Oh, the sweet irony.
Democrat Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s latest venture in Hollywood is a complete and utter disaster.
Watch Amanda break down the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Every now and then you see a story that just hits home, and you know you need to write about it and spread the word. This one, reported by CBS News, is absolutely one of them.
Caleb Morse, 39, an Army combat veteran, set up Rustic Renegade, a gun shop and shooting range in 2018 in Lafayette, Louisiana.
Morse had served two combat tours in Iraq with the Army’s 2nd Infantry Division Special Troops Battalion, followed by service in the National Guard, and then worked as a military contractor in Iraq for four years.
One day an Army buddy Morse served with in Iraq showed up at his gun store with his car and his dog. Then he brought a lot of guns inside the store, Morse said, adding: “And I’m like, brother, what are you doing?”
Morse knew well that often when people, especially combat veterans, start giving away their things, they may be considering suicide.
But before Morse could have a chat with his buddy, the vet simply left. And for six months his buddy didn’t answer his phone.
Meanwhile, Morse decided to hold his friend’s guns at Rustic Renegade in case he ever came back.
Thankfully, as CBS News reported:
…his friend called and explained he had been in a bad spot and wondered where his guns were. Morse said he told him, “They’re your guns, man. They’re yours, you may want them back. And whenever you’re ready, they’re here for you.
“More than half of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, according to the Centers for Disease Control. In 2022, the CDC reported that 26,993 people died by firearm suicide. Deaths by gun suicide are at an all-time high and have steadily increased, nearly uninterrupted, since 2006 according to researchers at John Hopkins School of Public Health.
In the veteran population the problem is acute; in its 2022 National Veteran Suicide Prevention Report, the Department of Veterans Affairs found that the suicide rate in 2020 was 57.3 % greater for veterans.
Guns are more commonly involved among veteran suicides, at 71%, than the rest of the population, at 50.3%, according to the CDC.
Soon after his first buddy chose to drop off his guns with Morse, another veteran came by to do the same, telling Morse that he was “in a bad spot.”
Morse, who had similarly been very depressed after returning from Iraq, accepted the vet’s gun and decided to set up a system to hold and track guns being left for storage by troubled vets in his store’s inventory, telling them to pick up their firearms when they felt better.
Within a year, other veterans dropped off guns “about a dozen times,” CBS reported. Since then, he has stored about 100 firearms.
Soon after the second vet asked for gun storage, Morse was contacted by Gala True, an associate professor at Louisiana State University School of Medicine who specializes in efforts to prevent veteran suicides.
According to CBS, she met with Morse in 2021 to work on a project she was coordinating with gun store owners who wanted to store firearm storage for those in crisis who, for a time, didn’t want their firearms in their homes.
The Armory Project was launched in Louisiana that same year with three different gun shop owners interested in providing storage for firearms.
Through a Veterans Administration (VA) grant, True and her team helped the gun dealers build local networks and partnerships.
Mike Anestis, a suicide prevention expert, professor at Rutgers University, and Executive director of the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center and a professor at Rutgers University, said that in a country with roughly 400 million guns, the solution can’t be about banning firearms or stopping people from buying them.
And Anestis is absolutely correct. Voluntary outside storage, like preventing drunk driving by “taking away the car keys,” is a far better solution for preventing suicide by gunshot, than bans that violate our 2nd Amendment rights.
However, storing guns as part of a gun store’s inventory can cause liability issues.
So, as CBS reported, in July 2023 the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) got involved (in a good way this time). It issued an open letter to Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) and gun shops advising how to legally and safely store firearms for these individuals.
Providing gun storage lockers at the gun store that individuals can open themselves and put their firearms inside, is one option.
As the ATF letter states: “In this situation, an FFL does not “receive “or “acquire ” the firearm into its inventory, nor does the FFL assume control of the individual’s firearm.” This can reduce liability for gun shop owners like Morse, who want to provide outside storage for others in need.
This is a great idea, and a great story. Look up The Armory Project and see if you can help with the effort in your state, city, or locality.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
The popular video game “Sims” has always blurred the lines between reality and fantasy but now the game is trying to appeal to a woke crowd.
The disturbing new features allow users as young as 13 to be able to create gender-confused avatars…Parents are rightfully concerned.
Watch Amanda explain the controversy below.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – In case some readers weren’t sure, this is a big reason the conservative GOP ‘Freedom Caucus’ is threatening a government shutdown. Thanks to Joe Biden’s massive spending orgy, the gross U.S. national debt has breached the $33 trillion mark for the first time.
To be precise, according to the U.S. Treasury Department, as of September 18, 2023 (just 12 days short of the end of our fiscal year), the national debt has risen to $33,053,950,837,720 or $33.05 trillion.
America’s runaway inflation, which is crushing everyone’s pocketbooks, is just one result of this part of ‘Bidenomics.’
This unprecedented debt is also fueling concerns that another fight over federal spending may trigger the first government shutdown since 2019.
Without drastic spending cuts, it’s only going to get worse, much worse.
Even accounting for newly passed spending cuts, the U.S. national debt is on track to top $50 trillion by the end of the decade, impacted by mounting interest and the cost of the nation’s social programs.
This is unsustainable; a looming catastrophe waiting to happen.
And, yes, while Donald Trump clearly overspent, especially due to the COVID-19 epidemic, this current staggering debt, and the debt going forward, is mostly Biden’s fault.
As David Winston explained in Rollcall back in April:
The president [Biden] and his White House have taken the 2020 COVID-19, one-time-only crisis budget as his administration’s working baseline, rather than the pre-Covid 2019 budget, which had a significant $4.4 trillion price tag.
In 2020, because of the pandemic, the budget jumped 47 percent to $6.5 trillion, as both Democrats and Republicans supported the need for emergency funding. That COVID funding was to sunset as the country returned to normal — as it did last year. Apparently, Biden decided to ignore that crucial point.
Instead, he saw that supersized budget in 2020 not as a crisis, but an opportunity that could be exploited going forward to pay for what amounted to a historic spending spree that kicked off with the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan and drove what became the worst inflation in 40 years. During Biden’s first two years in office, he oversaw spending that was 40 percent higher than the pre-COVID 2019 budget.
According to the CBO, Biden is going to match Trump’s addition to the national debt in just three years, reaching a total of $7.1 trillion over his four years. That would be $1.5 trillion more than Trump contributed during his term, which included the 2020 one-time COVID emergency spending. If Biden’s 2024 proposed budget actually passed, he would add as much to the national debt as Trump and Bush 43 combined. House Republican leaders have made clear his budget isn’t going anywhere; but it illustrates just how out of control Biden’s spending policies really are.
This is a big reason why the House Freedom Caucus is willing to shut down the government to try to impose some sort of fiscal discipline.
While much of the news has focused on the ‘intransigent’ MAGA conservatives undermining Speaker Kevin McCarthy and the rest of the House Republicans on this issue, Biden refuses to even discuss the House majority’s proposals.
Biden says he wants a “clean” debt ceiling vote without any provisions to control spending. This is not surprising since he just proposed a budget that will reach a record $10 trillion in spending by 2033.
As horrible as a government shutdown will be, allowing this massive debt to keep growing is unacceptable. Without massive cuts, everyday Americans will still be paying the bill, long after Biden is gone.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
A federal watchdog group is going to court to learn more about why a former U.S. Treasury Secretary’s portrait was covered up after the release of a trove of disturbing email correspondence between him and deceased convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced it “filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Treasury for records regarding the covering of former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers’ official portrait in the Main Treasury Building in Washington, D.C., reportedly after his name surfaced in records connected to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Treasury (No.1:26-cv-00446)).”
“Covering Larry Summers’ portrait won’t make the Epstein scandal disappear,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Covering the portrait raises obvious questions. Transparency—not cover-ups—is the proper response.”
“An exchange of emails between Summers and Epstein contained in a trove of Epstein records released by the House Oversight Committee, Epstein called himself Summers’ ‘wing man,’” Judicial Watch notes.
Judicial Watch reports it “filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Treasury Department failed to respond to a January 8, 2026, FOIA request for:”
All records, including communications, about the covering up of former Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers’ portrait in the U.S. Treasury Building in Washington, D.C. Mr. Summers served as Treasury Secretary from July 2, 1999, to January 20, 2001.
“Judicial Watch submitted the FOIA request after a source inside Treasury informed a Judicial Watch lawyer about the portrait-covering incident,” the group notes.
Summers’ portrait was covered up after he announced his resignation from public life.
“In November 2025, soon after his name arose in connection with Epstein, Summers said, ‘I am deeply ashamed of my actions and recognize the pain they have caused.… I will be stepping back from public commitments as one part of my broader effort to rebuild trust and repair relationships with the people closest to me.”
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk.
Without a whisper, David Brock once again took his seat in that deep club chair, the one upholstered in battered oxblood leather and steeped in quiet menace. He reached for his tailor-crafted inner pocket, drawing from it a fresh Davidoff 702 Double R. The oily Ecuadorian leaf caught flame with practiced ease, releasing those same familiar notes of dark chocolate and café crema. Nearby, a Baccarat tumbler appeared in a silent ritual of service, filled just so with Pappy Van Winkle, as though it had always been there. This wasn’t just habit. It was stagecraft, and the man in the chair was directing a performance with constitutional consequences.
There was no need for preamble. Those in the room knew why they were there. Brock was about to reintroduce the legal profession to its own velvet-clad nightmare. His audience, a quiet circle of left-wing patrons and media barons, leaned in as he explained the next phase of his campaign, not against Donald Trump per se, but against anyone daring to offer him or his allies a legal defense. This wasn’t about winning court cases. This was about ensuring those cases were never filed at all.
The 65 Project, Brock explained, was not an electoral effort. It was not a messaging campaign. It was war. A war against the 6th Amendment, that slender but essential clause guaranteeing every American the right to legal counsel. Its aim? To deprive Republicans, particularly those challenging elections or government orthodoxy, of any capable legal defense.
Run through Brock’s network of nonprofits and housed under Law Works, the 65 Project deployed seasoned political operatives to file bar complaints, ethics charges, and sanctions motions against Trump-affiliated attorneys. The power of the model lay in its asymmetry. A single complaint, even meritless, could cost an attorney tens of thousands of dollars and a year or more in disciplinary review. And even if dismissed, the stain was permanent.
In 2025, this campaign has not slowed. In February, the 65 Project filed a high-profile complaint against Edward Martin, then the interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia. His offense? Alleged conflicts of interest tied to representing January 6 defendants before his federal appointment. The complaint cited violations of Rule 4-1.7 of professional conduct, a detail blasted across the headlines of friendly media outlets. As of June, there is no word on whether the complaint succeeded, but that isn’t the point. The accusation is the punishment.
Incredibly, the 65 Project also targeted the sitting Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi. On June 5, 2025, a coalition including the 65 Project, Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law filed a 23-page ethics complaint with the Florida Bar, accusing Bondi of “serious professional misconduct.” The complaint alleged that Bondi threatened DOJ lawyers with discipline or termination for failing to pursue President Trump’s political objectives, particularly via a February 5 “zealous advocacy” memo. It claimed her actions led to resignations and firings in violation of DOJ norms and Florida Bar rules. Yet, on June 6, the Florida Bar summarily rejected the complaint, citing a policy against investigating sitting officers appointed under the US Constitution. It was the third such complaint against Bondi, and the third rejection. Critics like DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle called the filings “vexatious” and politically motivated. That the 65 Project would go after a sitting Attorney General at all illustrates the sheer audacity, and absurdity, of their campaign. They have announced they will be filing more complaints against Bondi.
Even more outrageous, the same coalition named two additional Trump administration officials in their June 5 complaint: Emil Bove, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General and Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General. The complaint accused them contributing to a culture of unethical conduct within the Justice Department by pressuring career lawyers to ignore professional responsibilities and instead pursue political objectives at the behest of President Trump. The goal was clear: not just to intimidate one leader, but to undermine the credibility of an entire legal team working within the bounds of the law.
This complaint, like so many others, underscores the project’s enduring mission: to ensure lawyers think twice before defending Trump or any of his associates. Public defenders and private litigators alike have been swept into the net. Whether you were in court for Giuliani, or simply filed an amicus brief on election integrity, the 65 Project likely has your name on a list.
This strategy, weaponizing legal ethics as a partisan bludgeon, would have made Boss Tweed grin from ear to ear. Backroom operators like Col. George Brinton McClellan Harvey would recognize it instantly. Harvey, managing editor of the Democratic Party’s press empire at the turn of the 20th century, orchestrated conventions from smoke-filled rooms in Chicago’s Blackstone Hotel, where policies were written not in law books, but on cocktail napkins between puffs of Havana cigars. Brock, in many ways, is his spiritual heir, using legal bureaucracy the way Harvey used ink and influence.
The Biden-appointed judiciary has not resisted. In Michigan, Democratic activists succeeded in convincing a federal judge to sanction every lawyer who filed election-related litigation for Trump in 2020. Among them: Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, and Stefanie Junttila. Each was ordered to pay legal fees to Democratic Party groups and attend re-education courses, under the euphemism of continuing legal education. The court referred them for possible disbarment, fulfilling Brock’s vision.
Michael Teter, managing director of the 65 Project, has filed complaints against more than 100 attorneys across 26 states. The targets include high-profile figures like Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, and Cleta Mitchell. And while many of these complaints were dismissed by mid-2023, the damage to reputations and client relationships lingers.
The project’s tactics have drawn sharp rebuke. Congressman Lance Gooden, in April 2025, called the 65 Project a “political hit squad” and demanded a Justice Department investigation. Others on social media have accused the group of colluding with establishment Republicans to kneecap Trump’s legal allies. Yet Brock’s defenders frame the group as guardians of democracy, protecting the legal profession from ethical collapse.
Such framing is dishonest. When Alan Dershowitz defended Al Gore in 2000, no one suggested he should be disbarred for challenging election results. But now, lawyers challenging questionable election conduct on behalf of Republicans face professional ruin. This is not accountability. It is ideological warfare.
Critics may point out that the 65 Project has not secured many disbarments. That may be true, but they have achieved some high-profile penalties. Jenna Ellis was publicly censured by a Colorado judge in March 2023. Rudy Giuliani had his law license suspended in New York and is facing permanent disbarment proceedings in Washington, DC. John Eastman was disbarred in California following a March 27, 2024, decision by State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland, who found him culpable of 10 out of 11 disciplinary charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. His license was placed on involuntary inactive status days later, rendering him ineligible to practice law in California. Eastman has appealed, but as of June 15, 2025, no reversal has been reported. He was also suspended from practicing law in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2024, pending resolution of the California case. Lin Wood surrendered his law license in Georgia under pressure from multiple complaints. These results are rare but not insignificant. Still, the goal was never just disbarment. It was deterrence. It was a public display of consequence, a digital scarlet letter. No need to win in court when you can win in LinkedIn’s HR department.
The project has inspired imitators including the Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law. The Lincoln Project also targets law firms, encouraging junior associates to pressure partners against accepting GOP clients. Shutdown DC and the Un-American Bar maintain lists of “insurrectionist” lawyers. Others push the American Bar Association to adopt rules banning election challenges altogether, cloaking censorship in the rhetoric of professionalism.
Marc Elias, the left’s court general, has taken the mission even further, seeking to disqualify GOP candidates under the 14th Amendment, resurrecting post-Civil War measures to bar Trump allies from holding office. Lawsuits against Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, and others reflect this broader ecosystem of lawfare. It is a constellation of coordinated attacks designed to render conservative legal advocacy untenable.
And what of the Constitution? The Sixth Amendment was never meant to be partisan. It exists not to protect the powerful, but the accused. In America, even pariahs have lawyers. Even the guilty deserve defense. The 65 Project’s perverse genius is to flip that premise, treating legal representation as complicity, and enforcing political loyalty through professional terror.
David Brock did not build this machinery alone. Melissa Moss, a Clinton veteran, helped architect the effort. She recruited Democratic grandees, Tom Daschle, ABA presidents, former state judges, to lend legitimacy. Their goal? To make conservative legal advocacy professionally radioactive.
And it may be working. Some lawyers are declining GOP clients outright. Others fear disciplinary complaints, X mobs, or worse. The chilling effect is real, and precisely what the architects intended. The War on the Sixth is a war on courage, a war on professional independence, a war on the idea that justice should be blind.
In the end, Brock’s smoke-filled rooms are not about cigars or cocktails. They are about control. They are about ensuring that when Republicans step into a courtroom, they do so alone.
If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing: https://x.com/amuse.
Vice President JD Vance took aim at the Democratic Party’s likely 2028 presidential contenders during a lighthearted but pointed exchange on Fox News, joking that the party’s “dumbest” candidate is most likely to emerge from the primary.
In an exclusive interview released Wednesday on Jesse Watters Primetime, Watters raised speculation about California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s national ambitions, noting the governor’s frequent media appearances and rumored White House aspirations.
“Gavin Newsom, obviously, is running for president. Have you seen this guy cross his legs? Have you ever seen anyone cross their legs like that?” Watters asked jokingly.
“My legs don’t cross like that, Jesse,” Vance replied with a laugh. “You can interpret that however you want to.”
Watters went on to frame the looming Democratic contest as a showdown between Newsom and Vice President Kamala Harris.
“Gavin and Kamala are on a collision course,” Watters said. “Who’s gonna win?”
“The dumbest candidate will probably win,” Vance quipped. “That’s my guess with the Democratic Party.”
Vance argued that the current Democratic bench reflects deeper structural problems within the party, particularly its fixation on identity politics over competence.
“I mean, look, the Democrats have a couple of big issues, and one is that they lean so far into wokeism that they can’t see the obviousness of the fact, which is that Kamala Harris is not qualified to be president of the United States,” Vance said.
“That’s why she got the vice presidential nomination. That’s why she got the presidential nomination. This is who Kamala Harris is.”
Vance contrasted Harris with Newsom, describing the California governor as emblematic of failed progressive governance.
“Now, the flip side is, I think you have an unbelievably corrupt and incompetent governor in Gavin Newsom,” he said. “The fact that those are the two frontrunners just suggests how deeply deranged the Democrat Party is. Let them fight it out. We’ll figure it out.”
While Newsom and Harris dominate early speculation, Democrats face a thin and fractured 2028 field. Other frequently mentioned names include Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—each of whom carries significant liabilities with general-election voters. Many Democrats privately acknowledge that the party lacks a unifying figure with broad national appeal, particularly as voters continue to recoil from progressive economic and cultural policies.
Republicans, by contrast, are positioning themselves as the party of stability, affordability, and public safety heading into the next election cycle.
Watters noted that Democrats are expected to campaign heavily on cost-of-living issues in upcoming elections, a strategy Vance dismissed as deeply hypocritical.
“That’s a pot-meet-kettle situation,” Vance argued, pointing to Democratic-led policies that fueled inflation, higher energy costs, and housing shortages.
He credited the Trump administration with reversing those trends.
“We haven’t even been in office for a year, and you’ve already seen prices start to come down. You’ve seen rents start to come down. You’ve seen groceries leveling off,” Vance said.
“Is there more work to do? Absolutely. But the people who are going to do that work is the Trump administration, is the president of the United States, who is solving the Democrats’ affordability crisis.”
“You don’t give power back to the very people who set the house on fire,” he added. “You give more power to the person who put the fire out.”
When asked whether Democrats would attempt to impeach President Trump again if they regain control of Congress, Vance said such a move would be predictable—and revealing.
“I’m sure he’ll get impeached,” Vance said. “Look, they have nothing to actually run on or govern on.”
“Their entire obsessive focus of that party is they hate Donald Trump,” he continued. “So, if they ever get power, are they going to lower Americans’ taxes? No. Are they going to make your life more affordable? No. Are they going to solve the crime crisis? No.”
“What they’re going to do is they’re going to spend all their time and all of your money trying to get Donald Trump.”
Vance urged voters to focus on results rather than partisan theatrics.
“I think the American people should vote for the people who want to make their life more affordable, who want to make their neighborhoods safer,” he said. “That’s what we’re trying to deliver every single day.”
Newsom’s office responded to the interview with a digitally altered image of Vance crossing his legs in an exaggerated pose, captioned: “We all know JD copies Daddy.”
Their latest stunt isn’t new to the woke ice cream brand…
On the Fourth of July Ben and Jerry’s ice cream released a statement bashing America’s heritage.
Watch Amanda explain the latest controversy below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Finally, some common sense coming out of Hollywood…
The frontman of the famous rock band KISS has a message for parents trying to navigate the confusing woke gender mob.
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Maybe the realistic threat of the U.S. taking some sort of limited military action against the Mexican drug cartels is having an effect on Mexico’s socialist president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO).
Because Joe Biden’s administration is certainly not the reason — more likely though, this is just wishful thinking and AMLO, as the president is better known, is just pretending to play nice.
Still, AMLO now appears to be quietly meeting with American lawmakers on security and drug policy.
This, after several prominent GOP lawmakers recently called for the authority to use military force against the drug cartels, as part of the broader battle to protect our borders.
A massive wave of illegal Fentanyl is today killing thousands of young Americans each month (over 100,000 in a year) thanks to the Mexican drug cartels which control parts of the border.
The deadly drug is made in Mexico with precursor chemicals shipped from China.
These cartels along the border also recently kidnapped and murdered several Americans who legally crossed the border into Mexico. Others have disappeared. (RELATED: Mexican Drug Cartels Worried About GOP Calls To Use American Military Against Them)
Earlier AMLO delivered insulting lectures blaming the U.S. for the fentanyl overdose crisis because American families don’t hug their kids enough. (RELATED: Mexican President Says Mexico Is Safer Than US, But Murder Rate Is 4x Higher)
And this week, AMLO sent his foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard, to Washington, D.C., to mobilize Mexico’s 52 consulates, the most foreign consulates in the U.S., to launch a nationwide information campaign “in defense of our country,” he said, following “unacceptable attacks” by GOP legislators.
In what I called foreign election interference, AMLO also called on Mexican Americans and U.S. Hispanics to vote against Republicans.
But now a bipartisan delegation of U.S. lawmakers met with AMLO over the weekend.
Six Republicans and five Democrats met with the Mexican president.
And they report he told them he would work with China to stop their shipments of fentanyl precursors that are brought into Mexico and processed before being smuggled into the United States.
According to their press release, Senator John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Senate Finance, Intelligence, and Judiciary Committees, led the congressional delegation (CODEL) which returned to the U.S. Monday afternoon.
This month, Cornyn visited the U.S.-Mexican border and called on Joe Biden to enforce existing U.S. immigration laws.
In addition to their meeting with AMLO, the group also met with intelligence, drug enforcement and government officials in Mexico.
Senators Chris Coons, D-Del., Jerry Moran, R-Kan., Chris Murphy, D-Conn., Mike Lee, R-Utah, Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., and Peter Welch, D-Vt., along with Representatives Tony Gonzales (TX-23), Henry Cuellar (TX-28), Veronica Escobar (TX-16) and Maria Salazar (FL-27) rounded out the rest of the delegation.
Their press release stated that they received:
…briefings from U.S. intelligence officials, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, and U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ken Salazar on the United States’ security posture with regards to Mexico, recent killings of Americans in the country, efforts to stop drug trafficking, and illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border. The delegation shared their concerns with Mexico’s handling of these issues with President López Obrador and members of his administration.
“One of the interesting parts is he agreed to meet with China on how they could prevent getting some of the raw materials, the precursors, from China,” Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, told The Hill.
“So that in itself acknowledges the fact that China is sending these things through, mainly through Manzanillo and some of the ports on that side of Mexico.”
However, the threats of U.S. military action from GOP lawmakers have also helped AMLO whip the country into a nationalistic frenzy. And I trust his actions more than his words.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
