Opinion

Home Opinion Page 39

Media and Dems Admit US ‘Border Crisis’ Only ‘Days Away’

7
Construction continues on new border wall system project near Yuma, AZ. Recently constructed border wall near Yuma, Arizona on June 3, 2020. CBP photo by Jerry Glaser.

ANALYSIS – Unfortunately it’s a little late. The Biden border crisis has been ongoing for over two years. It’s only about to get much worse. When Time publishes a piece warning about an impending border crisis, you know it’s a lot more serious than they say.

And this time it will be impossible for the establishment media to ignore or sweep under the rug.

Criminal smugglers, and the powerful drug cartels they work for, control parts of the border. They have been telling would-be illegal migrants that the end of Title 42 will allow people to come into the U.S. 

I have written that there are between 700,000 and one million migrants poised to swarm the border this week when Joe Biden has set Title 42 to expire.

In preparation for the expected migrant onslaught, Biden ordered 1,500 active-duty U.S. troops to the border to support Customs and Border Patrol (CPB) agents on the ground. Though these troops will be mostly performing administrative duties.

Of course, Time does its best to ignore Biden’s dramatic reversal of Donald Trump’s effective border and immigration policies as a cause of the current crisis. Instead, it shills for Team Biden by mindlessly repeating the left’s talking points:

There’s very little a homeland security secretary or an American President can do to reverse human migration patterns predominantly caused by climate change, new storm patterns, rampant violence and economic need. U.S. immigration laws, which could create orderly entry points for migrants to register and work and live in the U.S., are poorly designed to do so, and haven’t been updated in three decades.

Sorry Time, those are all red herrings and have been minor factors for years. The biggest factor in the crisis that has hit our border over the past two years – and is about to get far worse – is Joe Biden and his homeland security secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas. 

Republicans have been sharply critical of Mayorkas’ performance as head of DHS and have called for his removal.

Beyond national security and humanitarian concerns, the consequences of this coming illegal migrant tsunami will also have an impact on the 2024 elections.

And Biden and the Democrats have reason to be worried.

Time writes:

The expected surge in migrants at the border comes weeks after Biden announced his bid for another term in office. A protracted border crisis could become a political liability for Biden going into the 2024 election. A poll in April of swing state voters by Global Strategy Group found that 52% of voters think Biden is ignoring the problem of immigration. But Biden’s new efforts to open up more legal ways to enter the United States, while increasing the consequences for those who cross into the US illegally, may resonate with voters in the key states he needs to win reelection. The April poll found that 76% of swing state voters had positive views of increasing border security, and a similar majority of voters…

This is probably why a member of Congress from Biden’s own party is demanding that he and Mayorkas join Republicans to find a bipartisan solution on immigration as Biden ends the Trump-era Title 42 expulsion policy.

Fox News reports:

Rep. Sharice Davids, D-Kan., warned that the expected onslaught of people trying to cross the border illegally after Title 42 ends could exacerbate the “humanitarian and refugee crisis” if nothing is done to mitigate it.

“As the President has decided to lift the [Title 42] order this week, we now face a doubling of illegal crossings at our southern border by some estimates, exacerbating the current humanitarian and refugee crisis,” Davids wrote in a letter addressed to Mayorkas.

Davids adds: 

As Congress considers immigration reform in the coming weeks, we must make clear to the American people that we are taking this challenge seriously and are ready to find solutions. You [Mayorkas] have had a year to engage prior to the lifting of Title 42, and I hope that you and the President both recommit to working with Congress to achieve real results.

Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

Marines Urged by Woke Study to Use Gender-Neutral Terms in Boot Camp

8

ANALYSIS – In the most glaring example of wokeness in the military, which the Marine Commandant recently claimed wasn’t an issue in our beloved Corps, jarheads are being urged not to use sir or ma’am in Marine boot camp.

According to the Marine Corps Times, this is seen as part of a sweeping effort to avoid ‘misgendering’ drill instructors. This is something all Marines know has been a huge and pressing issue at boot camp for decades, as we have so many non-binary and trans drill instructors.

Please note my sarcasm.

The recommendation is part of a massive, recently completed, 738-page academic report from the University of Pittsburgh, which was commissioned by the Corps in 2020.

Instead of sir or ma’am the 22 University of Pittsburgh Academics that concocted the study – headed by biologists Bradley C. Nindl and Mita Lovalekar, recommend aspiring privates call their superiors by their last names. 

The study notes that other military branches have made strides to “de-emphasize gender” by using other names instead. 

The Marine Corps Times reports:

Instead of saying ‘ma’am’ or ‘sir,’ recruits in these Services refer to their drill instructors using their ranks or roles followed by their last names. Gendered identifiers prime recruits to think about or visually search for a drill instructor’s gender first, before their rank or role.

The far-left report is riddled with other woke ideas and includes a detailed study on improving gender integration at boot camp.

One important figure who thankfully appeared hesitant about this gender-neutral proposal was Col. Howard Hall, chief of staff for Marine Corps Training and Education Command.

Hall and others maintain that even if the Corps implements the change at its training facilities, recruits will then need to re-adapt to again addressing senior officers by ‘sir’ or ‘ma’am’ when they enter the fleet, as Marines in the real world would likely not enforce the rule.

 Hall told the Marine Corps Times, in slightly mangled terms, and some big words:

Honestly, that’s not a quick fix. What are inculcating in our young recruits that will or will not be reinforced when they graduate and enter the fleet Marine force? So again, we want to avoid any quick-fix solutions that introduce perturbations down the line.

And yes, while we all want to avoid ‘perturbations’ down the line, more importantly we want to avoid sheer idiocy right now.

Maybe our Marine officers should learn to be blunter.

This study also shows why the military needs to stop relying so much on outside consultants and academics, and their idiotic, ideologically-driven studies, to guide its policies.

Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

‘Wow’ – Reporter Calls Out White House Official on Biden Being ‘Corrupt’

7
White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre holds a press briefing on Friday, July 30, 2021, in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Erin Scott)

ANALYSIS – It wasn’t a good moment for National Security Communications Director John Kirby. The former Navy admiral and prior Pentagon spokesman was left dumbfounded when a New York Post reporter challenged him on the numerous scandals and investigations swirling around Joe Biden.

Citing a Harvard/Harris poll in May that found 53% of Americans believe Biden was involved in “an illegal influence peddling scheme” with his son, Hunter Biden, the reporter, Steven Nelson, was direct with Kirby.

He asked: “So what do you say to the majority of Americans who believe that the president is himself corrupt?”

“Wow,” was Kirby’s initial response as press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre tried to stop Kirby from answering it. “No, we got to wrap this up,” Jean-Pierre interjected after being heard muttering “Jesus” under her breath.

The exchange took place during the daily White House press briefing as Kirby was taking questions on foreign policy-related issues.

But Nelson had a lot more to say to Kirby in the lead up to the question.

“There is one committee trying to get an FBI file alleging that President Biden took bribes. There’s another IRS whistleblower who’s alleging there’s a cover-up in the investigation,” he explained. “There’s, of course, evidence that the president interacted with his relative’s associates from China, Mexico, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine.”

There is, of course, also plenty more implicating Joe Biden and the entire Biden family in widespread corruption dating to Joe Biden’s time as Barack Obama’s VP.

While Biden’s White House minions flail about to avoid touching the toxic topic, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer has said the FBI has confirmed the existence of a document alleging that Biden was involved in a $5 million “criminal bribery scheme” as vice president.

As I wrote about earlier, the committee subpoenaed the Bureau for the document based on a confidential human source (CHS), but FBI Director Christopher Wray refused to provide the report by the Wednesday deadline.

According to a whistleblower who approached Comer and Sen. Chuck Grassley, (R-Iowa), the document in the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ) possession would reveal “a precise description of how the alleged criminal scheme was employed as well as its purpose,” reported CBS News.

Comer has stated he will be pursuing ‘contempt of congress’ charges against Wray for refusing to provide the document.

Meanwhile, despite Jean-Pierre’s attempt to shut Kirby up about the allegations, he did eventually say:

The president has spoken to this and there’s nothing to these claims. And as for the whistleblower issue that you talked about and in the document — I believe the FBI has spoken to that, and you’re going to have to go to them on that. 

A panicked Jean-Pierre rushed to close the briefing and end any more questions, saying: “All right, let’s go…Let’s go. Let’s go.”

Running away from the issue, and curt official denials without anything concrete to back them up, are starting to wear thin with the American people. 

And this recent poll is likely just the tip of the iceberg headed for the Biden ship of state.

Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

Amanda Head: Huge Milestone for Conservative Films

0

Liberals aren’t happy about this…

The new movie “Sound of Freedom” is dominating the box office and Democrats are scratching their heads as to why…

Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

Fix The NSC: A Warning & Roadmap For Trump’s Second Term

0
[Photo Cred: Office of the President of the United States, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons]

A Call to Action: Reforming the National Security Council

Joshua Steinman, the former senior director for cyber on President Trump’s National Security Council (NSC), has issued a stark warning to the incoming president that demands immediate attention. Steinman, who loyally served from Trump’s first day in office to his last, cautions that mistakes in NSC staffing could spell disaster for the administration’s second term, leading to either ineffectiveness or outright betrayal. His insights form a compelling argument for a complete overhaul of the NSC as the cornerstone of Trump’s efforts to govern effectively.

The NSC, as Steinman explains, is not merely a bureaucratic appendage. It is the quarterback of the White House—the entity tasked with ensuring that the president’s directives are executed seamlessly across the vast machinery of the federal government. “If the president is the owner of the football team, the NSC is the quarterback,” he asserts, underscoring the centrality of this institution in driving the administration’s policy agenda. And yet, Steinman’s concerns suggest that the team surrounding this quarterback may not be up to the task.

Reflecting on Trump’s first term, Steinman identifies a critical error: the decision to retain approximately 50% of the NSC staff from the Obama administration. This hesitation to implement a sweeping purge, according to Steinman, allowed disloyal actors to undermine Trump’s policies. Some of these holdovers allegedly continued to operate under Obama-era guidance until explicitly instructed otherwise. Steinman’s message is clear: “Removing people like this isn’t personal; it’s just prudent.”

The stakes are high. Steinman contrasts Trump’s initial approach with the swift and decisive action taken by President Biden, who executed a comprehensive purge of Trump-aligned NSC staff upon taking office. This move ensured that Biden’s team could implement his agenda without interference from ideological adversaries. Critics labeled Biden’s actions a “purge” and raised concerns about the politicization of traditionally non-partisan roles, but his administration’s determination to align its personnel with its policies proved effective in consolidating its power.

Steinman’s critique does not stop at holdovers. He raises alarms about new hires, questioning their loyalty and expertise. Among those rumored to join Trump’s team is Adam Howard, GOP Staff Director for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), who is set to take the critical role of senior director for intelligence programs. Steinman questions whether Howard’s background equips him to confront potential interference from the intelligence community—a task vital to ensuring Trump’s agenda is not derailed.

The urgency of Steinman’s warning lies in the fundamental truth that personnel is policy. For Trump’s administration to succeed, the NSC must be staffed with individuals who are not only loyal to his vision but also possess the subject-matter expertise to navigate the complexities of their roles. Steinman’s concerns about Anne Neuberger, the Biden-appointed NSC cybersecurity director, exemplify this need. Her alignment with policies on artificial intelligence and tech censorship could undermine Trump’s objectives, should she remain in place.

Trump’s response to these challenges is beginning to take shape. Key appointments to his NSC include:

  • Michael Waltz, National Security Advisor: A Republican Congressman and retired Army Green Beret with a hardline stance on China.
  • Alex Wong, Deputy National Security Advisor: A seasoned diplomat who oversaw North Korea policy during Trump’s first term.
  • Sebastian Gorka, Senior Director for Counterterrorism: A known advocate for robust counterterrorism strategies.
  • Brian McCormack, Senior Advisor: An energy consultant focusing on energy security.
  • Andrew Peek, Middle East Policy Adviser: A seasoned expert on the region’s complexities.

While these appointments reflect a renewed emphasis on loyalty and alignment, Steinman’s cautionary tale lingers. The success of Trump’s second term hinges on avoiding the missteps of the first. The NSC’s ability to serve as an effective quarterback depends entirely on the quality of its staff. As Steinman aptly puts it, “The Intel Senior Director position is one of the most CRITICAL posts in U.S. Government.”

The broader implications of Steinman’s warning extend beyond Trump’s presidency. The debate over Biden’s NSC purge highlighted the tension between ensuring policy alignment and maintaining non-partisan governance. Critics, including the Heritage Foundation, argued that Biden’s actions undermined the apolitical nature of advisory roles, while supporters contended that loyalty is essential for effective governance. Trump’s administration must navigate this delicate balance, prioritizing mission alignment without descending into the partisanship that critics decry.

As Trump prepares to assume office once more, the lessons of his first term and Biden’s purge are clear: the NSC must be reimagined, restructured, and resolutely loyal to the President’s agenda. Failure to act decisively could jeopardize the very goals Trump has championed—from ending unnecessary conflicts to revitalizing the economy. Steinman’s call to action is both a warning and a roadmap: “Fix the NSC, fix the presidency.”

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.

Amanda Head: Big Culture War Victory!

1

Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

Hunter Biden Admits His ‘Bias’ Towards Pardons, Says Founders ‘Didn’t Imagine Trump’

President Joe Biden hugs his family during the 59th Presidential Inauguration ceremony in Washington, Jan. 20, 2021. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took the oath of office on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol. (DOD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II)

Hunter Biden is openly acknowledging what critics have argued for months: when it comes to his father’s sweeping pardon, he is anything but objective.

“I’m completely biased as it relates to what my dad did for me. I fully understand how uniquely situated I am in being privileged enough to have received a pardon from my father,” Hunter said in an interview published by liberal outlet MediasTouch.

The admission revives scrutiny over former President Joe Biden’s dramatic reversal on the issue. After repeatedly insisting he would not grant clemency to his son, Biden ultimately issued a sweeping pardon—undercutting Democrats’ long-standing “no one is above the law” message as Hunter faced serious federal charges.

Despite conceding his own bias, Hunter declined to weigh in on potential reforms to the presidential pardon system. Instead, he pivoted to attacking former President Donald Trump’s use of the same authority, pointing to the more than 1,000 individuals pardoned in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol protest.

Hunter Biden was granted an unusually broad pardon covering any offense he “has committed or may have committed” between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 1, 2024—a scope that drew bipartisan criticism.

“I was filled with gratitude,” he said of his father’s decision.

The legal backdrop is significant. In September 2024, Hunter pleaded guilty to nine federal tax charges tied to a scheme that evaded more than $1.4 million in taxes. Months earlier, he was convicted in Delaware for lying about his drug use on a federal firearm purchase form.

Still, Hunter sought to shift the focus toward Trump and his family, saying, “I don’t think that the founders ever imagined Donald Trump. I don’t think they ever imagined the Trump family.”

He also attempted to contrast pardon totals: “I don’t think people understand is that, in the first year, I think—I don’t know the exact number—I think my dad gave 80 or so pardons over a four-year period of time. I think that that’s about the number.”

He added, “Donald Trump has given over 1,500 pardons in the first year alone. But I’m obviously—I’m not the one to be, I don’t think, fairly or unbiasedly talking about the presidential pardon vote.”

Trump, notably, did not pardon any of his children during his presidency, though he did grant clemency in 2020 to Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in-law.

The White House defended Trump’s record, with spokeswoman Abigail Jackson saying he has used his authority to pardon individuals who were victims of what she described as a “weaponized justice system.”

Jackson also criticized Biden’s final actions in office, arguing that “the only pardons anyone should be critical of are from President Autopen,” citing clemency for violent offenders and “proactive pardons he ‘signed’ for his family members like Hunter on his way out the door.”

In addition to Hunter, Biden issued pardons to several relatives, including his brother James, sister-in-law Sara, sister Valerie, and brother Francis—moves he framed as necessary protection against political retaliation.

READ NEXT: Congresswoman Resigns In Stunning Last-Minute Exit

Amanda Head: Obese Celebrity Celebrates Her Own Obesity

0

Hollywood has finally gone full tilt…

Watch Amanda break down the latest woke controversy below:

Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

The other Soros: Senator Reveals How this Liberal Swiss Billionaire Has Been Funneling Cash into US Elections

2
Image via Pixabay free images

A left-wing Swiss billionaire has been bankrolling the voting systems used in American elections, with an alleged bias toward liberals, a U.S. senator reveals.

United States Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), a member of the Senate Rules Committee, pressed Benjamin Hovland, Vice Chair of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), on foreign influence in U.S. elections through what he called “a new form of Zuckerbucks: partisan, foreign-backed funding for local election administrators through the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence.”

Hagerty calls it a “highly problematic scheme in which left-wing organizations provide substantial, foreign-funded resources for conducting American elections at the local level.”

Much of the funding comes from Hansjörg Wyss, a Swiss billionaire and multi-million dollar donor to left-wing causes through his “Hub Project.”

“This is an $80 million initiative, funded by a web of left-wing entities, to ‘help’ local election administrators conduct elections,” Hagerty explained. “It’s a new form of ‘Zuckerbucks,’ is what it is. This network of entities has received tens—if not hundreds—of millions of dollars from a foreign left-wing billionaire named Hansjörg Wyss. He’s not a U.S. Citizen, so he can’t contribute directly to our elections, but he’s found a way to be involved in our elections.”

“After being repeatedly pressed by Hagerty to acknowledge whether foreign donations used to conduct American elections are acceptable, Vice Chair Hovland conceded that this interference is inappropriate,” a statement from Hagerty’s office reveals.

“Absolutely not. Of course not,” Vice Chair Hovland answered. 

“I want to be clear with that because what this is is Zuckerbucks 2.0 coming from a foreign billionaire involving themselves in our elections. What I want to make certain is that this Commission—that no Election Assistance Commission dollars are commingled in any way with these foreign funds,” said Hagerty.

Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

AP ‘Stylebook’ – How the Left Manipulates Abortion Language to Manipulate News

0
Washington D.C., USA - January 22, 2015; A Pro-Life woman clashes with a group of Pro-Choice demonstrators at the U.S. Supreme Court.

ANALYSIS – Most conservatives understand that one of the left’s major weapons in the war of ideas is manipulating language and using well-researched buzzwords and phrases to change reality and mask their more extreme ideas.

We see it every day with the constant use of ‘gun violence’ rather than shooting or murder committed by a criminal. We see it with ‘global warming’ becoming ‘climate change’ when the facts don’t support the narrative.

We also see it with the insanely deceptive and grotesque ‘gender-affirming care’ rather for genital-mutilating sex-change surgery.

And of course, we see it in spades with abortion, where supporting the unrestricted killing of unborn babies in the womb becomes ‘reproductive health care rights,’ previously known as being ‘pro-choice.’

The new term is far better politically since it appears to somehow be about rights and health, not deception and killing. Plus, ‘pro-choice’ has been thoroughly sullied by its accurate association with being ‘pro-abortion.’

And we can’t have that.

And now, since the Dobbs decision correctly returned the abortion issue to the states where it always belonged, the battle to control the language, and hence the narrative on abortion, is intensifying.

And it just got a lot worse.

The latest words and phrases chosen by the left to describe or refer to abortion fly in the face of fact and science.

But the leftist language warriors are now being reinforced by the power behind the news media – the Associated Press—and its widely used ‘Stylebook.’

The Daily Signal reports:

The Associated Press recently released a guide for news outlets for reporting on abortion that’s so biased in favor of the procedure, its guidance often runs contrary to medical science. The new guide has the ability to significantly distort how Americans perceive the abortion issue.

The AP’s “Abortion Topical Guide” is part of the widely used “AP Stylebook” that many outlets across the country, including The Daily Signal, use as a guide for everything from grammar to punctuation to best practices for terms and phrasing.

One glaring problem among many? The guide frequently cites the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to back up its guidance. ACOG claims to be the premier professional membership organization of OB-GYNs. But on the issue of abortion—a procedure that most OB-GYNs don’t perform—ACOG is wholly committed to lobbying for extreme abortion policies that don’t reflect its membership’s views.

In typical Orwellian fashion, the leftists at AP cudgel writers into referring to an unborn child’s “heartbeat,” which is detectable via ultrasound from the very early stages of life to the deliberately bland and mostly meaningless term “cardiac activity.”

The Stylebook also inappropriately enters the scientific realm as self-made medical experts when it advises writers not to refer to unborn children as “pain-capable” until after at least 24 weeks.

This, even though the beloved doctors who actually perform surgeries on ‘preemies,’ or premature babies in utero, regularly use anesthesia for those babies under 24 weeks because they feel pain.

The AP’s demonic advice also contradicts the massive, and growing, body of research showing unborn babies can feel pain at just 15 weeks or even earlier.

And most importantly, the Stylebook admonishes writers to never, ever use the accurate but uncomfortable phrase – ‘late-term abortion.’

Polls show a solid majority of Americans are opposed to late-term abortions, so best to religiously (pun intended) avoid the term.

The Daily Signal concludes:

The AP guide misses the mark throughout. Of course, that’s inevitable when the goal is not objective reporting of fact but rather promoting pro-abortion propaganda. Try as the AP might, it’s a fool’s errand to put lipstick on a pig.

I go further by saying AP is part of the left’s far-flung language-distorting media empire intended to manipulate words, in order to manipulate news, in order to manipulate you.

Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.