They say to the conservative base, “You are not welcome here.” They say to the House Freedom Caucus, “You will be replaced.” They signal that what was once an uneasy coalition is now an open conflict.
There is precedent, to be sure, but not encouraging one. In 2016, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Tim Huelskamp was defeated in his Kansas primary after outside money flooded the race. It was widely seen as retaliation for his opposition to then-Speaker John Boehner. The establishment, furious at Huelskamp’s independence, funded a challenger, Roger Marshall, who went on to win. At the time, that maneuver was shocking. Paul Gosar, another HFC member, remarked, “The Freedom Caucus hasn’t challenged sitting members. We’ve only played in open seats. But isn’t it interesting that K Street and Wall Street are playing against our members?”
Now, that behavior is becoming institutional. The NRCC chair and the Majority Whip are no longer merely allowing such intervention, they are directing it. The shift is profound. It marks a move from tolerating intra-party dissent to crushing it.
What changed? The rise of the Freedom Caucus has been a source of anxiety for establishment Republicans ever since its inception. But with the return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2025 and the growing alignment between the Freedom Caucus and the MAGA base, that anxiety has morphed into fear. The Freedom Caucus has shown it can shape leadership elections, influence appropriations bills, and demand accountability. It is no longer a fringe. It is a force. And that makes it a target.
Trump himself has called Tom Emmer a “RINO” and opposed his speakership bid. Hudson and Ciscomani have similarly earned the ire of MAGA-aligned voters for their votes on spending bills and procedural maneuvers seen as too accommodating to Democrats. The leadership PAC donations in Arizona’s 5th are not just about that race. They are part of a larger strategy to neutralize the most vocal advocates of the America First agenda.
None of this is illegal. But neither is it wise. When party leadership abandons neutrality, it sends a message to grassroots conservatives: your vote does not count unless we approve of your candidate. That message corrodes trust. It demoralizes volunteers. It severs the organic connection between representative and represented. It replaces the republican with the oligarchic.
The party should not fear its conservative wing. It should listen to it. If leadership believes Freedom Caucus members are too extreme, they should make that argument on the merits, in public, and with courage. They should not attempt to buy the outcome behind closed doors with PAC money. That is not persuasion. That is manipulation.
What is unfolding in Arizona’s 5th is not just a local race. It is a test case. If leadership succeeds in deleting a Freedom Caucus seat here, others will follow. More PAC money will flow. More loyal conservatives will be boxed out before the voters even speak. The House Freedom Caucus will be diminished, not by debate or democracy, but by design.
This is not the path to unity. It is the road to irrelevance. The Republican Party must decide whether it wishes to be a big tent or a closed club. If the answer is the latter, it should at least have the honesty to admit it.
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 – In his Twitter Spaces debut Tuesday night, called “Tucker on Twitter,” former Fox News host Tucker Carlson immediately accused Ukraine of being responsible for the catastrophic attack on the Nova Kakhovka dam in Southern Ukraine.
And he may be right.
Ukraine and Russia have routinely accused each other of shelling the dam, the hydroelectric station and the nearby Zaporizhia nuclear power plant.
Both sides have blamed the other for the attack, in what appears to be a war crime. Kyiv blamed Moscow for the “terrorist attack,” but the Kremlin claimed that Ukraine had struck the dam to impact Russian-controlled Crimea’s water supplies.
As Newsweek reported, that is part of Tucker’s claim, too.
And, despite his spotty track record on speculation, in this case, he may be right. Or at least, the assumption that Russia is always the culprit is no longer valid.
Based on recent reporting, which I wrote about here, Ukraine may, in fact, have been responsible for the serious sabotage of the Nord Stream undersea gas pipelines in September 2022, which was long blamed on Russia.
This makes the always-blame Russia crowd look less credible. But that doesn’t mean Tucker’s always-blame-everyone-except-Russia approach is any better.
While on Fox, Tucker repeatedly blamed the United States and Joe Biden for being behind the Nord Stream attack.
On Feb. 24 he said: “So the Biden administration committed the single largest most profound act of industrial terrorism of sabotaging history. They blew up the Nord Stream pipeline …”
And that has always been a stretch. Instead, The Post reporting today reinforces my earlier conclusion that it is “likely, the U.S. was aware but turned a blind eye.”
Thus, as far as we can tell, Biden knew about it beforehand but was unwilling or unable to do anything about it.
Tucker’s claims aren’t helped when he spouts pro-Russian talking points in his video, such as:
The Kakhovka dam was effectively Russian. It was built by the Russian government. It currently sits in Russian- controlled territory. The dam’s reservoir supplies water to Crimea, which has been for the last 240 years home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
Firstly, the ‘Soviets’ built the dam during the USSR, not the ‘Russians,’ and the USSR no longer exists. Secondly, it doesn’t matter how long Russia’s Black Sea Fleet was based in Crimea; it belongs to Ukraine because that’s what happened when the USSR dissolved in 1991 and Ukraine became independent.
Tucker’s Trumpian personal insults, like describing Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as a “sweaty and rat-like comedian-turned-oligarch,” probably don’t help his credibility much either.
Tucker is on firmer ground when he argues that: “Blowing up the dam may be bad for Ukraine, but it hurts Russia more, and for precisely that reason, the Ukrainian government has considered destroying it.”
Especially when he cites a December report from The Washington Post in which a Ukrainian general spoke of using U.S.-made HIMARS launchers to “test strike” on the Kakhovka dam.
So, what are the facts?
The dam spanning the Dnipro River was breached on Tuesday, flooding swaths of territory and threatening crucial water supplies to Europe’s largest nuclear power plant.
At least 42,000 people and 1,500 square miles of land are at risk from the flooding caused by the destruction of the dam, likely slowing any potential Ukrainian military advance in the Dnipro River delta.
Much of the Dnipro River delta will become inaccessible for land operations, raising suspicions that Russia deliberately sabotaged the dam to prevent an expected Ukrainian counteroffensive.
However, the flooding has disproportionately affected the Russian-occupied side of the river.
The Kakhovka reservoir does supply Russian-occupied Kherson Oblast and the Crimea peninsula with fresh water.
Zelensky has said that the only way to destroy the dam is through mining and explosives and emphasized that Russian forces have now occupied the dam for over a year.
In a statement, Ukraine’s Southern Operational Command said, “Russian occupation troops blew up the dam” at Nova Kakhovka in the Kherson region.
Blaming “Russian terrorists” for the attack, Zelensky said on Twitter that “the destruction of the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant dam only confirms for the whole world that they must be expelled from every corner of Ukrainian land.”
In the end, Tucker may be right. Ukraine could have been behind the attack.
But he is far more credible when he is less bombastic and emphatic with his theories. Such as when he states:
So really, once the facts start coming in, it becomes much less of a mystery what might have happened to the dam, and a fair person would conclude that the Ukrainians probably blew it up, just as you would assume they blew up Nord Stream, the Russian natural gas pipeline last fall.
Tucker ended his new Twitter show by promising to be back with “much more, very soon.” I’m looking forward to it.
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.
Newsmax reported:
“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.
A legendary political adviser to former President Donald Trump is offering up his suggestion for a possible 2024 vice presidential nominee – one that would shock the political establishment.
In a recent edition of his “Stone Cold Truth with Roger Stone” Substack, former Trump and Nixon White House adviser Roger Stone suggests that if Trump wins the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, he pick Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as his running mate.
“Given America’s state of peril, if RFK performs better than expected, the former President should consider the drafting of RFK as the Republican vice presidential candidate in a ‘bipartisan’ unity ticket,” Stone writes.
“This idea is not without precedent; Senator John McCain really wanted Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman as his running mate in 2008. McCain was ultimately talked out of the idea,” Stone notes.
Were Trump were to do that, it would be historic.
Kennedy, the son of former New York senator and United States Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, is currently running for the Democratic presidential nomination against President Joe Biden.
It would also be highly controversial.
In addition to strident left-wing political positions, Kennedy is also an outspoken conspiracy theorist and has been condemned by members of his own family for his public statements about what he believes to be a link between vaccinations and autism, along with health complications.
“Kennedy and President Donald Trump were good friends prior to Trump’s elevation to the presidency,” Stone writes.
“It has been reported that Trump, who shared Kennedy’s concerns regarding the link between vaccinations and autism, had promised RFK the appointment of a balanced blue-ribbon commission to study and report to the President on the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations,” Stone writes, adding “Trump’s failure to follow through on this pledge is most likely a significant factor in Kennedy’s decision to run in 2024.”
Nevertheless, Stone believes a Trump-Kennedy ticket could be strong.
“(T)he selection of RFK would silence those within the Republican Party who are today critical, in retrospect, of Trump’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as building a bridge for thousands of Democrats and Independents disgusted by Biden’s fumbling foreign policy and the implication of the collapse of U.S. economic dominance to vote for Trump,” Stone writes.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) egregious overreach in manipulating Big Tech firms such as Twitter to do its bidding has now got an even more blockbuster twist.
According to Matt Taibbi’s ongoing ‘Twitter Files’ exposé, the FBI offered to be the conduit between Big Tech and the entire U.S. intelligence Community (IC) in its unconstitutional effort to censor Americans.
And it then actively became that conduit.
The Bureau also oddly referred to itself as potentially being the “belly button” of the U.S. Government (USG) in terms of interactions with Big Tech.
To keep a fig leaf of propriety, when making requests to Big Tech firms such as Twitter to censor or block accounts, the FBI ensured that the members of the IC involved in this loop would be in “listen only” mode.
In these embarrassing email releases, we see, in what was then real-time, the FBI’s growing entanglement with BIG Tech, far overstepping its legal mandate, and constitutional restrictions, and endeavoring tirelessly to corral as many other federal agencies into the effort as possible.
Beyond just looping in other intelligence agencies such as CIA, NSA, and who knows what other three-letter members of the IC’s alphabet soup, it even tried to get the State Department included in the unholy mix.
FBI Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan reportedly pushed for the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) to be included in the weekly call with Twitter.
For the sake of full disclosure, I am a former member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, having served with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) as a Human Intelligence (HUMINT) collector overseas.
I was also involved in a major Pentagon project creating news websites at our regional commands to combat anti-American and extremist narratives overseas.
All the work I did focused on fighting the war of ideas abroad – never at home. And they only involved providing accurate information to combat the lies, propaganda, and misinformation of our enemies.
Never to censor or quash stories.
The essence of counter-propaganda is to fight lies with the truth.
But, I’m intimately familiar with the agencies and techniques involved.
And never then could I have imagined some of our federal law enforcement, intelligence or other agencies being allowed, or given free reign to, suppress, censor, or manipulate news followed in America by tens of millions of Americans.
To his limited credit, even the woke and clueless Twitter Head of Trust and Safety Yoel Roth, pushed back on a few of the FBI’s increasingly outrageous requests.
Roth reportedly argued against including the GEC in the meetings because it was “political” unlike the “apolitical” intelligence agencies.
Roth expressed concerns about the GEC being “press happy” and said it would be a “major risk” to bring it into the weekly call, Taibbi reported.
These concerns showed Roth understood the dangers involved. Sadly, he went along anyway.
Note to Roth, it doesn’t matter if our intelligence agencies are ‘apolitical,’ they should be anywhere near domestic media outlets or equivalent ‘public square news disseminators like Big Tech social media platforms.
In a second note to Roth – you idiot, of course our intelligence and federal law enforcement agencies are no longer apolitical, to the extent they ever truly were.
The 2016 election and its aftermath made that crystal clear.
And all of those protestations appeared moot as Roth and Twitter rolled over to the massive government push.
Taibbi reported that eventually the FBI, DHS and other intelligence agencies, as well as the Treasury Department, Health and Human Services, the NSA and the State Department were among the government agencies sending requests to Twitter via Signal, a secure messaging app.
And Taibbi notes that Twitter ended up taking orders (aka requests) from every conceivable government body.
Per his tweet: “beginning with the [Democrat-led] Senate Intel Committee (SSCI), which seemed to need reassurance Twitter was taking FBI direction. Execs rushed to tell “Team SSCI” they zapped five accounts on an FBI tip…”
So, to those hacks who said these Big Tech firms were private companies following their own internal rules for restricting accounts, and not government censorship, and their actions had nothing to do with violating the 1st Amendment – these files call ‘Bullsh*t.’
Big Tech was, and with the exception of Twitter under Musk, continue to be acting in great part under orders (aka requests) from multiple agencies of the federal government, making them complicit in violating Americans 1st Amendment right to free speech.
This latest installment of the Twitter Files should be reviewed by everyone in government, Big Media, and Big Tech, as a warning of what NOT to do.
Especially, since this unconstitutional activity is still going on at the likes of Facebook, LinkedIn and other Big Tech firms.
It is time for full scale Congressional investigations, and clear-cut reforms, legislation, and executive orders that will put a stop to this outrageous collusion and censorship before it gets even worse.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – You know things are bad when the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Team Obama is worried about terrorists crossing the border under Joe Biden.
In the wake of the gruesome and deadly terror attacks against Israeli civilians by Hamas, Jeh Johnson told Fox News that he is concerned that Hamas or other Iranian-backed terrorist groups could use, or already have used, the wide-open border to infiltrate terror cells into the U.S.
As noted by 19fortyfive:
“There are a lot of people entering our southern border right now,” Johnson said. “Thousands and thousands. It’s a hemispheric move north bigger than anything we’ve ever seen. [emphasis added] And the challenge for [U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP], for our DHS, the FBI, is to try to keep up.”
Johnson continued, “Unfortunately, as you know, the system is broken, it’s horribly backlogged, and there’s a whole lot of people entering this country who we cannot identify.”
we know, Jeh. Please tell Biden!
Newsweek reported: “There has also been a rise in recent years in the number of people apprehended on the FBI’s terrorist watchlist, with border patrol agents apprehending 151 migrants along the southern border in the fiscal year 2023 who match the FBI’s screening system, according to the CBP.”
It added: “In fiscal year 2022, 98 people on the watchlist were apprehended after entering from Mexico.”
If Hamas can get past Israel’s highly fortified border with Gaza and deceive one of the world’s most sophisticated intelligence services to conduct what was mostly a massive surprise suicide raid to kill massive numbers of civilians, what do you think Iranian backed terrorists could do to us across our currently open border with Mexico?
One scenario involves them working hand in hand with powerful and deadly Mexican drug cartels that have free reign along the border and are behind much of the human and drug smuggling today.
As 19fortyfive reported:
Fox News reporter Griff Jenkins noted on X Friday that the Border Patrol had apprehended two Lebanese nationals in Eagle Pass, Texas, an area of high illegal migrant flow. Hizballah is based in Lebanon.
Hizballah has a documented relationship with the Mexican cartels that could easily be used to smuggle sleeper agents into the U.S. as it is used to smuggle drugs. Such agents likely would only be activated in the event of a war with Iran, because Hizballah is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC].
Recall that in 2011 the IRGC plotted with Los Zetas cartel to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. at Washington, D.C.’s upscale Café Milano in Georgetown.
Had that terror attack not been thwarted, it could have killed dozens of innocent civilians on U.S. soil. This is a perfect example of how Iran or its terror proxies could infiltrate the United States in coordination with Mexican cartels.
Today things could be far worse. They could then use Biden’s wide open border and the cartels’ growing networks inside our country to inflict maximum damage.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – While the left immediately claimed Donald Trump’s immigration plan for his potential second term is ‘draconian,’ and ‘extreme,’ it really isn’t. It’s essentially a needed dramatic reversal to Joe Biden’s extreme open border insanity.
It’s being referred to as a ‘bolting the hatches’ and ‘bomb the cartels’ strategy. And I’m all for it.
Especially since what we have now is total third-world chaos and thoroughly unacceptable for America.
The New York Post recently reported that Joe Biden has now literally opened the floodgates at the border by welding open 114 gates in Arizona’s border wall near Tucson.
The paper noted that in addition to endangered antelope being free to cross:
…the move is also letting an average of 1,400 migrants from as far away as China casually walk into the country daily — with overwhelmed and outnumbered border agents practically helpless to stop them.
“We thought the agents were going to tell us something,” one Ecuadorian migrant said. “But we just walked in.”
The Post added: “Smugglers are capitalizing on the floodgate blunder, driving migrants by the busload to the border and dropping them off as if they were casual tourists.”
And, unlike the mostly South American migrants who have been stopped crossing illegally into Texas, the immigrants coming to Arizona are from places as far as India, Egypt, and China.
Rather than the disheveled and exhausted South American migrants at the end of a long and arduous trek across Mexico, the migrants at Tucson now look more like folks on vacation.
The libertarian-leaning (generally not liberal) Reason outlet was also harshly critical of Trump’s new proposed immigration policies. But when I read their version of what they thought was horrible, I mostly applauded.
Trump’s plan includes:
Screening out Marxists as well as Communists – check.
Screening out potential terrorists from extremist countries – check.
Ending so-called birthright citizenship so that simply being born here from parents who entered illegally isn’t an option – check.
Quickly deporting criminal migrants – check.
Targeting Mexico’s deadly drug cartels as enemy combatants – check.
Generally making it harder to enter the United States legally (if you are willing to cross Mexico on foot, you can do more paperwork) – check.
I can easily stand behind every item noted above and below.
According to Reason:
“Trump’s plan would involve waves of harsh new policies — and dust off old ones that rarely have been enforced, if ever,” writes Kight. One policy would “ramp up ideological screening” for would-be legal immigrants. U.S. immigration law already largely bars Communist Party–affiliated people from immigrating, but Trump would reportedly expand that to reject “Marxist” applicants. Another policy would expand the former president’s “Muslim ban” to “block more people from certain countries from entering the U.S.,” notes Axios. Trump’s platform would also include ending birthright citizenship and carrying out quick deportations of criminal migrants under “an obscure section of the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts.”
Other aspects of the plan would target drug cartels and smuggling. It would label cartels as “‘unlawful enemy combatants’ to allow the U.S. military to target them in Mexico,” Axios reports, the same designation the government has used “to justify long-term detentions of 9/11 suspects at Guantanamo Bay.” It would also authorize the Coast Guard and Navy to form a blockade in U.S. and Latin American waters to halt boats carrying drugs.
Certain aspects of the plan, if implemented, would likely run into legal challenges. One such aspect is Trump’s reported intent to use the Alien Enemies Act, signed by President John Adams in 1798, “to quickly remove smugglers and migrant criminals…without having to go through legal steps in [Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s] deportation process.” Other policies would put hopeful migrants—and even travelers—through invasive and costly procedures to enter the U.S., such as social media searches and paying bonds to come here.
Well, after four years of border violence and chaos, and an unprecedented wave of illegal immigrants being practically invited across an open border before being shuttled throughout the country and fed and housed at taxpayer expense, it is time for some cracking down.
Bolt the hatches and bomb away.
ANALYSIS – We are rightfully covering all aspects of the ongoing legal proceedings against former president Donald Trump, especially the most recent federal indictment.
But we also need to ask – what about the federal investigations into Joe and Hunter Biden? They are potentially far more serious.
Bill Barr, Attorney General under Trump, said the protracted investigation into Hunter Biden, which is being led by U.S. Attorney David Weiss, is damaging the nation.
“I think it’s time to fish or cut bait and find out what actually happened in that investigation,” Barr said, according to The Blaze.
The Hunter investigation has the strong potential to also implicate Joe Biden criminally, including credible whistleblower allegations that the senior Biden took a $5 million bribe from the Chinese.
That would be a far worse crime than anything Trump has been accused of.
But Democrats are quick to dismiss these serious accusations, and in some cases even lie about them.
Case in point, a confidential human source (CHS) allegations that Biden had been involved in a criminal bribery scheme.
After meeting with the FBI, where they showed Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin and House Oversight Committee Chairman, Republican James Comer, a document detailing the allegations, Raskin dismissed the whole thing, and apparently lied about it.
As The Blaze reported: “Raskin, the committee’s top Democrat, claimed the Justice Department had investigated the allegations in 2020 but decided not to move further because then-U.S. Attorney Scott Brady ‘found no evidence to corroborate’ them.
He also claimed information against Biden was given to the FBI by Rudy Giuliani, a high-profile, if slightly discredited, Trump loyalist.
In an interview on Fox News, Barr, who led the Department of Justice (DOJ) when the whistleblower allegations were made, disputed Raskin’s comments, saying the Democrat was “confused,” and essentially called him a liar.
According to the Blaze:
Barr said he assigned Brady the task of vetting the document to determine its credibility. He established this “intake process,” he explained, because there were a number of ongoing investigations related to the Biden family and he wanted to avoid “proliferating investigations around the country going in to the election year, all related to the Bidens.”
“We also wanted to protect the integrity of the investigations that were going on,” Barr said. “So this was a screening, a clearinghouse function to check evidence out before sending it to the ongoing investigations.”
Regarding Raskin’s claim that the document contained information provided by Rudy Giuliani. That is just flatly untrue, he said.
Barr added, “It was stuff that was developed within the department and the FBI from [a] confidential human source. And that information was checked out and it was determined that it was not likely to have been disinformation.”
Meanwhile, Biden decided to joke about the serious allegations about Chinese bribery.
When confronted by a reporter at the White House who asked about them, saying “Congresswoman Nancy Mace says there’s damning evidence in the FBI file that you sold out the country,” Biden replied: “Where’s the money?” adding, “I’m joking. It’s a bunch of malarkey.”
The GOP Congresswoman quickly responded: “[W]e don’t find selling out your country funny. Prove us wrong by releasing your and your family’s unredacted bank records. The FBI can’t protect you forever.”
She went on to list the names of businesses the Biden family allegedly used as “shell companies” to conceal funds received from foreign nationals.
Comer earlier had explained: “Most of these companies were limited liability companies formed during Joe Biden’s vice presidency.”
“The bank records show the Biden family, their associates, and their companies received over $10 million from foreign nationals and their companies.”
According to Fox News, an executive with Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian natural gas firm where Hunter Biden served as a board member, told the FBI’s source the payoff was to be divided: “$5 million for one Biden, $5 million for the other Biden.”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
