CBP Photography, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
ANALYSIS – I have long argued that Joe Biden’s border crisis is absolutely self-created, and it has become increasingly obvious that he in fact has essentially opened the border.
And worse this is absolutely intentional.
There can be no other explanation.
Biden’s shameful denials that there is no border crisis show that he is either delusional or a pathological liar.
Or both.
But his appointment of Kamala Harris, who can barely find Mexico on a map, as his border czar, also speaks volumes.
Neither has visited the border since coming to office two years ago.
Yet the illegal migrant numbers and incidents are only mushrooming in magnitude.
And getting worse every day.
The border is going from disastrous to cataclysmic.
And it’s not just incompetence or bad policy.
It is part of a plan.
Mark Morgan, former acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection says Team Biden “intentionally unsecured” the southern border because “they see a perceived political benefit from open borders.”
In a recent podcast with the Heritage Foundation, Morgan said of the border:
It’s a total disaster, simply getting worse. And I think what’s important is we really need to compare it to the last year under the Trump administration. Now, look, this is not a Right or Left thing for me. This is about factual data.
So if you look in the last fiscal year under the Trump administration, I think we were around 400,000 total encounters. What we saw the first fiscal year under the Biden administration, as you said, over 2 million. This last fiscal year, we had 2.7 million total encounters. In the first 23, now almost 24 months under this administration, we’ve seen over 4.7 million total encounters with another 1.2 million “got-aways.” So we’re actually getting close to 6 million total encounters, plus got-aways, in the first 24 months of this administration.
Those data points, Virginia, alone are staggering. It’s the worst self-inflicted border crisis we’ve ever seen on our southern border and our lifetime and the data is undeniable.
In response to a question about what the future may hold for the border under Team Biden’s remaining two years, Morgan said worst case things stay the same.
Horrible.
And that is unacceptable. As he added :
It’s insanity. It’s absolutely unsustainable. And again, it’s jeopardizing every aspect of our nation’s safety and national security. We cannot allow this to happen.GAND
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
In a disturbing expansion of the Biden White House’s illicit monitoring of political dissidents, federal authorities quietly sent letters to the operators of crowdfunding sites asking for private financial information on pages that used terms associated with Republicans, conservatism and former President Donald Trump.
In response, and to determine the extent of Biden administration’s wrongdoing, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) has sent his own letter to Eventbrite and GoFundMe “requesting documents and communications between federal agencies, including the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).”
A statement from the Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government announced they are “conducting oversight of financial surveillance of American citizens, including the tracking and monitoring of private financial records in coordination with federal law enforcement.”
According to the Judiciary Committee:
The federal government, through FinCEN, urged large financial institutions to comb through their customers’ private transactions and report charges on the basis of protected political and religious expression. The Committee and Select Subcommittee have uncovered how the FBI worked with Bank of America to gather private financial data of Americans. Congress has an important interest in protecting Americans’ privacy and First Amendment activity. Documents obtained by the Committee and Select Subcommittee raise the prospect that Eventbrite and GoFundMe may have been in communication with FinCEN or other federal law-enforcement agencies about activity on Eventbrite and GoFundMe’s platform.
Excerpts of the letter to Eventbrite read:
“The Committee and Select Subcommittee have obtained documents showing that following the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) distributed materials to financial institutions that, among other things, outlined the ‘typologies’ of various persons of interest and provided financial institutions with suggested search terms and Merchant Category Codes (MCCs) for identifying transactions on behalf of federal law enforcement, ostensibly to aid in investigations. These materials included a document recommending that financial institutions ‘search Zelle payment messages’ using generic terms like ‘TRUMP,’ ‘MAGA,’ ‘America First,’ ‘PELOSI,’ ‘PENCE,’ ‘SCHUMER,’ as well as a document reflecting a ‘prior FinCEN analysis’ of ‘Lone Actor/Homegrown Violent Extremism Indicators.’ According to this analysis, FinCEN warned financial institutions of ‘extremism’ indicators that include ‘transportation charges, such as bus tickets, rental cars, or plane tickets, for travel to areas with no apparent purpose,’ or ‘the purchase of books (including religious texts) and subscriptions to other media containing extremist views.’ In other words, the federal government, through FinCEN, urged large financial institutions to comb through their customers’ private transactions and report charges on the basis of protected political and religious expression.
“In addition, the Committee and Select Subcommittee have obtained documents showing that on January 18, 2021, FinCEN emailed financial institutions a list of ‘crowdfunding sites’ that included Eventbrite, GoFundMe, and Anedot, among others, and explained how financial institutions could use a ‘transaction reference’ to identify customers making certain transactions on crowdfunding sites. For example, in the email, FinCEN alerted financial institutions to customers’ use of Eventbrite, noting that ‘people have been observed using this site to post an event and sell tickets including bus tickets to the demonstrations.’ FinCEN noted how ‘Card Purchase[s]’ to events are findable using ‘the transaction reference ‘EB [the EVENT] with the phone number’ and detailed how individuals who purchased tickets to events in support of President Trump could be identified using the transaction reference, ‘EB MARCH FOR TR 801413720.’ FinCEN also provided a second method for identifying individuals using transaction references, writing: ‘[y]ou may see a Card Purchase with the transaction reference in the following format . . . [a Message or like a cause or candidate] with the phone number in the following format . . . .’
“Despite these transactions having no apparent nexus to criminal activity—and, in fact, relate to Americans exercising their First Amendment rights—FinCEN seems to have adopted a characterization of these Americans as potential threat actors. This kind of pervasive financial surveillance, carried out in coordination with federal law enforcement, without legal process, into Americans’ private transactions is alarming and raises serious concerns about the federal government’s potential abuses of Americans’ fundamental civil liberties.”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Amb. Robert C. O’Brien, the Former Trump National Security Advisor, joins Liberty & Justice to discuss the Brittney Griner prisoner swap, the current state of global affairs and the Ukraine war.
Co-founder and chairman of American Global Strategies LLC. He was the 27th United States National Security Advisor from 2019 – 2021. O’Brien served as the President’s principal advisor all aspects of American foreign policy and national security affairs.
O’Brien brought a renewed focus to defense and industrial base issues to the NSC. A long-time advocate of a sea power and a 355 ship Navy, O’Brien visited leading shipyards during his tenure. He also spent time at defense plants and with our troops at bases around the world.
During O’Brien’s time as National Security Advisor, the United States orchestrated the historic Abraham Accords in the Middle East, brokered economic normalization between Serbia and Kosovo, achieved significant defense spending increases among our NATO allies and increased cooperation with America’s allies across the Indo-Pacific.
Prior to serving as NSA, O’Brien was the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs with the personal rank of Ambassador. He was directly involved in the return of over 25 detainees and hostages to the United States. O’Brien previously served as Co-Chairman of the U.S. Department of State Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan under both Secretaries of State Rice and Clinton.
O’Brien was also a presidentially-appointed member of the U.S. Cultural Property Advisory Committee from 2008-2011. In 2005, O’Brien was nominated by President George W. Bush and unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as a U.S. Representative to the 60th session of the UN General Assembly. Earlier in his career, O’Brien served as a Senior Legal Officer for the UN Security Council commission that decided claims against Iraq arising out of the first Gulf War. He was a Major in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps of the U.S. Army Reserve.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Expert election prognosticator and FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver called on President Biden to immediately resign and let Vice President Kamala Harris carry out the remainder of his term.
Silver’s argument came in response to a Washington Post article about Biden’s recent trip to Brazil that began like this:
MANAUS, Brazil — President Joe Biden was in the middle of the Amazon rainforest, unprotected from mosquitoes, fire ants and loud, squawking macaws. But there was another pest he did manage to avoid: the pack of reporters traveling with him.
For a short speech in front of about two dozen people, the journalists were initially instructed to watch Biden on a flat-screen television placed amid sand and lush trees as the president spoke about 50 feet away, though they were eventually moved closer. As Biden finished his remarks, maracas rattled by a local group prevented him from hearing reporters’ shouted questions about Ukraine.
During a six-day foreign trip to Peru and Brazil that wrapped up Monday, the president rarely spoke in public, answering almost no questions despite repeated efforts to engage him. One television producer took to writing messages on a large pad of paper, holding it up as Biden boarded and departed Air Force One.
The story went on to note that Biden has been conspicuously quiet about the results of the 2024 presidential election, which he “repeatedly called the most important election in history” and “warned would change the country forever if [Donald] Trump prevailed.”
Silver was unamused by Biden’s performance as described by the Post.
“Is there any particular reason to assume Biden is competent to be president right now?” he asked rhetorically on X. “It’s a very difficult job. It’s a dangerous world. Extremely high-stakes decisions in Ukraine. He should resign and let Harris serve out the last 2 months.”
Nate, you’re a little late to the game on this one.
Americans have been getting ripped off. That is not hyperbole, nor a populist refrain, but a blunt statement of economic reality. The average American pays more for prescription drugs than any other patient in the developed world. This is not a function of greater access, higher quality, or more innovation. It is a product of a system that has, for decades, allowed foreign governments to underpay for medicine while forcing Americans to pick up the tab.
How did we arrive here? The answer is simple, if depressing: the United States accounts for less than five percent of the global population, yet pharmaceutical companies derive nearly three-quarters of their global profits from the American market. Foreign nations, through centralized health systems and price controls, bargain down the price of medicines. Drug manufacturers accept those lower prices because they know they can make up the shortfall in the United States. That is, in effect, a transfer of wealth from the American sick to the foreign healthy.
President Trump has had enough. On May 12, 2025, he signed an Executive Order resurrecting and expanding upon a policy initiative from his first term: the Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) pricing model. In his first term, the MFN model focused on Medicare Part B drugs, those administered in clinical settings, and proposed that the US would pay no more than the lowest price paid by a comparable country. That version was blocked by the courts in 2021 due to procedural issues and was quickly abandoned by the Biden administration. The 2025 version not only revives the core concept but also broadens its scope significantly. It retains the pricing benchmark based on peer nations while adding a novel direct-to-consumer purchasing mechanism. This allows patients to bypass pharmacy benefit managers entirely and buy drugs directly from manufacturers at MFN prices. The new policy thus marries institutional price reform with individual consumer empowerment, expanding the ambition and reach of Trump’s original plan.
Critics, as always, are quick to object. They warn that drug manufacturers will simply stop selling in the US or that research and development will dry up. Some even suggest that international reference pricing is a form of price-fixing by another name. These concerns deserve serious consideration. But they do not outweigh the manifest injustice of the status quo, nor do they erase the practical and moral urgency of reform.
First, consider the structure of the order itself. The MFN model applies immediately to Medicare Part B drugs, those administered in doctors’ offices, often the most expensive and specialized. Trump has instructed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to set price targets within 30 days and deliver measurable results within six months. If pharmaceutical companies fail to comply, the administration will take further action: drug importation from allied nations, penalties on noncompliant firms, and antitrust enforcement through the FTC targeting anti-competitive practices like patent abuse.
Second, the Executive Order proposes a direct-to-consumer mechanism, allowing American patients to buy drugs from manufacturers at international prices, bypassing the profit-hungry middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). This proposal reflects an economic reality too long ignored: the price of a drug is not set by market forces but by negotiated distortions, rebates, and arbitrage. By cutting out the layers of rent-seeking intermediaries, the Trump administration aims to restore both transparency and affordability.
On this point, perhaps the most surprising endorsement came from Mark Cuban who actively campaigned against the president supporting Kamala Harris’s failed White House bid. Cuban has emerged in recent years as one of the fiercest critics of PBMs in the pharmaceutical supply chain. Through his Cost Plus Drug Company, Cuban has championed a model that eliminates PBMs entirely, selling generic drugs directly to consumers at a fixed markup. He sees PBMs not as neutral facilitators, but as parasites, entities that profit not from creating value, but from distorting it.
In an X post on April 16, 2025, Cuban praised Trump’s Executive Order on healthcare and in particular, drug pricing by explaining how it could save hundreds of billions of dollars. His enthusiasm was not just theoretical. He outlined six specific reforms targeting PBM practices and emphasized that the EO’s direct-to-consumer mechanism aligns with the very business model he has built. For Cuban, this is not about politics, but principle. If Americans can bypass PBMs and purchase drugs at MFN prices, the savings could be transformative.
Gotta be honest. The @realDonaldTrump EO on healthcare and in particular, drug pricing could save hundreds of billions.
Here is how: 1. Divorce formularies from PBMs. Require them to come from independent organizations with no economic incentive from the formulary Make them…
Cuban has long called for transparency in PBM contracts, elimination of specialty tiers, and reform of rebate structures that inflate drug prices. These are the same structural defects the EO seeks to address. The alignment between Trump’s policy and Cuban’s advocacy is more than accidental. It reflects a growing consensus that PBMs have become a market failure in themselves, distorting prices and blocking access in pursuit of opaque profits.
Charlie , you aren't close. Drug prices are too damn high. But the big culprit isn't the brand manufacturers, it's the big middlemen. Namely PBMs. They work so hard to distort pricing the first lines in their contracts with everyone is "you can't disclose any of this "
That Trump and Cuban, two men with vastly different public personas, can agree on this solution is a testament to its power. The issue of drug pricing, once mired in partisan clichés, is now the battleground for real reform. Cuban’s support underscores the seriousness of the EO. It is not simply a gesture, but a genuine effort to untangle the knotted system that has left so many Americans paying so much, for so little.
Opponents cite legal precedent. Indeed, a similar MFN policy was blocked by federal courts in 2021. The Biden administration quickly shelved the idea, preferring not to test its legal authority. But legal difficulty is not legal impossibility. Trump’s new Executive Order is crafted more carefully, with an expanded evidentiary record and administrative justification. Implementation will no doubt be litigated, but the constitutional structure gives the executive branch discretion over how Medicare reimburses for services. Provided the process adheres to administrative law, the courts may well uphold it.
Let us confront the core objection head-on: that price controls reduce innovation. This concern is not frivolous. America leads the world in pharmaceutical innovation precisely because it has, historically, paid the price. The profits derived from the US market fund research labs from Basel to Boston. But this global good comes at a local cost, one that is becoming unbearable.
What Trump offers is not an end to pharmaceutical profitability, but an insistence on proportionality. If research and development are a global public good, then the funding of that good should not be extracted primarily from one nation. Let the Germans and the French and the Canadians contribute more. Let them pay their share. And let the American patient, who already shoulders more than enough, get some relief.
Consider the counterfactual: suppose the MFN policy were in place ten years ago. American taxpayers might have saved hundreds of billions of dollars. Lower out-of-pocket costs would have meant better medication adherence, fewer medical complications, and a healthier, more productive citizenry. That is not a theoretical hope but an economic projection rooted in well-documented health economics. The US spends more per capita on health care than any other country, and drug prices are a major contributor. The MFN model begins to correct that imbalance.
To be sure, implementation challenges remain. Drugmakers may respond by raising prices in foreign countries, undermining the benchmark. The direct purchasing mechanism may be slow to launch, hampered by logistics, safety protocols, or bureaucratic inertia. But these are not arguments against reform, only reminders that reform must be executed with competence.
Trump’s order also calls out foreign governments for their own price manipulation. The US Trade Representative is directed to push back against discriminatory pricing policies abroad. In effect, the administration is making clear: if you want access to the American market, you must stop freeloading off the American consumer. This is economic diplomacy at its most justified.
The pharmaceutical lobby will fight this tooth and nail. Already, industry stocks surged after the EO’s announcement, a signal that insiders believe implementation may be delayed or diluted. But if the Trump administration can muster the will to enforce the order, the effects will be historic. It would mark the first time in decades that the US government sided squarely with the American patient over the multinational drug cartel.
No other president has dared confront this imbalance so directly. Democrats have talked about drug pricing reform for years, yet under Biden, the MFN rule was rescinded without a whimper. Trump, in contrast, resurrected it and expanded its scope. In so doing, he returned to the populist conservative ethos that put him in the White House: government exists to serve its citizens, not to enrich corporate middlemen or subsidize foreign welfare states.
The critics will continue to cry foul. But as prices fall and access improves, their objections will ring hollow. The moral arc of drug pricing reform is long, but with this Executive Order, it bends toward justice. Americans deserve to pay no more than their peers abroad. At last, there is a president willing to say so, and more importantly, to act on it.
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 – While I never claimed C*VID was a deliberately released Chinese b*oweapon or even explicitly that it was part of a b*oweapons program, I did point out that China had an extensive biowarfare program that could be involved with the creation and leak of the v*rus.
I also explored the likely theory that C*VID-*9 accidentally escaped from the BSL-4 bio lab at the W*han Institute of Vir*logy.
This was the W*han bio-leak theory.
To me, this was a no-brainer and something any intelligence analyst of any merit should have been evaluating when C*VID first surfaced in W*han, China, in December 2019.
However, the mere mention of any of these considerations was immediately crushed by so-called scientific experts, the media, left-leaning politicians and a host of others, branding it disinformation or misinformation to even mention the possibility that C*VID could be man-made.
Big Tech social media platforms quickly made it their job to ferociously suppress any discussion that China may have accidentally created C*VID, much less that it could be tied to a Chinese military b*owarfare program.
This censorship affected scientists, and others, and even resulted in many respected persons, including me, being canceled by social media platforms, such as LinkedIn. [Editor’s Note: This article is currently being censored]
This draconian response was partly due to President Trump noting this was a possibility, producing a visceral reaction to say the opposite.
But the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) was also part of the major effort to downplay any connection between C*VID and China’s b*oweapons, claiming in an October 2021 Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) assessment that S*RS-C*V-2 was “probably not a b*ological weapon.”
Over time, as the evidence piled up, and experts became less afraid to contradict the official narrative, more and more reporting was done pointing to the W*han bio lab as the potential source of an accidental leak.
And now we are going beyond that and potentially linking C*VID to China’s secretive military b*owarfare effort.
A new unclassified report released by GOP members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) argues that C*VID-*9 “may have been tied” to China’s b*ological weapons research program.
The minority report, released on Dec. 14 states that “there are indications that S*RS-C*V-2 may have been tied to China’s biological weapons research program and spilled over to the human population during a lab-related incident at the W*han Institute of Vir*logy (WIV).”
Significantly, the committee blamed the intelligence community when it further stated in its report that it has “reason to believe that the IC downplayed the possibility that S*RS-C*V-2 was connected to China’s b*oweapons program based in part on input from outside experts.”
These ‘outside’ experts the IC relied on were of course extremely biased, many with political, ideological or financial agendas.
The GOP report also highlights that the intelligence community has “failed to comply” with numerous requests for information—including bipartisan committee questions about the experts relied upon for its assessment.
As The Epoch Times reported, Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, noted the IC’s non-compliance when he stated: “We should know who is making these decisions and how they are coming to their conclusions. I think that’s our responsibility as oversight, and to date, we have not received that information.”
Expect the Republican majority to push the intelligence community harder on this issue when it takes control of the HPSCI and other related committees.
It’s time we learn the full truth about how these assessments were completed. And also learn as much as possible about the true origins of C*VID.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
(Miami - Flórida, 09/03/2020) Presidente da República Jair Bolsonaro durante encontro com o Senador Marco Rubio..Foto: Alan Santos/PR
George Santos did not stretch the truth. He did not fudge numbers. He did not run afoul of technicalities in campaign finance law. He stole, lied, and exploited vulnerable people for personal and political gain. These were not victimless crimes, nor were they victimless lies. They were part of an elaborate scheme to build a fraudulent political career on a foundation of stolen funds, fictitious wealth, and unearned trust. It is time conservatives stop equivocating. If George Santos were not a thief, he might have been a talented, even promising political figure. But he is a thief, and a spectacularly cynical one at that. He stole from the old and the sick, he stole from donors, he stole from the US taxpayer. He is not a misunderstood maverick or a casualty of overzealous prosecution. He is a con man, and a criminal.
Let us begin, as the law did, with the false image he built. Santos, through deliberate lies to the Federal Election Commission and his own party, fabricated a story of fundraising success. In early 2022, he claimed to have raised over $250,000 in a single quarter from third-party donors, including a personal loan of $500,000 to his own campaign. These were lies. He did not have the money. He did not receive these donations. But this mirage of financial viability was just enough to secure his acceptance into the National Republican Congressional Committee’s “Young Guns” program, granting him financial, logistical, and strategic support. The GOP, believing they were backing a legitimate, self-sustaining candidate, diverted valuable resources to a fraud.
But Santos did not merely fake donor support. He invented donors. Using the identities and financial information of real people, Santos charged their credit cards repeatedly, funneling the proceeds into his campaign, other political committees, and even his own bank account. Nearly a dozen people were victimized, including individuals least capable of defending themselves. One woman, suffering from brain damage, had thousands of dollars withdrawn without her consent. Two elderly men in their eighties, each suffering from dementia, had their identities stolen and their cards charged. These were not passive accounting errors or clerical mistakes. These were acts of intimate, cold exploitation. Santos knew these people, spoke with them, thanked them for their support, and then used their vulnerability against them.
In one egregious instance, a donor who had already given the legal maximum found his credit card charged an additional $15,800 without authorization. Santos disguised this theft by attributing the funds to fabricated family members in his FEC reports, a maneuver that allowed him to continue the ruse while avoiding contribution limits. In another, he charged $12,000 to a donor’s account and deposited the majority into his personal bank. From there, it funded clothing, cosmetics, credit card bills, and gambling trips. The campaign, the candidacy, the public service, all were secondary to a lifestyle of luxury paid for by other people’s money.
Perhaps the most hypocritical of Santos’s frauds involved the pandemic. In 2020, he applied for and received over $24,000 in unemployment benefits from the state of New York. At the time, he was gainfully employed as a regional director at a Florida-based investment firm, earning over $120,000 a year. He did not miss a paycheck. He was not laid off. He did not qualify. And yet, each week, he falsely certified his jobless status, drawing taxpayer-funded aid designed for those hit hardest by COVID-19, the unemployed, the underemployed, the financially desperate. In an act of gall that would be laughable if it were not so despicable, Santos later sponsored legislation in Congress to crack down on pandemic unemployment fraud. The man who stole from the system claimed he would reform it.
Nor did the deception stop there. Santos lied on his congressional financial disclosures, the forms meant to ensure transparency for public officials. He claimed to have earned $750,000 in salary from a private company that paid him nothing. He reported receiving $1 to $5 million in dividends that never existed. He declared hundreds of thousands in bank holdings, when in fact his accounts were often in the low thousands, if not lower. In reality, his only actual income came from the investment firm and the unemployment checks he falsely obtained. The lies were not incidental. They were comprehensive, deliberate, and aimed at creating an illusion of wealth and competence.
Even more brazenly, Santos fabricated an independent expenditure group, a supposed political action committee called RedStone Strategies. He solicited two donors for $25,000 each, promising that the funds would be used for media buys and campaign efforts. They were not. Santos transferred the money into accounts he controlled and spent it on Ferragamo, Hermes, Botox, and credit card bills. This was not merely unethical. It was embezzlement. It was theft. It was a fraud perpetrated with full knowledge and intent.
In total, Santos stole or misappropriated approximately $578,750. The court ordered him to pay $373,749.97 in restitution and to forfeit an additional $205,002.97. These numbers were not speculative. They were calculated against real losses to real people, individuals whose credit was damaged, whose money was siphoned away, whose trust was obliterated. Santos’s 87-month sentence, or just over seven years, was not an outlier in the federal system. It was a typical penalty for this kind of sprawling, malicious financial fraud. Defendants with no political profile, who defrauded the government or private individuals out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, routinely receive similar sentences. That Santos was a congressman did not result in his being singled out. If anything, it spared him scrutiny longer than he deserved.
There is no serious argument for clemency here. Clemency is for excess, for injustice, for punishment that outstrips wrongdoing. Clemency is not for grifters who fake their way into office by stealing from pensioners and pandemic relief funds. One does not defend George Santos by invoking freedom, fairness, or limited government. To the contrary, every dollar Santos stole weakened the legitimacy of our electoral system, diverted support from legitimate candidates, and degraded the moral clarity conservatives must offer in a dishonest age. The true conservative position is to say plainly: this man is a crook.
Yes, Santos was charismatic. Yes, he had a knack for commanding attention. And yes, in another life, with honesty and principle, he might have served well. But we do not excuse embezzlement because the embezzler is clever. We do not overlook theft because the thief is funny. Our movement has spent decades insisting that character matters. If that is still true, then George Santos is not a man to be platformed or pitied. He is a cautionary tale.
Some will argue that Santos’s sentence was harsh. Perhaps. But that is not a reason to pardon him. It is a reason to scrutinize sentencing guidelines for all non-violent financial offenders. Santos should be treated like any other fraudster, no worse, no better. And by that measure, he has been.
Others say we should forgive him because the media was against him. But the media is against every Republican. What makes our side different, or should, is our insistence on personal responsibility. George Santos did what he did. He admitted it. He pled guilty. He is being punished in accordance with the law. He is not a martyr. He is a criminal.
Those who now seek to rebrand Santos as a political prisoner or conservative folk hero are doing damage not only to the movement, but to the truth. And that matters. For if we cannot call theft what it is, if we cannot call fraud what it is, if we cannot reject the normalization of criminality in our own ranks, then we are not a movement of principle. We are just another racket.
President Joe Biden walks with Chief of Staff Ron Klain along the Colonnade of the White House, Tuesday, Aug. 24, 2021, to the White House Situation Room. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)
ANALYSIS – Say it Isn’t So, Joe – In what must be one of the most ironic twists of news, in a world full of twisted news, Joe Biden appears to have taken home highly classified intelligence memos and documents during his time as Vice President.
Or, worse, took them to a private, unsecured DC office he used occasionally after leaving the White House.
CNN reported that Rep. James Comer, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, said he plans to “press the National Archives for information about the classified documents removed by Joe Biden during his time as VP. He said he would send a letter to the Archives — which his committee oversees — within the next 48 hours.”
“President Biden has been very critical of President Trump mistakenly taking classified documents to the residence or wherever and now it seems he may have done the same,” Comer added. “How ironic.”
This comes as an Attorney General-appointed special counsel investigates, among other things, former president Trump’s treasure trove of classified documents found at his Mar-a-Lago home in Palm Beach, Florida.
So, while still bad, Trump’s reckless disregard for sensitive intelligence now seems less unique, or outrageous.
Especially considering Trump was a political neophyte, and Biden has been in national politics his entire adult life.
To be fair, a key difference between the two cases is Team Trump’s long delay in recovering and returning the classified documents in Trump’s possession.
Biden’s personal attorneys reportedly found the documents in a closet when packing files in November while emptying out an office that Biden used at the notorious Penn Biden Center in Washington, D.C. for his nonexistent relationship with the University of Pennsylvania (U Penn).
There he was paid handsomely (nearly $1 million over two years) as an honorary professor from 2017 to 2019, but never taught a class or saw a student.
Instead, according to the New York Post, “Biden gave roughly a dozen lectures and talks but never taught a full semester’s course. Nor did he conduct any research or have any administrative responsibilities.”
This reality hasn’t kept Biden from claiming he was a “full professor” at U Penn for years.
In response to the public disclosure, almost three months after the documents were found, the White House evaded commenting by using the Justice Department ‘ongoing investigation’ trope.
CNN reported that nearly a dozen classified documents were found at Biden’s former office.
It is unclear why they were taken to Biden’s private office. The classified materials included some top-secret files with the “sensitive compartmented information” designation, also known as SCI, which is used for highly sensitive information obtained from intelligence sources. Federal officeholders are required by law to relinquish official documents and classified records when their government service ends.
In response to specific questions about why the Biden team did not disclose the discovery of classified documents in November at Biden’s private office, Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House counsel’s office, said that they are “limited in what we can say” now because the Justice Department is looking into the matter, and “further details” may be shared in the future.
Typically, despite some of the documents being clearly labeled SCI, CNN chose to report that “two people familiar with the call say, none of which are ‘particularly sensitive’ and ‘not of high interest to the intelligence community.’”
Yet, the designation of SCI on some of the documents says otherwise.
Newsflash to the hacks at CNN, by definition SCI information is ‘sensitive’ as in Sensitive Compartmented Information.
It is also always of high interest to the intelligence community since SCI always concerns or is derived from sensitive intelligence sources, methods, or analytical processes.
All SCI must be handled within formal access control systems established by the Director of National Intelligence.
While SCI is not a classification; SCI clearance has sometimes been called “above Top Secret.”
In practice though, information at any classification level (Confidential, Secret or Top Secret) may also be considered SCI and protected accordingly.
However, as noted above at least some of the Biden documents were Top Secret/SCI, which is fairly high.
The U.S. government requires SCI be processed, stored, used, read, or discussed in an extremely secure Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF).
Rep. Mike Turner, the new GOP chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has sent a letter to Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Avril Haines requesting an “immediate review and damage assessment” of the classified documents Biden had left in an old private office closet.
So, despite the laughable mental gymnastics CNN is performing to minimize Biden’s reckless actions in taking home some highly classified intelligence – in that regard, his doing so makes him no different than Trump.
Just more hypocritical.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Tucker Carlson’s misguided attempt to use cherry-picked moments of the newly released video of Jan. 6 to argue that nothing bad happened at the Capitol that day, is horribly timed and very dumb.
As I wrote the day after I personally observed events at the Capitol that day, January 6 was neither a deadly coup, insurrection nor peaceful guided tours of the Capitol.
It was a mixture of some of those things, none of those things, and everything in between.
And Tucker would have been far more effective, and credible had he used the video to show that the Left’s Jan. 6 narrative was incomplete, distorted, and totally one-sided, rather than trying to say it was totally false.
Because the truth is that Jan 6 was like the story of the blind men and the elephant, each one grasping one part of the animal, like the leg, tail, or trunk, and describing the giant beast as something totally different.
On Jan. 6 what began as a massive peaceful rally of tens of thousands of pro-Trump protesters, soon degraded when smaller elements (a few hundred) of the much larger peaceful crowd broke off and did conduct a violent attack on parts of the Capitol.
Hundreds more just stupidly followed the initial ‘attack mob’ inside.
In the first group, some had military training, used stack formations, and were very organized and intent on forcefully breaching the building.
While none were found with, or used firearms, during the riot, there was violence with sticks, flagpoles, and pepper spray.
I called these violent rioters, thugs, and criminals.
They were similar to the violent BLM rioters who had violently attacked police at the White House in the summer of 2020 or besieged the Portland Federal Courthouse for months.
On Jan. 6 police officers were similarly attacked and beaten, and the Capitol was ultimately breached unlawfully.
Inside, one non-violent protester, Ashley Babbitt, an Air Force security forces veteran, was shot by a Capitol Police Officer. Likely, unjustly.
She was the only person killed during the riot.
All this occurred in the span of just a few hours.
But the Capitol complex is massive, and what was happening violently on one end was not being replicated at other parts of the Capitol.
As much of the Tucker video showed truthfully, in many places and entrances, Capitol Police had allowed protesters inside, in some cases escorted them around.
In other cases, the police simply stood by as the ‘tourist’ protesters milled around and took selfies or acted stupidly.
Still, ever since then, there has been a profound narrative battle pitting those fanatics on the right who said nothing at all happened and the fanatics on the left who claim Jan. 6 was worse than Pearl Harbor or 9/11, and an insurrection that risked the essence of American democracy.
Sadly, neither side is correct, but only the most extreme one-sided ‘insurrection’ narrative was put forward by the left and last Congress’ Democratic-run Jan. 6 committee, and repeated daily by the partisan, anti-Trump media.
The insurrection narrative was pushed by cherry-picked videos and photos of the same short-lived Capitol violence from different views and angles, repeated in a nearly constant loop for the most distorted and dramatic effect possible.
Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger wrote in an internal message to officers that Carlson’s Monday night primetime program “conveniently cherry-picked from the calmer moments of our 41,000 hours of video” to incorrectly portray the violent assault as more akin to a peaceful protest. He added that Carlson’s “commentary fails to provide context about the chaos and violence that happened before or during these less tense moments.”
“It’s definitely stupid to keep talking about this … So what is the purpose of continuing to bring it up unless you’re trying to feed Democrat narratives even further?” Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) said in an interview, noting the videos didn’t show “anything we don’t already know.”
“I don’t really have a problem with making it all public. But if your message is then to try and convince people that nothing bad happened, then it’s just gonna make us look silly.”
So how should we view the events of the January 6 riot accurately and fairly?
Probably the best description was provided by Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.) when he said he has “a hard time with all of it.”
He added that Jan. 6 “was not a peaceful protest. It was not an insurrection. It was a riot that should have never happened. And a lot of people share the blame for that. The truth is always messier than any narrative.”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
