Random

    Opinion

    Home Opinion

    Feds Admit Dozens of Undercover Agents Joined Protesters at Capitol on Jan 6

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    6
    Elvert Barnes, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – Federal and local law enforcement reportedly had at least 40 confidential informants, or CIs, (also known by federal agencies as Confidential Human Source – CHS) embedded with protestors and rioters at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

    This, according to the attorney for one of the Jan 6 defendants, Dominic Pezzola.

    A member of the nationalist Proud Boys group, Pezzola is facing charges in federal court for allegedly conspiring to oppose the Jan. 2021 transfer of presidential power and related charges by interfering with Congress’ certification of the Electoral College vote.

    His attorney says federal prosecutors kept this critical evidence secret and belatedly admitted this bombshell just recently.

    I wrote about this issue in March when a video was released that showed undercover DC Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers inciting the rioters to storm the Capitol. Many more videos are still sealed by the courts and kept from the public.

    As the attorney’s filing noted:

    Some of these undercover Metro officers marched with the Proud Boy[s] march. And some appear to have played roles of instigators, in that they are seen on body-worn videos chanting “Go! Go!,” “Stop the Steal!,” and “Whose house? Our house!” on Jan. 6.  Others generally followed demonstrators toward the Capitol.

     
    While that video, part of which was posted on Rumble, shows three members of the MPD’s Electronic Surveillance Unit (ESU) acting as protesters and inciting the crowd, new information reveals that MPD and the feds may have had dozens of undercover informants there that day.

    The Daily Caller reports that Pezzola’s lawyer, Roger Roots, said that federal prosecutors admitted Tuesday that eight FBI confidential human sources were embedded among the Proud Boys on Jan. 6. In his Wednesday court filing, Root said that Homeland Security Investigations (HIS) , part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), appears to have had some 19 informants active at the time.

    That means that the largest number of federal CHSs on Jan. 6 didn’t even belong to the FBI, but instead were from DHS.

    Roots added that, in addition to all these federal CIs, at least 13 undercover plain-clothes DC Metro Police agents worked among Jan. 6 defendants that day (one more than originally revealed). 

    That’s a lot of local police undercover officers and federal confidential informants for one protest. And who knows how many more there may have been in other capacities.

    In his filing, Roots argues that:

    Pezzola submits that the entire defense in this trial, including opening,cross, and defense cases, would have been different, and much more aggressive, if defense counsel had known of the scope and scale of undercover government operations on Jan. 6. Prosecutors made arguments contrary to information they possessed and withheld; and defense counsel could have lodged different cross-examination and direct examination questions if they had known of these materials.

    Roots concludes by noting that the “United States is refusing to provide information which obviously has a high likelihood of being exculpatory.”

    He adds that defendants are entitled to this information. “ACCORDINGLY, Pezzola asks for an order compelling the United States to provide the names, identities, and reports of all HSI confidential informants operating at or near the Capitol or around the Proud Boys on January 6, 2021.”

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

    FBI Retaliated Against Whistleblowers Who Exposed ‘Politicized Rot’

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    2

    ANALYSIS – Things at the FBI just seem to get worse. A new House report shows that FBI special agents, and other key employees, who exposed the “politicized rot” within the bureau were suspended or had their security clearances revoked.

    The interim staff report from the House Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government describes that ‘rot’ as the deep partisan politicization of the FBI’s leadership and the concerted weaponization of the law enforcement agency against conservatives.

    The report, released Thursday morning, also described the FBI’s alleged “retaliatory conduct” against the whistleblowers “after making protected disclosures about what they believed in good faith to be wrong conduct.”

    The committee’s report likened the bureau’s actions to “engaging in a ‘purge’ of agents who hold conservative beliefs.”

    The FBI has responded to the accusations in a letter discussed below.

    The Bureau’s politicized rot spiked after the Capitol Riot in 2021, and the subsequent Democrat effort to highlight the alleged threat of Domestic Violent Extremism (DVE), also known as MAGA Republicans, pro-life Christians, and other traditional conservatives.

    Among the whistleblower’s key accusations is that the bureau opened improper investigations into a large group of individuals who simply attended the pro-Trump political rally in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021. 

    They claimed that the Bureau had “no specific indication” that 138 of the people “were involved in any way in criminal activity.”

    “The only basis for investigating these people was that they shared buses to Washington with two individuals who entered restricted areas of the Capitol that day,” they explained in the report.

    But it’s more than that.

    The committees’ report reveals new whistleblower testimony from several current and former FBI employees that exposes other “abuses and misconduct in the FBI.”

    The report states that:

    Some of these employees—Special Agents Garret O’Boyle and Stephen Friend, Supervisory Intelligence Analyst George Hill, and Staff Operations Specialist Marcus Allen—have chosen to speak on the record about their experiences. The disclosures from these FBI employees highlight egregious abuse, misallocation of law-enforcement resources, and misconduct with the leadership ranks of the FBI.

    It added that, in order to bolster the Democrat narrative that DVE was “organically rising around the country,” the FBI pressured staff to “reclassify cases as domestic violent extremism, and even manufactured DVE cases where they may not otherwise exist.”

    Friend specified that the FBI’s handling of Jan. 6-related investigations “deviated from standard practice and created a false impression with respect to the threat of DVE nationwide.”

    This is something I have argued and written about repeatedly.

    The deliberate mishandling of these cases greatly inflated the number of alleged DVE cases in the country and has been used as an excuse to divert massive amounts of federal law enforcement funds and resources to this grossly exaggerated threat.

    One of the whistleblowers called the bureau “cancerous” because it has “let itself become enveloped in this politicization and weaponization.”

    Allen reportedly had his security clearance suspended for performing case-related research using open-source news articles and videos about the Capitol riot and sending his results to his task force colleagues for “situational awareness.”

    Meanwhile, the FBI argued in a letter to the Committee Chairman, that the clearance suspensions and other disciplinary actions were taken purely out of security concerns or violations by the FBI employees.

    However, among the counter allegations in its letter, the FBI said:

    Specifically, the Security Division found Mr. Allen espoused alternative theories to coworkers verbally and in emails and instant messages sent on the FBI systems, in apparent attempts to hinder investigative activity.

    The letter noted that despite multiple directives from his supervisor to “stop circulating these materials,” Allen “continued.” 

    The report states that: “Because these open-source articles questioned the FBI’s handling of the violence at the Capitol, the FBI suspended Allen for ‘conspiratorial views in regard to the events of January 6th.”

    To come to your own conclusions, I recommend reading the House report and the FBI’s letter linked above. 

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

    Democrat House Intel Committee Chief Pressured Twitter to Ban Journalists and Critics

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0

    ANALYSIS – In the ‘yes, we were right all’ along category, it is crystal clear that leading Democrats politicos held enormous sway over the woke peons at Twitter, and still do at other Big Tech social media companies. 

    And, in clear violation of the First Amendment, and press freedom, these top Democrats use that power to pressure these companies to suspend and ban journalists and critics alike.

    In the latest bombshell drop from Musk’s Twitter Files we learn that by 2020, Twitter was inundated with requests and demands from elements of the government to censor various personalities and narratives.

    The most egregious example is that of Adam Schiff, his position as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee gave him credibility to push false narratives, and then push Big Tech to censor any contrary views.

    Significantly, Schiff’s office wanted Twitter to shut down one of the most effective journalists pushing back on his phony Russia collusion narrative.

    Fox News reports:

    Published Tuesday, the latest round of the Twitter Files – internal documents revealing how Twitter engaged in censorship and promoted disinformation in tandem with government agencies for the past few years – revealed that Schiff’s office asked Twitter to remove journalist Paul Sperry and others from the site. 

    Taibbi, who published the Twitter Files post-by-post to Twitter at the behest of Musk, provided documentation showing that “the office for Democrat and House Intel Committee chief Adam Schiff” asked “Twitter to ban journalist Paul Sperry.”

    The document Taibbi shared featured correspondence between the “House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee” – Schiff’s office – and Twitter, which included a request to “Suspend the many accounts, including @GregRubini and @paulsperry, which repeatedly promoted false QAnon conspiracies and harassed [REDACTED].”

    In the article [Schiff wanted banned], Sperry said then-CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella was overheard talking in the White House with Sean Misko, a holdover staffer from former President Barack Obama’s administration.

    A former official who reportedly heard the conversation told Sperry, “Just days after [Trump] was sworn in they were already trying to get rid of him.”

    Paul Sperry is a senior staff writer for RealClearInvestigations and has also penned pieces for the New York Post, the Federalist, and other publications.

    RealClearInvestigations senior writer Mark Hemingway tweeted, “Of course, Sperry’s real crime was doing vital reporting exposing the mistruths about Russia collusion, a subject Schiff lied about for years.”

    The New York Post explained:

    Sperry’s reporting clearly showed the partisan motives behind the leaks, and how they were partly manufactured partisan CIA hacks to bring down the former president.

    Schiff’s outrageous demands and pressures were solely intended to crush that news from ever being seen.

    Thankfully, not all the Twits at Twitter were as easy to manipulate as others. 

    In response to the last Schiff request, another unidentified Twitter employee wrote, “no, this isn’t feasible/we don’t do that.”

    But the fact that Schiff and other partisan Democrats succeeded many other times is the real issue. 

    It’s also a good reason to have Schiff not only removed from the intelligence committee as the new GOP leadership intends, but to also remove him from Congress entirely for gross abuse of power and other ethical breaches.

    Alec Baldwin Charged with Involuntary Manslaughter over ‘Rust’ Movie Set Shooting

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    2

    ANALYSIS – From the day cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was shot and killed on the set of the movie Rust, on Oct. 21, 2021, there has been a flurry of speculation over whether anyone would be criminally charged.

    Hutchins was killed when a live round was fired from a real ‘prop’ gun being held by liberal actor Alec Baldwin.

    Well, now the speculation is over, and Baldwin will be charged.

    He has always denied responsibility, saying the replica old west revolver should have had dummy bullets and that he never pulled the trigger.

    On the first point, Baldwin is correct; on the second, he is less convincing.

    The set armorer is responsible for ensuring gun safety. And there was no reason for live rounds to be on a movie set. Period.

    Much less mixed in with dummy rounds.

    The armorer certainly is responsible if not culpable. And a big question is why live rounds were on the set and mixed in with dummy rounds and who put them there.

    But experts have shown that Baldwin’s claim of not firing the gun doesn’t wash.

    It is physically impossible for this type of gun to fire without the trigger being pulled and/or the hammer dropped.

    Beyond his immediate possible culpability as the man who ‘fired’ the gun, Baldwin was also a producer of the low-budget Western film.

    After the shooting numerous current and former crew members from the film publicly claimed that safety was extremely lax, and formal complaints had been made and ignored about those safety concerns.

    The shooting occurred while rehearsing a scene inside a wooden chapel on Bonanza Creek Ranch in New Mexico.

    This is a popular western location seen in the likes of Jimmy Stewart’s 1955 “The Man from Laramie” and Paul Newman and Robert Redford’s 1969 “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.”

    As the crew worked out positions for the scene, Baldwin, playing a grizzled 1880s Kansas outlaw, fired a live round from an Italian-made Pietta Long Colt revolver replica – the bullet passed through Hutchins’ chest and lodged in director Joel Souza’s shoulder.

    Hutchins died in a flight to the hospital in Albuquerque, while Souza was later discharged from the hospital.

    In April 2022, the producers, including Baldwin, were fined $136,793 by the New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Bureau, which said: “management knew that firearm safety procedures were not being followed on set and demonstrated plain indifference to employee safety.”

    A wrongful death lawsuit was then filed against Alec Baldwin and other key members of the production in Feb. 2022.

    The lawsuit named Baldwin and others who “are responsible for the safety on the set” and called out “reckless behavior and cost-cutting” that led to the death of Hutchins, according to the family’s lawyer.

    The lawsuit also claimed that Baldwin and other “Rust” crew and cast committed “major breaches” of safety on the set.

    That lawsuit was later settled.

    But Baldwin’s legal woes continue as he is now being hit with two counts of involuntary manslaughter over the shooting.

    Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the film’s young and inexperienced armorer, will also be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter.

    Meanwhile, assistant director Dave Halls who handed the gun to Baldwin prior to the shooting signed a plea agreement for a charge of the negligent use of a deadly weapon.

    In return, he received a suspended sentence and six months of probation, according to the district attorney.

    If Baldwin is convicted, he could be facing up to 18 months in prison.

    “Involuntary manslaughter in New Mexico is a Class D felony punishable by up to 18 months in prison,” former Assistant U.S. Attorney Neama Rahmani explained to Fox News Digital. “If Baldwin is convicted, I can see him being sentenced at or near the max.”

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

    Amanda Head: Tim Allen Masterfully Strong-Arms Disney Into Christian Content

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0

    Tim Allen is reprising his beloved role as Santa Claus in Disney’s latest Christmas series. The original 1994 “The Santa Clause” movie saw massive success and Allen went on to play the role for two more movies. However, Allen says that he had some big conditions for Disney before returning to the iconic role for the new series- one of them being Disney must incorporate Christianity into the show.

    Watch Amanda break down the situation below:

    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

    Pro-Lifers Bash Trump ‘Terrible’ Abortion Comments – But Was He Wrong?

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    1
    Washington D.C., USA - January 22, 2015; A Pro-Life woman clashes with a group of Pro-Choice demonstrators at the U.S. Supreme Court.

    ANALYSIS – During his recent NBC interview, former president Donald Trump called Florida’s recently passed six-week abortion ban “terrible.” The ban was signed into law by his 2024 Republican campaign rival Florida governor Ron DeSantis.

    Trump believes that picking six weeks as the line to draw for abortion banning is not politically viable nationally. He argued that both liberals and conservatives should agree on a compromise solution — a compromise number of weeks.

    And to clarify, Trump said the six-week ban was: “terrible. A terrible mistake.”

    He was saying that, politically, passing a six-week ban was a mistake, because it charges up the pro-abortion activists, and alienates moderate women needed to win nationally.

    Like it or not, exit polls in 2022 showed that the rush to ban abortions outright by some states just after Roe vs Wade was reversed, scared away a lot of independents and moderate suburban women, contributing to the extremely weak results for Republicans in the last midterm elections.

    Trump, the ever-ready wheeler dealer, also predicted that: “both sides are going to like me,” adding, “What’s going to happen is you’re going to come up with a number of weeks or months, you’re going to come up with a number that’s going to make people happy.”

    Here I think Trump made a terrible choice of words. You don’t want the left to like you, even if you are trying to disarm them. But that’s the way he thinks and speaks.

    The former president also said that he would be “a mediator” between both sides to come up with a policy that is “good for everybody.”

    I take that to mean a compromise timeline on the number of weeks for banning abortion nationwide, and what exceptions to make.

    Some pro-lifers immediately bashed Trump for his comments. The Christian Post reported on the backlash:

    Trump’s criticism of Florida’s law that bans abortion once a heartbeat can be detected, usually around six weeks of gestation, did not sit well with pro-life activists

    Lila Rose, the founder and president of the pro-life group Live Action, took to X to describe the former president’s remarks as “pathetic and unacceptable.”

    “Trump is actively attacking the very pro-life laws made possible by Roe’s overturning,” Rose wrote. “Heartbeat Laws have saved thousands of babies. But Trump wants to compromise on babies’ lives so pro-abort Dems ‘like him.'” 

    And then there was conservative culture warrior Matthew Walsh, with whom I usually agree, who called Trump’s remarks as “an awful answer from a moral perspective” and “also stupid politically.” 

    In his post on X (formerly Twitter) Walsh said that “there is no compromise on abortion that everyone will like.”

    “It’s delusional to think otherwise. And contrary to Trump’s claims, almost all Democrats are indeed extreme on this issue,” he added. “You will be hard pressed to find more than maybe two or three on the national stage who don’t want abortion until birth or beyond. You can’t win over Democrats by going squishy on this issue. Republicans have tried that brilliant strategy for decades and accomplished exactly nothing by it.” 

    But is Trump wrong? 

    A six-week ban based on a fetal heartbeat sounds very reasonable to me. And is fine for Florida.

    But I know that won’t wash with many other folks across the country who aren’t extreme but prefer another timeline for banning abortion. GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley, who is staunchly pro-life, doesn’t believe a 15-week national ban is realistic either.

    As governor of South Carolina, Haley signed a 20-week ban, joining 12 other states back then with bans.

    Polls have shown that many, if not most, Democrats believe in some restrictions on abortion. Most, if not all Republicans will make exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother. Many would be happy with any reasonable ban, whether six, eight or ten weeks.

    And Trump isn’t the only one who argues that taking a strident no compromise stance on abortion will hurt Republicans nationally. As the Christian Science Monitor reported:

    At a closed-door conference meeting in the Capitol earlier this month, a super PAC aligned with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell gave Senate Republicans a briefing that seemed intended to serve as a wake-up call. The Dobbs decision has “recharged the abortion debate and shifted more people (including some Republicans) into the anti-Dobbs ‘pro-choice’ camp,” the political action committee’s report stated. Some senators reportedly left the meeting brainstorming potential new labels, such as “pro-baby,” that could replace the increasingly fraught “pro-life.”

    Unlike in the past, when conservative candidates could simply identify themselves as “pro-life” without having to be specific, they are now being peppered with questions about real policy choices: Should abortion be banned at the state or federal level? After how many weeks? With or without exceptions? What about abortion pill restrictions?

    At one end of the 2024 spectrum are Vice President Mike Pence and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, who have strongly leaned into an anti-abortion message. Both candidates have endorsed a national 15-week abortion ban.

    By contrast, Mr. Trump, in his “Meet the Press” interview, declined to explicitly endorse a 15-week ban, drawing a rare rebuke this week from Senator Scott. Ms. Haley has outright dismissed a national 15-week ban as unrealistic – one of the “hard truths” that she has been delivering to voters across New Hampshire and Iowa. She says the Supreme Court was “right” to send abortion back to the states.

    While I understand and appreciate the 100% pro-life stance, I also want to win the White House and Senate, and expand our lead in the House, so conservatives can keep pushing on this and other issues important to us.

    So, Trump may not be wrong. We need to be more tactically flexible to win the bigger war.

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

    Biden Defense Department Tells Soldiers To Treat Pro-life Americans As Potential Terrorists

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    4
    Washington D.C., USA - January 22, 2015; A Pro-Life woman clashes with a group of Pro-Choice demonstrators at the U.S. Supreme Court.

    A group of United States senators and representatives are demanding answers after United States military servicemembers received anti-terrorism training that included instructions to consider pro-life Americans as potential terrorists.

    It is unclear why the military would be training for combat against Americans on American soil.

    Senators James Lankford (R-OK) and Ted Budd (R-NC), along with Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC) and their colleagues, “sent a letter to Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth demanding answers after an anti-terrorism training conducted at Fort Liberty, North Carolina depicted Pro-Life Americans as terrorists,” Lankford’s office reports.

    “We write regarding social media reports that anti-terrorism training conducted at Ft. Liberty, North Carolina depicts Pro-Life Americans as terrorists. Specifically, the slides identify National Right to Life, ‘Choose Life’ license plate holders, and anyone who opposes the Supreme Court’s rightfully overturned decision in Roe v. Wade, which was rightfully overturned by the Supreme Court, as members of terrorist groups. Smearing Pro-Life Americans is despicable and emblematic of the ongoing politicization of the military under the Biden-Harris Administration,” the Members wrote.

    The National Right to Life Committee is a peaceful mainstream conservative organization.  The training did not mention pro-abortion groups such as “Jane’s Revenge,” which have been engaged in a nationwide campaign of domestic terrorist attacks on pregnancy centers and Catholic churches.

    “It is no wonder that the Army is struggling to recruit young men and women to join its ranks when it appears the service attacks their values and promotes a woke agenda rather than improving readiness and lethality…The American people deserve to be assured that these slides truly do not reflect the Army’s views, that a full investigation will be conducted, and that any offending employees will be properly held accountable. Finally, we must be assured that similar materials are not being utilized at other installations across the Army,” the Members continued.

    Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC), John Barrasso (R-WY), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), Steve Daines (R-MT), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Todd Young (R-IN), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Eric Schmitt (R-MO), Mike Braun (R-IN), Jim Risch (R-ID), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Mike Crapo (R-ID), and Bill Hagerty (R-TN) also signed the letter. 

    The letter is supported by Catholic Vote, National Right to Life Committee, Family Research Council, Americans United for Life, Concerned Women for America, Students for Life Action, SBA Pro-Life America, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, and ACLJ Action.

    The letter reads:

    Dear Secretary Wormuth,

    We write regarding social media reports that anti-terrorism training conducted at Ft. Liberty, North Carolina depicts Pro-Life Americans as terrorists. Specifically, the slides identify National Right to Life, “Choose Life” license plate holders, and anyone who opposes the Supreme Court’s rightfully overturned decision in Roe v. Wade,which was rightfully overturned by the Supreme Court, as members of terrorist groups. Smearing Pro-Life Americans is despicable and emblematic of the ongoing politicization of the military under the Biden-Harris Administration.

    The American public expects the Department of Defense and its personnel to defend the homeland from actual terrorists, not Americans who seek protections for children in the womb. Labeling Pro-Life organizations as threats challenges servicemembers’ moral obligation to defend and protect even the smallest among us. In fact, around half of all Americans identify as Pro-Life. It is no wonder that the Army is struggling to recruit young men and women to join its ranks when it appears the service attacks their values and promotes a woke agenda rather than improving readiness and lethality.

    We understand that the anti-terrorism slide was in fact briefed to a group of soldiers as recently as July 10th. What is unclear is how long these slides have been utilized at Ft. Liberty and whether similar briefings have been used at other installations. We also understand from a statement released by Ft. Liberty that these slides were not vetted by appropriate approval authorities.  

    While Ft. Liberty’s statement asserts that the slides “do not reflect the views of the … US Army or the Department of Defense”, the American people are rightfully concerned that training of this kind is being disseminated in the first place and possibly at other military installations. The American people deserve to be assured that these slides truly do not reflect the Army’s views, that a full investigation will be conducted, and that any offending employees will be properly held accountable. Finally, we must be assured that similar materials are not being utilized at other installations across the Army. 

    Therefore, we request responses to the following questions no later than July 29, 2024: 

    Is it official Army policy to identify Pro-Life Americans and Pro-Life Organizations as “terrorist groups”?

    How long have these slides been briefed to soldiers and how many soldiers have been briefed with these slides? 

    What is the current process by which the Army reviews anti-terrorism training materials disseminated on Army bases? 

    Who are the appropriate approval authorities charged with vetting training materials disseminated to soldiers across the Army?

    What action is the Army taking to investigate the distribution of training materials depicting Pro-Life Americans as terrorists? 

    What statutes or Army regulations were potentially violated and what action is the Army taking with regard to any offending employee? 

    Will you commit to an installation-by-installation review to ensure that these or similar materials are not being disseminated elsewhere and that Army anti-terrorism training aligns with DoD anti-terrorism standard guidance and training? 

    Will you commit, in writing, that these slides will no longer be used and all future training materials reviewed will align with current DoD anti-terrorism guidance?  

    We look forward to your prompt attention and response.

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


    Amanda Head: Nailbiter – GA Senate Race Is Neck and Neck!

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    1

    The Georgia Senate runoff election is going to be a heated battle and neither candidate is giving up ground. Trump-endorsed candidate and former University of Georgia football legend Herschel Walker (R) is nearly tied against incumbent Senator Raphael Warnock as they continue campaigning for the Dec. 6th election.

    Watch Amanda break it down below.

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

    Amanda Head: More Quid Pro Quo By Hunter And Joe

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0

    Things are heating up in President Biden’s Department of Justice. The bombshell discovery of classified documents from Biden’s time as vice president at numerous locations months after the FBI raided former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home has ruffled some feathers, to say the least…

    Watch Amanda break down the ongoing scandal below:

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

    123...41Page 1 of 41
    © Great America News Desk 2022