Random

    Opinion

    Home Opinion Page 39

    Mexican Cartels Ready to Overwhelm Border with 1 Million Migrants

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    4
    CBP Photography, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    ALERT – “I’m sorry, you’re screwed.” It is long known among intelligence and border control officials that the powerful Mexican drug cartels use illegal migrant flows to smuggle drugs into the United States. 

    As the migrant numbers surge, so does the drug smuggling. And illegal immigration has exploded under Joe Biden to unprecedented levels.

    Migrant encounters increased from 480,000 in 2020 to 2.3 million last year, according to CBP. 

    This is partly why we have a deadly fentanyl crisis in America right now. 

    As Fox News previously reported:

    The cartels have established effective — and lucrative — smuggling operations and use the migrant surge to bypass overwhelmed Border Patrol officials, according to Lines. Migrants can pay the cartels to help them cross the border, but if they can’t afford the cost, then they can traffic drugs or work off their debt in lieu of cash.

    A George Mason University professor told The New York Times that cartel fees for migrants crossing the border range between $4,000 and $20,000.

    This is why many migrants reportedly remain “indebted to the cartel” after crossing into the U.S., and are forced to work off their debts.

    And now Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) has said that these Mexican narcos are preparing to overwhelm U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) by inundating the southern border with between 700,000 and one million illegal immigrants as soon as Title 42 is lifted.

    This, Biggs says, is according to a county supervisor from his state, whose county sits right on the border. 

    The county official was just briefed by the CPB sector chiefs from San Diego through Yuma to Tucson. They warned that there are between 700,000 and one million migrants currently massing south of the border.

    And as soon as Title 42 is lifted the cartels plan to “overwhelm the system.” Biggs said CBP officials are telling local officials: “I’m sorry. You’re screwed.”

    Biggs reported this on Steve Bannon’s ‘War Room.’

    Referring to the incoming tsunami of illegal migrants, Rep. Biggs said the CBP does not have the resources to “keep them in detention and processing facilities.”

    “When those facilities get full…they’re going to just take pictures. They’re not even going to do full on processing. They’re going to take pictures. If we’re lucky fingerprints, [but] probably not even that,” Biggs warned. “And then they’re going to release them right into the local communities along the border.”

    In January, Yuma County Supervisor Jonathan Lines told Fox News that Mexican cartels control the southern border in his Arizona county and they endanger Americans as they smuggle drugs and violent criminals into the U.S.

    “This is not a political discussion,” Yuma County Supervisor Jonathan Lines warned. “This is a national security issue.”

    “Unless this situation changes and we take back control from the cartels, for the trafficking coming across our border, it will only get worse,” Lines said. 

    Not only that, but terrorists are coming through as well. According to CPB, nearly 100 known or suspected terrorists were arrested at the southern border last year. That is four times the number of 26 arrests over the previous five years.

    How many terrorists can we expect to be hidden now among the one million migrants ready to swarm the border?

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

    Judge Again Blocks Biden From Violating 1st Amendment

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0
    Gavel via Wikimedia Commons Image

    ANALYSIS – Even when presented with overwhelming evidence that Team Biden colluded intimately with Big Tech social media companies to censor conservative Americans, the White House doubled down on violating the 1st Amendment. 

    As I wrote last week, on July 4th a federal judge blocked “federal agencies from communicating with Big Tech firms to censor posts.”

    This, after a lawsuit against the Biden administration by three Republican state Attorney Generals (AGs).

    According to the judge, Terry A. Doughty, the AGs “have produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.” 

    “If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States history,” Doughty wrote in his preliminary injunction against more than 40 administration officials. 

    “In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the federal government, and particularly the defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.”

    Please note – ‘disinformation’ is any information the left and Team Biden don’t like.

    This is serious constitutional stuff. One would think the White House might say, “ok, we overstepped a bit.”

    But not Team Biden.

    Using the Orwellian doublespeak, the left always uses to hide the truth, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said: “We are going to continue to promote responsible actions.” 

    She added: “That is something that we’re going to continue to do to make sure we protect public health and make sure there is safety and security.”

    Using similar verbiage, the Department of Justice announced later that same day that it would appeal the decision, to protect public health, safety, and security.

    Basically, Team Biden said, we don’t care, we want to keep violating the Constitution and censoring our opponents. And we are going to request an emergency order from the judge to do it.

    The Daily Caller reported:

    Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and Louisiana Attorney General Jeffrey Landry opposed the Biden administration’s attempt to stop the injunction in a court filing Sunday, writing the administration was essentially asking to “continue violating the First Amendment.”

    “In essence, Defendants argue that the injunction should be stayed because it might interfere with the Government’s ability to continue working with social-media companies to censor Americans’ core political speech on the basis of viewpoint,” they wrote in the court filing. “In other words, the Government seeks a stay of the injunction so that it can continue violating the First Amendment.”

    Thankfully, on Monday the same federal judge blocked Biden again, denying the administration’s attempt to pause the injunction. 

    The Washington Post reported that Judge Doughty noted again that the plaintiffs (the state AGs) would likely succeed in proving the government colluded with social media companies “to engage in viewpoint-based suppression of protected free speech.”

    Responding to the hysteria surrounding his initial injunction, Doughty also wrote:

    Although this Preliminary Injunction involves numerous agencies, it is not as broad as it appears. “It only prohibits something the Defendants have no legal right to do—contacting social media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner, the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms. 

    Rejecting the administration’s argument that the order could chill law enforcement activity to protect national security, the judge added that It also contains numerous exceptions for communications related to criminal activity, explicit dangers to national security, and foreign election interference.

    Meanwhile, this important battle will continue as the AGs’ lawsuit works its way through the legal system.

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

    Latest ISIS Terror Leader Reportedly Killed – How Long Will Next One Last?

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0
    Photo via Pixabay images

    ANALYSIS – A spokesman for the Islamist terror group Islamic State, or ISIS, has announced that their latest leader has been killed “in action.”

    His death has not yet been independently verified, and no one has claimed responsibility for the killing.

    Asked in Washington about Abu al-Hassan al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi‘s death, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told The Associated Press: 

    “We certainly welcome the news of the death of another ISIS leader. I don’t have any additional operational details to provide at this time.”

    Qurashi refers to the tribe of Islam’s founder, the Prophet Muhammad, from whom ISIS leaders must claim descent.

    If the latest leader’s death is true, he would be the second ISIS leader killed this year, about 10 months after the death of the previous leader killed in a U.S. raid in northwest Syria in March.

    He would also be the third leader eliminated since the founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed by U.S. forces in Idlib, Syria in 2019.

    Their deaths came after the meteoric rise of ISIS in 2013-2014 following Barack Obama’s reckless withdrawal from Iraq in December 2011.

    Obama famously called ISIS the “JV team.”

    Meanwhile, some doubt the veracity of the claim that the latest ISIS leader has been killed.

    According to the Mirror, Hassan Hassan, co-author of the book “ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror,” urged caution about the news and says ISIS could have “easily” said “that person was killed and replaced with ‘Abu al-HussAIN al-Qurashi.’ Who could tell?”

    The Mirror reported:

    Writing on Twitter Mr Hassan continued: “Important to note that this is quite possibly a fake announcement.

    “Scenario 1 is that the ISIS leader was killed ‘accidentally’ during a raid or fighting without him being known to whoever killed him (the US, Iraqis, Kurds) so those did not know they killed the leader. That’d be unprecedented, but possible.

    “Also, jihadist groups have a long history of claiming leaders/commanders dead, just to get intelligence/security agencies off their back.”

    ISIS has been mostly defeated in Iraq and Syria, under relentless attacks during Trump’s administration, but sleeper cells still carry out attacks on both countries

    The ISIS threat has also been increasing recently, under Joe Biden, especially in Africa.

    Abu al-Hassan al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi was reportedly replaced by Abu al-Hussain al-Hussaini al-Qurashi as the despicable terror group’s new caliph.

    The Daily Mail reported:

    The [ISIS] spokesman did not provide details on the new leader, but said he was a ‘veteran’ jihadist and called on all groups loyal to IS to pledge their allegiance.

    Little else is known of the leader who is taking control of the beleaguered terror group whose influence over the Middle East has waned in recent years.

    Apparently, being chosen the ISIS leader, or caliph, brings with it a very short life span. 

    Let’s see how long this new leader lasts before being sent to enjoy his 72 virgins.

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

    Congress Reveals Stunning New Information on January 6 Attacker

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    7

    Members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee investigating the federal government’s response to the January 6, 2021 incidents at the U.S. Capitol now reveal that a pair of pipe bombs planted at the Capitol Hill offices of the Republican and Democrat parties may have been a diversion to distract law enforcement from other events.

    They also reveal that while the bombs contained live explosives, it does not appear the timers were operable, and the FBI may not even have interviewed the witnesses who discovered them.

    In response, Chairmen Thomas Massie (R-KY), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Jim Jordan (R-OH), and Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray “revealing new information surrounding the FBI’s investigation into pipe bombs placed near the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Republican National Committee (RNC) on January 5, 2021,” the Judiciary Committee reports.

    “On June 7, 2023, the Committee on the Judiciary conducted a transcribed interview of Steven D’Antuono, the former Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office (WFO),” the Committee announced.

    “In that role, Mr. D’Antuono oversaw the WFO’s investigations into the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, including the placement of pipe bombs near the headquarters of the DNC and RNC on January 5, 2021. Mr. D’Antuono’s testimony provided new information about the FBI’s investigation into the pipe bombs and reinforces our concerns about the FBI’s handling of this matter,” the Committee revealed.

    In his transcribed interview, Steven D’Antuono “suggested that the FBI could not even determine whether the placement of the pipe bombs was a ‘diversionary’ tactic for the events of January 6,” the Committee also revealed.

    D’Antuono testified:

    MASSIE: Are you familiar with the diversion thesis, that these were set up to be a diversion?

    D’ANTUONO: Yeah, I’ve heard people say that, but if you watch – I’ve done a lot of media reports. I was trying to get the information out there, tips and stuff like that, right. I will not speculate. I’m not going to speculate on that. I think that’s speculation, at best, when people say that it’s a diversionary tactic. We’ll never know until we find the person that actually did – or persons that actually did it. So I can’t speculate on that. Could it have been? Yes, that’s one theory. Obviously, it’s one theory. But is it the only theory? I don’t – I really don’t know.

    MASSIE: It looks like the head Capitol Police [sic] believes it was a diversion.

    D’ANTUONO: So Steve Sund, chief of police, yes. I believe he wrote that in his book. Again, it’s pure speculation. There’s no intelligence – look, I ran the investigation for 2 years until I stepped out. We don’t know. We don’t even know the gender at this point as to – we could speculate, and there’s a lot of people that are speculating as to the gender.

    MASSIE: How confident are you that the individual depicted in the surveillance footage on January 5th set both of those pipe bombs in place?

    D’ANTUONO: So the video that we saw, I feel confident that by the video that we have, that that person planted those. 

    D’Antuono also testified on the “viability of the pipe bombs, which, according to reporting, were deemed to be ‘inoperable,’” the Committee reports.

    “D’Antuono referenced a report from the FBI laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, that the pipe bombs were viable, and ‘they could explode, and they could cause harm or death,’” the Committee notes, adding. “D’Antuono also acknowledged that the timer used on the pipe bomb could not have detonated the pipe bomb given the time already elapsed between placement and discovery.”

    He testified:

    MASSIE: Well, let me ask you this: Do you think it was technically possible for a kitchen timer . . . that has [a] 1-hour duration . . . to detonate a bomb 17 hours later?

    D’ANTUONO: No, I don’t. And I saw the same kitchen timer as you. I agree. I don’t know when they were supposed to go off. Maybe they weren’t supposed to go off. We can’t—we don’t know. We honestly don’t know, and that’s some of the pain . . . .

    D’Antuono’s testimony “provided additional details about the FBI’s use of geofencing technology to identify the pipe bomb suspect,” the Committee revealed.

    He testified:

    D’ANTUONO: So the – there’s a lot of phone data that came in. Yes, I’ve seen the same video. I’ve watched the same video. We put out the same video. It looks like a phone. Was it a real phone, a not a real phone, was it a ruse? Was it a – you know, I picked up my phone several times at meetings going, oh, yeah, I got to take this call, and walk out, right. The phone’s not on, right. So was the person just sitting there trying to pretend like they’re on a bench taking a phone call? We don’t know until we find the person, right, and ask them those questions.

    We did a complete geofence. We have complete data. Not complete, because there’s some data that was corrupted by one of the providers, not purposely by them, right. It just – unusual circumstance that we have corrupt data from one of the providers. I’m not sure – I can’t remember right now which one. But for that day, which is awful because we don’t have that information to search. So could it have been that provider? Yeah, with our luck, you know, with this investigation it probably was, right. So maybe if we did have that – that data wasn’t corrupted – and it wasn’t purposely corrupted. I don’t want any conspiracy theories, right. To my knowledge, it wasn’t corrupted, you know, but that could have been good information that we don’t have, right. So that is painful for us to not to have that. So we looked at everything.

    D’Antuono also testified that he did not definitively know if the FBI had interviewed the individual who discovered the pipe bomb at the DNC.

    He testified:

    MASSIE: So just to . . . put a fine point on it, you do not know whether they interviewed the person that discovered . . . the [bomb] at the DNC?

    D’ANTUONO: I don’t know.

    The Committee notes “D’Antuono conceded that it would be ‘investigation 101’ to interview the individuals who discovered the bombs, yet he was unable to confirm whether the FBI had taken this basic investigative step.”

    He explained:

    MASSIE: So – but the person who found – you either haven’t identified the person who found the second pipe bomb, or did you?

    D’ANTUONO: I – honestly, sir, I don’t know the granularity of everything my agents and analysts did in that matter. It’s just – it’s a whole host of stuff that’s going on. As the [Assistant Director in Charge], as like any senior leader, I’m getting briefed on things, and that part never came up, so –

    “D’Antuono’s testimony raises concerns about the FBI’s handling of the pipe bomb investigation, more than 890 days following the placement of the pipe bombs. To date, the FBI has failed to respond to the Committee’s requests for a briefing regarding the investigation,” the Committee concludes.

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

    Will Trump Take Back Our Panama Canal? Cruz Blows Whistle On Communist Chinese Control

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    1
    Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America,

    U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz met with Panamanian officials about growing Communist Chinese influence over the Panama Canal, a crucial artery for global trade that was built and once controlled by the United States, until it was given away by liberal the-President Jimmy Carter.

    Cruz announced in a statement he “recently traveled to Panama and underscored the Panama Canal’s strategic importance to the United States.”

    Cruz reports he “met with top Panamanian officials, including the Minister of Economy and Finance, Felipe Chapman; Minister of Public Security, Frank Abrego; and Panama Canal Authority Administrator, Ricaurte Vásquez Morales. During these meetings, Sen. Cruz reiterated the growing threats posed by China and other foreign actors seeking to exert influence over the region, threatening both American and Panamanian national and economic security.”

    “The Senate Commerce Committee has primary jurisdiction over the Panama Canal due to its role in the facilitation of global trade and U.S. commerce,” Cruz notes.

    “There is undoubtedly a strong Chinese presence, and I believe a threat to the canal. The purpose of my visit is number one, to try to strengthen the longtime friendship and alliance between the United States and Panama. And number two, I’m the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which, among other things, has jurisdiction over the Panama Canal and the Panama Canal is vital, both to national security and economic security of the United States and Panama,” said Cruz.

    Cruz summarized the long-brewing issue of Communist Chinese control of the Panama Canal and its threat to the United States, writing:

    Previously, Sen. Cruz convened a Senate Commerce Committee hearing to examine the growing number of challenges facing the maritime industry in the region due to capacity limitations and increased transit fees. Sen. Cruz sounded alarms over China’s growing foothold in Panama, which poses a direct threat to U.S. trade. China has exploited Panama’s institutional weakness to evade U.S. sanctions and has taken controlling stakes in critical infrastructure surrounding the Panama Canal. During the hearing, multiple senators raised concerns about Panama’s management of the canal, citing allegations of corruption, suggesting that they may be violating the Neutrality Treaty.

    One week after the hearing, a preliminary deal was announced that would give an American company primary control of Port Balboa and Port Cristobal, which are container ports on either end of the canal. However, the deal has faced delay amid pressure from China seeking to secure a stake in the deal, stalling progress to protect both American and Panamanian interests.

    Sen. Cruz concluded, “China is not America’s friend, and China is not Panama’s friend, and if God forbid, a military conflict emerges between the United States and China, I believe there is an unacceptable risk that China would act to shut down the Panama Canal, which would have a devastating impact on the United States and an even worse impact on Panama…

    “There is strong American interest in expanding and improving commerce and transportation through the Panama Canal. The United States built the Panama Canal more than a century ago and our nations have been close friends for a long, long time. The economies of both the United States and Panama benefit enormously from the Panama Canal, and there are strong American interests in investing in ports on both ends of the Panama Canal and assisting in new infrastructure, whether it is gas pipelines to transport gas from one end to the other, or whether it is building a new reservoir and expanding the ability to ensure there’s

    Mexico’s Hosts Russian and Chinese Military Units in Independence Parade

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    3
    Kremlin.ru, via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – In the ‘what the h*ll are you thinking’ category – a contingent of Russian soldiers marched in the annual Mexican Independence Day parade over the weekend. 

    Russian troops had participated before, but not since Moscow launched its war of aggression against Ukraine.

    This year marked 213 years since the end of Spanish rule in Mexico. 

    And even as deadly fentanyl precursor ingredients are entering Mexico, to then be made into the deadly drug and flood the U.S., a Communist Chinese military honor guard from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) also marched alongside Mexican troops.

    The presence of the Russian troops drew criticism because of the Russia’s brutal invasion of its neighbor. Mexico, which has long harbored bitterness against the United States for intervening militarily in Mexico in the 1800s, has condemned Russia’s invasion but has adopted a policy of ‘neutrality’ and has refused to participate in sanctions.

    Populist socialist Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador (known as AMLO) noted that a contingent from China also participated. “All the countries that Mexico has diplomatic relations with were invited,” he said.

    AMLO admitted the issue had become “a scandal,” but blamed it on the news media being against him.

    Ukraine’s Ambassador to Mexico, Oksana Dramaretska, posted online that “The civic-military parade in Mexico City was stained by the participation of a Russian regiment; the boots and hands of these war criminals are stained with blood.”

    But this is only the latest Russian flirtation by AMLO.

    As Arturo Sarukhan writes in his commentary for Brookings: “…it would seem that some in Mexico, unwittingly, or wittingly, seem intent on opening a ‘second front’ for Moscow from there.”

    What’s behind all of this? Given that Mexico trades in two days with the United States what it trades in a whole year with Russia, ideology seems to be paramount. The traditional left in Mexico — and throughout Latin America in general — tend to support policies that push back against “Western imperialism” but is also skeptical of liberalism and what it perceives as its institutions and stakeholders, which — like many authoritarian regimes — it considers to be tools of Western values and hegemony. 

    It should therefore come as no surprise that the Mexican left is inclined to swallow and regurgitate Russian disinformation and propaganda (“NATO aggression,” “denazification of Ukraine”), see sanctions as another form of “imperialism” and an attempt to corner Russia, and resort to RT and Sputnik as sources of valid information.

    The Kremlin, creating a contrast with U.S. troops on Russia’s borders, has also asked frequently, if rhetorically, what if Russian troops were stationed across the border in Mexico?

    Maybe this is one way for Moscow to make that point. But there is more to the story.

    As ABC News reported:

    Some members of López Obrador’s Morena party have publicly expressed affection for Russia even after the invasion, and López Obrador has frequently criticized the United States for sending arms to Ukraine.

    López Obrador’s administration has continued to buy Russia’s Sputnik COVID vaccine and intends to use it as a booster shot later this year, along with Cuba’s Abdala vaccine.

    Experts have questioned the use of those vaccines, along with Mexico’s own Patria vaccine, as a booster for new variants, because all of them were designed in 2020 to combat variants circulating at the time.

    Mexico would rather buy old and likely ineffective vaccines from Russia, than be on better terms with the United States. Under AMLO Mexico is also a helpful tool for Moscow in other ways.

    As Sarukhan wrote:

    …Viktor Koronelli, Russia’s ambassador to Mexico, who said during the recent launching of the Mexico-Russia friendship caucus that “Mexico will never join anti-Russian sanctions” and that “across the world, there are countries like China, like India, like Mexico, that will never say ‘Yes, Sir’ to Uncle Sam’s orders.”

    Despite all this Russian bravado and bluster, I would be just as concerned, or more so, about the Chinese military presence in the parade.  As AMLO noted, a contingent from  China also participated, and no one complained about that.

    But China’s influence in Mexico is likely far more significant than Russia’s, and far more threatening to the United States.

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

    Prominent Trump Critic Stands Up For Alito Following Second Incident With Jan. 6-Aligned Flag

    By
    admin
    -
    0
    The White House from Washington, DC, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    Critics are calling for a Supreme Court justice to recuse himself from two cases involving former President Donald Trump, asserting that failing to do so will cause “irreparable damage” to the Court.

    On Wednesday, The New York Times reported that another Jan. 6-aligned flag was seen flying at one of Justice Samuel Alito‘s residences, this time at his New Jersey vacation home. Last week, the paper published a report detailing how an upside-down American flag flew at the Alitos’ Northern Virginia home days after the U.S. Capitol riot. 

    In light of recent developments, some of the most vocal critics of Trump, such as Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), are calling for Justice Alito to recuse himself from the landmark Trump presidential immunity case. They are also requesting his recusal from a case involving a former Pennsylvania police officer and Jan. 6 participant, specifically regarding whether obstruction charges against him should stand.

    “If Justice Alito does not recuse himself from the Trump immunity case and the Fischer January 6 case, he will do irreparable damage to the Supreme Court. And Chief Justice Roberts must step in.” @RepDanGoldman on Alito’s widening insurrectionist flag scandal pic.twitter.com/YQ1rt5VQR2— Alex Wagner Tonight (@WagnerTonight) May 23, 2024

    The calls don’t appear to be subsiding. So far, Alito has not responded. Surprisingly, former National Security Adviser John Bolton strongly defended the conservative justice on CNN, despite being a prominent critic of the 45th president himself.

    As The Hill reports:

    “Absolutely not,” Bolton told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer when asked whether the recent reporting about the flag raised concerns about whether he can serve impartially on the Supreme Court.

    “I think it is outrageous, outrageous and unacceptable, for people to take a flag from the American Revolution and say that because some January 6 protesters flew it, that it’s now unacceptable to fly that flag, and I’d like to hear a Democratic Party politician say that expressly,” added Bolton, who has frequently been critical of former President Trump and the risk he says Trump poses to the country’s national security.

    An “Appeal to Heaven” flag – which has origins dating back to the Revolutionary War but is associated with Christian nationalism and “Stop the Steal” efforts today – was seen flying outside Alito’s New Jersey beach home in July and September 2023, the Times reported, around the same time a high-profile Jan. 6 case arrived at the Supreme Court.

    The flag was also toted by rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    “The January 6 people flew a lot of flags,” Bolton maintained. “They don’t have the right or the ability to expropriate a patriotic symbol of the United States, and then have everybody else say it belongs to them and condemn Sam Alito or anybody else for flying that flag.”

    Bolton’s remarks are particularly notable as he took the opportunity with Blitzer to insult Nikki Haley for pledging her support to Trump.

    Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News.

    Yes, Biden Took Highly Classified Documents Home as VP

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    5
    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.

    The news outlet added:

    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.

    Amanda Head: Obese Celebrity Celebrates Her Own Obesity

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    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.

    GOP Leaders Fund Anti-Freedom Caucus Primary Candidates

    By
    Alex Muse
    -
    2
    Ted Eytan from Washington, DC, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    In the quiet corridors of Republican power, something unprecedented is happening. For decades, party leadership maintained a mostly unspoken, but deeply respected ethic: do not intervene in open-seat primaries, especially in safely Republican districts. Let the voters decide. Let the grassroots rise. Let the contest unfold without the heavy thumb of Washington tipping the scale. This was not merely tradition. It was a matter of trust, a recognition that voters, not donors, not operatives, not Majority Whips, should choose the next Republican standard-bearer. Today, that ethic is being cast aside.

    The stage is Arizona’s 5th Congressional District, a deep-red seat held by House Freedom Caucus (HFC) stalwart Andy Biggs, who is stepping down to pursue the governorship. Historically, this would be the moment for conservative insurgents to rise, for HFC allies to present their case to voters without interference from party brass. Instead, what we are witnessing is an unmistakable effort by House Republican leadership to erase one of the Freedom Caucus’s most reliable seats.

    Three separate leadership PACs have now contributed directly to Jay Feely, a former NFL kicker and establishment-favored Republican who is not aligned with the Freedom Caucus. Majority Whip Tom Emmer’s “Electing Majority Making Effective Republicans” PAC gave $5,000. NRCC Chair Richard Hudson’s “First in Freedom PAC” gave $2,500. And Rep. Juan Ciscomani, of neighboring AZ-6, added $1,000 from his own “Defending the American Dream PAC.” These are not idle contributions. They are targeted, strategic, and meant to shape the outcome of a race that should have been left to the people.

    Only one candidate in the race, Daniel Keenan, a local home builder, has pledged to join the Freedom Caucus. His candidacy represents continuity with Biggs’s conservative legacy. Feely’s candidacy, by contrast, is backed by leadership precisely because it promises rupture. That is the point. The goal here is not merely to elect a Republican, but to deny the seat to the Freedom Caucus entirely.

    To grasp the seriousness of this act, one must understand just how rare it is. Leadership PACs, particularly those operated by high-ranking figures like the Majority Whip and NRCC Chair, have historically stayed neutral in Republican primaries unless protecting incumbents. This was not a legal requirement, but a moral one. Rick Scott, as NRSC chair, was emphatic on this point during his tenure: “We should remain neutral in primaries, except in the cases of GOP incumbents. The voters will decide.”

    In fact, neutrality in safe-seat primaries was such a bedrock value that during the contentious 2023 Speaker’s race, conservative holdouts demanded that Kevin McCarthy enshrine it in writing. The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), the House GOP’s main super PAC aligned with McCarthy, publicly promised not to interfere in open safe Republican primaries. CLF president Dan Conston declared, “CLF will not spend in any open-seat primaries in safe Republican districts, and CLF will not grant resources to other super PACs to do so.” That promise secured enough support for McCarthy to win the gavel. It was a recognition that such meddling would constitute a betrayal.

    And yet, here we are, watching as Emmer, Hudson, and Ciscomani appear to do precisely what CLF promised not to do. They are not spending millions, but the act is significant because of who they are and what it signals. A whisper from the Majority Whip carries weight. A nod from the NRCC chair is not an idle gesture. Their PAC money announces a clear intention: the Republican Party must no longer accommodate the Freedom Caucus.

    To call this behavior unethical is not hyperbole. The entire point of leadership PACs is to strengthen the party against Democrats, not to wage civil war within it. Donors to these PACs do not expect their money to be used to sandbag fellow Republicans who happen to believe in a stricter reading of the Constitution, in tighter budgets, in actually following the rules. They expect their money to be used to expand the majority, not to hollow it out ideologically.

    This is why even modest interventions like these cause such a stir. They are not just financial acts, but symbolic declarations. They say to the conservative base, “You are not welcome here.” They say to the House Freedom Caucus, “You will be replaced.” They signal that what was once an uneasy coalition is now an open conflict.

    There is precedent, to be sure, but not encouraging one. In 2016, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Tim Huelskamp was defeated in his Kansas primary after outside money flooded the race. It was widely seen as retaliation for his opposition to then-Speaker John Boehner. The establishment, furious at Huelskamp’s independence, funded a challenger, Roger Marshall, who went on to win. At the time, that maneuver was shocking. Paul Gosar, another HFC member, remarked, “The Freedom Caucus hasn’t challenged sitting members. We’ve only played in open seats. But isn’t it interesting that K Street and Wall Street are playing against our members?”

    Now, that behavior is becoming institutional. The NRCC chair and the Majority Whip are no longer merely allowing such intervention, they are directing it. The shift is profound. It marks a move from tolerating intra-party dissent to crushing it.

    What changed? The rise of the Freedom Caucus has been a source of anxiety for establishment Republicans ever since its inception. But with the return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2025 and the growing alignment between the Freedom Caucus and the MAGA base, that anxiety has morphed into fear. The Freedom Caucus has shown it can shape leadership elections, influence appropriations bills, and demand accountability. It is no longer a fringe. It is a force. And that makes it a target.

    Trump himself has called Tom Emmer a “RINO” and opposed his speakership bid. Hudson and Ciscomani have similarly earned the ire of MAGA-aligned voters for their votes on spending bills and procedural maneuvers seen as too accommodating to Democrats. The leadership PAC donations in Arizona’s 5th are not just about that race. They are part of a larger strategy to neutralize the most vocal advocates of the America First agenda.

    None of this is illegal. But neither is it wise. When party leadership abandons neutrality, it sends a message to grassroots conservatives: your vote does not count unless we approve of your candidate. That message corrodes trust. It demoralizes volunteers. It severs the organic connection between representative and represented. It replaces the republican with the oligarchic.

    The party should not fear its conservative wing. It should listen to it. If leadership believes Freedom Caucus members are too extreme, they should make that argument on the merits, in public, and with courage. They should not attempt to buy the outcome behind closed doors with PAC money. That is not persuasion. That is manipulation.

    What is unfolding in Arizona’s 5th is not just a local race. It is a test case. If leadership succeeds in deleting a Freedom Caucus seat here, others will follow. More PAC money will flow. More loyal conservatives will be boxed out before the voters even speak. The House Freedom Caucus will be diminished, not by debate or democracy, but by design.

    This is not the path to unity. It is the road to irrelevance. The Republican Party must decide whether it wishes to be a big tent or a closed club. If the answer is the latter, it should at least have the honesty to admit it.

    If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing https://x.com/amuse.

    Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

    DOUBLE Your Impact to Crush the Left’s Comeback! It’s up to patriots like you to stop them. Heritage will match every dollar — up to $1 MILLION. Double your impact before it’s too late!

    .

    1...38394041Page 39 of 41
    © Great America News Desk 2022