Random

    Opinion

    Home Opinion

    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!

    .

    Woke Banks Under Fire from Congress for Helping FBI Illicitly Spy on Gun Owners

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    3
    Image via Pixabay images

    Amid reports that Wall Street banks have been illicitly spying on customers and reporting gun buyers to the FBI, despite no probable cause or court-issued warrants.

    In response, Congressman Rep. Alex X. Mooney (R-WV) has introduced H.R. 3021, The Protecting the Second Amendment in Financial Services Act to “expressly prohibit financial institutions and credit card companies from using a merchant category code that separately categorizes gun and ammunition transactions.”

    The revelation and legislation come as the FBI finds itself under fire for widespread civil rights abuses and its role in making false claims about President Donald Trump in an apparent attempt to remove a legally-elected president.

    Under the latest-revealed scheme, purchases made at gun dealers were flagged with a secret code and referred to the FBI for recording and possible investigation, despite the fact the purchases were legal and no criminal activity suspected.

    Some believe the scheme was an effort to get around federal laws prohibiting the federal government from assembling its own national registry of gun owners by having banks record the data – after audits of the Justice Department revealed officials had been illicitly retaining records of gun sales reported to the federal government’s National Instant Check System.

    “Leftist activists have been clear that they intend to use merchant category codes to further surveil the constitutional firearm purchases of law-abiding citizens,” said Mooney. 

    “The only rationale to implement a new merchant category code is to appease anti-Second Amendment activists. I am unwavering in my support of the Second Amendment, and I am proud to introduce this common-sense legislation to protect it,” said Mooney.

    “Merchant category codes (MCCs) are four-digit codes that enable payment processors and banks to categorize, monitor, and collect data on various types of transactions,” a statement from Mooney explains.

    “On September 9, 2022, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) approved a Merchant Category Code (MCC) for firearm retailers. Amalgamated Bank, a left-wing U.S. bank, led the charge in pressuring the ISO to adopt the new MCC. The ISO rejected Amalgamated Bank’s initial July 2021 application for the new MCC but approved it on the second application for reasons that remain unclear,” the statement reads.

    “Amalgamated Bank and progressive Members of Congress have been open that they intend to use this new MCC to track and report lawful firearm transactions to law enforcement under the guise of ‘suspicious activity’. In other words, this MCC is the Left’s attempt to create a backdoor gun registry to further curtail the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.

    While American Express, Mastercard, Visa, and Discover have announced a temporary pause in the implementation of this new MCC, there has been no formal request to withdraw the MCC. Legislation is needed to ensure this is never implemented,” the statement concludes.

    This legislation is endorsed by the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America.

    “GOA thanks Rep. Mooney for leading the fight to protect American gun owners from the anti-gun actions of the International Standards Organization. The U.S. government cannot sit idly by while a foreign entity pressures banks, payment card networks, and other American corporations to infringe on the Constitutional rights of the American people. This legislation empowers U.S. financial institutions to stand up to this foreign influence by categorically rejecting this anti-gun ‘merchant code,’” said Aidan Johnston, GOA’s Director of Federal Affairs

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

    Potential Trump Arrest a ‘Manufactured Circus’ by ‘Weaponized’ Prosecutor

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    3
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    ANALYSIS – Former President Donald Trump announced on his Truth Social media Saturday that he was going to be arrested on Tuesday, March 21. 

    He also urged his supporters to protest.

    So far no other news media has confirmed his claim and Trump remains untouched.

    It appears that this announcement citing illegal leaks in the Manhattan DA’s office was Trump’s successful attempt to get ahead of the story.

    In part, he wanted to mobilize the GOP.

    Still, if or when, this does happen, an arrest of a former president, and current candidate, would be an unprecedented event in U.S. history.

    It would look like third-world criminalization of politics, and can only further alienate many of the 70 million Americans who voted for Trump in 2020.

    Most Republicans will see it as a politicized witch hunt. It would also only deepens the belief that there continues to be a years-long conspiracy to bring down Trump.

    It will seem that the Russia collusion hoax, the ‘resistance’ inside and outside of government, lawsuits, and two highly partisan, manufactured, and failed, impeachments against Trump by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn’t suffice.

    Provoking a reaction from potential GOP primary opponents was also a Trump goal. 

    And Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who has not announced he is running for president, had a few things to say about the issue, even while claiming he wasn’t “going to be involved.”

    DeSantis called the whole prosecution a ‘manufactured circus.’

    The conservative governor focused on how the George Soros-backed New York City prosecutor Alvin L. Bragg, has seen major crime skyrocket in Manhattan while focusing on a relatively petty alleged crime to go after the former president.

    The petty prosecution is over alleged hush money payments to adult performer Stormy Daniels to, as DeSantis said dismissively, “secure silence over some type of alleged affair.”

    But it’s not even about the alleged payments made on his behalf by his then-attorney Michael Cohen (which wouldn’t be too different from the numerous illicit ways Bill Clinton tried to hide his many affairs while in office from the public. 

    This case is expected to actually focus on Trump’s role in recording the reimbursements he made to Cohen in the internal records of his company, the Trump Organization, which were entered as “legal expenses.”

    That’s even pettier. The DA calls it “fraud.” Others might call it “sloppy bookkeeping.”

    According to the Epoch Times (ET), DeSantis said:

    We are not involved in this. We won’t be involved in this. I have no interest in getting involved in some kind of manufactured circus by a Soros-funded DA. He’s trying to do a political spectacle. He’s trying to virtue signal for his base.

    He added: “I can’t spend my time worrying about things of that nature. So, we’re not going to be involved in it in any way.”

    Well, DeSantis is correct, even if he is getting somewhat “involved.”

    And DeSantis does know a thing or two about ideologically motivated, Soros-backed prosecutors.

    As ET reports:

    DeSantis removed Hillsborough County District Attorney Andrew Warren from office last year for stating he wouldn’t prosecute certain crimes. DeSantis’s action has so far survived a review by a federal judge.

    DeSantis added: “He [Bragg] is a Soros-funded prosecutor and, like other Soros-funded prosecutors, they weaponize their office to impose a political agenda on society at the expense of the rule of law and public safety.”

    The governor continued: “He has downgraded over 50 percent of felonies to misdemeanors. He says he doesn’t want to even have jail time for the vast majority of crimes. And what we’ve seen in Manhattan is, we’ve seen the crime rate go up and we’ve seen citizens become less safe,” DeSantis said.

    But it’s not just DeSantis who sees this as a politically motivated vendetta that could cause far more harm to the American system than good. The New York Times reported that some Democrats and legal experts have their own doubts as well:

    Charging former President Donald J. Trump in connection with a hush-money payment to a porn star would catapult Mr. Bragg onto the national stage. Already he faces second-guessing, even from putative allies, about the strength of the case and the wisdom of bringing it. 

    The Times continued:

    …Bragg has been in a difficult situation. Rebecca Roiphe, a professor at New York Law School and a former prosecutor in Manhattan, said that even though investigators do not target individuals for political reasons, politics does come into play in that “there is always a question of whether it is [in] the public interest to bring a certain charge or not.”

    If he does not bring a case even though there is clear evidence to prove it, Ms. Roiphe suggested, he could violate the longstanding principle that no person is above the law. But if he does indict Mr. Trump, who has begun a third presidential campaign, the choice could also be “incredibly destabilizing and harmful,” Ms. Roiphe said.

    Meanwhile, many Republicans will be getting very “involved” in this potential outrage. Speaker of the House, Rep. Kevin McCarthy has already accused Bragg of “abusing his office to target President Trump.”

    He also is threatening to defund Bragg and is investigating whether federal funds were used by Bragg to pursue Trump.

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

    How the FBI Colluded with Big Tech’s Twitter to Censor Hunter Biden Laptop Story

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

    ANALYSIS – While the establishment media continues to ignore the disturbing ‘Twitter Files’ released by Elon Musk showing how Twitter censored the Hunter Biden laptop story, more information now indicates it was worse than we first thought.

    As Musk noted, it’s not a direct First Amendment violation for a private company to censor the news, but it absolutely is if it’s done at the behest of our government.

    And while I will argue that as the nation’s new ‘public square,’ Big Tech does violate the First Amendment when it censors news, there is now no denying that in the Hunter laptop case it did so with input from the FBI.

    I will save the public square censorship discussion for another time.

    These new disclosures provide more evidence that under the purported guise of stopping Russian election interference, the FBI ended up being guilty of employing its own U.S. election interference.

    And Twitter (like Facebook and LinkedIn, et al.) took the ball and ran with it.

    Based on the Twitter emails recently released by Elon Musk and reported by former Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi, the Daily Caller reports:

    The FBI explicitly warned Twitter about a potential “hack-and-leak” operation involving Hunter Biden shortly before the platform censored the New York Post’s story based on emails from Biden’s laptop, according to a signed declaration by Twitter’s former head of Site Integrity, Yoel Roth.

    The FBI, along with several other agencies, warned Roth that “state actors” might attempt to leak hacked materials shortly before the 2020 election in a bid to influence its results, according to the declaration filed with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) in December 2020, two months after the platform censored the NYP’s story. Roth stated that the conversation occurred during weekly meetings with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, in which they warned him of potential threats to election security.

    “These expectations of hack-and-leak operations were discussed throughout 2020. I also learned in these meetings that there were rumors that a hack-and-leak operation would involve Hunter Biden,” Roth wrote.

    As Taibbi notes, Twitter, like all of Big Tech, including Twitter, is staffed by leftists and hence skewers its policies and actions to favor the left.

    This system wasn’t balanced. It was based on contacts. Because Twitter was and is overwhelmingly staffed by people of one political orientation, there were more channels, more ways to complain, open to the left (well, Democrats) than the right.

    The Daily Caller continues explaining the background to the Bureau’s own ‘election interference’ events:

    Roth’s revelations about the meetings with intelligence agencies are similar to those of Mark Zuckerberg, who said in August that Facebook censored the Hunter Biden story after federal law enforcement officials asked him to restrict “misinformation” and “Russian propaganda” ahead of the 2020 election.

    The FBI agent overseeing these weekly meetings was Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan, according to the NYP; however, Chan claimed not to recall whether the topic of Hunter Biden came up at these meetings in a deposition for a lawsuit filed by Republican attorneys general that alleged collusion to censor speech by federal agencies and Big Tech. Chan was also one of two FBI agents who met with Zuckerberg to warn him of potential Russian election interference before Facebook censored the story.

    However, while the FBI insinuated and influenced Twitter and Facebook and other platforms, like LinkedIn, indirectly to censor the laptop story, it never explicitly provided Big Tech any evidence or statement claiming officially that the laptop info was hacked.

    And this only makes Twitter’s decision more egregious.

    As the Daily Caller concludes:

    Taibbi tweeted an email indicating that Twitter’s trust and safety team initially explained to other employees that it made the decision to suppress the story — the company even went so far as to prevent it from being sent in private messages — because it violated Twitter’s policy for sharing “hacked materials.” Typically, such a ruling would require an official statement from law enforcement identifying the material as hacked, something that Twitter never received, according to Taibbi…

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

    China Raids US Corporate Due Diligence Firm in Beijing – Retaliation or Crackdown?

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    3
    Joe Biden via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    ANALYSIS – The communist regime in China raided a private U.S. investigations company’s office in Beijing on March 20. 

    This brazen, and likely unlawful, act against the New York-based due diligence firm, the Mintz Group, follows the FBI raid last fall of an illegal Chinese overseas ‘police station’ in New York City.

    And some see it as a heavy-handed, and non-symmetrical retaliation.

    But the raid in Beijing is also likely tied to Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s draconian security crackdown on the information inside China.

    “Red alerts should be going off in all boardrooms right now about risks in China,” said one source in the New York Post.

    The same U.S. business person also said that the Mintz Group raid sent a “remarkable signal” that Beijing will suck up foreign money and technology but won’t accept credible U.S. firms conducting research and investigations on Chinese partners or the country’s business environment.

    Reuters reported that the company confirmed that “Chinese authorities have detained the five staff in Mintz Group’s Beijing office, all of them Chinese nationals, and have closed our operations there.”

    The detained employees are reportedly being held somewhere outside Beijing. The company has not been able to contact the employees since they were detained.

    Unlike the official police status of the Chinese outposts raided in NYC, the Mintz Group is a purely private company.

    The firm describes itself as “a corporate investigations firm that gathers information before hiring, before transactions, during litigation disputes and after frauds, all over the world.”

    According to its website, the company has over 450 investigators in 18 offices worldwide, but its Beijing office is the only one in mainland China. It has a second office in Hong Kong.

    It also does background checks, asset tracing, and fraud and corruption investigations for businesses planning acquisitions or other large investments. 

    This corporate mission will likely be used by Chinese authorities to accuse the company of being spies.

    And it wouldn’t be the first time western due diligence companies have gotten into trouble with Chinese authorities. 

    British corporate investigator Peter Humphrey and his American wife Yu Yingzeng, who ran a risk advisory firm, ChinaWhys, were detained in 2013 for work they did for a giant British pharmaceutical firm.

    They spent two years in jail.

    But there is an added twist to this latest raid.

    While there may not be a direct link, the New York Post reported that: “Randal Phillips, a partner at the firm [Mintz Group] who heads its Asia operations but is based outside of China, is listed on its website as the Central Intelligence Agency’s former chief representative in China. Phillips worked in Beijing for years after leaving the CIA.”

    Even though the raid can be seen as a response to the FBI raid against Beijing’s illegal NYC police outpost, one of 100 stations around the world, the additional motive is also clear. 

    As the New York Times reports:

    …the move [also] highlighted the risks that firms involved in due diligence face in China as Xi Jinping, the country’s top leader, has repeatedly called for a greater emphasis on security and has tightened the ruling Communist Party’s grip on information.

    The firm stated that it “has not received any official legal notice regarding a case against the company and has requested that the authorities release its employees.”

    Perhaps not coincidentally, reported the Wall Street Journal, the Mintz Group raid is putting foreign companies in China on alert just as the country hosts an international economic conclave called the ‘China Development Forum’ set for this weekend.

    The high-profile event is expected to be attended by Apple CEO Tim Cook, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, Ray Dalio, who founded the world’s biggest hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates, and other top executives.

    According to a survey by the American Chamber of Commerce in China, with increasing tensions between the U.S. and China, U.S. businesses already operating in China are increasingly pessimistic about their prospects.

    Maybe this latest Chinese act will make more U.S. firms think twice about investing there.

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

    China’s Spy Balloon Was a Big Deal, Likely Gained Valuable SIGINT for Beijing

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    11
    Joe Biden via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    ANALYSIS – Joe Biden’s Chinese spy balloon fiasco keeps getting worse. As I noted earlier, almost all of the Biden spin about the Chinese balloon that spent eight long days surveilling military and strategic sites across the United States, was misleading or outright false. 

    Contrary to the furious pro-Biden spin, the 200ft tall balloon with a jetliner-sized surveillance package strapped to it, did pose an intelligence and military threat.

    It could also have been shot down much earlier without undue risk to those on the ground – especially since it first cruised over the Aleutian Islands and parts of Alaska.

    And no, President Trump did not know or ignore prior Chinese balloon incursions when he was in office. 

    Reports of brief crossings of Chinese balloons over peripheral parts of the U.S., like Florida, or U.S. territories far from the continental U.S. like Guam, did not surface until well after Trump left office.

    Apparently, the Pentagon didn’t detect those extremely brief forays at the time, displaying a major gap in our surveillance capabilities.

    But this incursion was of a whole different scope and scale.

    I earlier argued that the primary goal of this latest extended cross-country balloon incursion for China was political.

    It was a clear test. What would Biden and the U.S. military do? And their answer was, basically nothing until after the airship completed its 8-day surveillance mission.

    However, an added, and more dangerous goal was potentially to test how to use a stratospheric balloon to employ a small nuclear device at an extremely high altitude to produce a massive electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that would fry communications, power networks and almost all electronics across much of the United States.   

    For more on that see my previous piece.

    But let’s return to the more mundane intelligence-gathering functions of this airship. 

    While the Biden spinners rushed to say that the balloon could not gather intel not already gained by Chinese satellites in low earth orbit, this simply ignorant, and untrue.

    One left-leaning intelligence news site, SpyTalk, edited by the elderly Jeff Stein, wrote in an almost knee-jerk fashion without waiting for more facts: “Pssst: Chinese Satellite Not a Threat. Experts say news media hysteria over the floating orb not at all warranted.”

    Stein then brought in his usual suspects to buttress his pro-Biden spin.

    The liberal Stein quoted one of his regular minions, Paul Cobaugh, a left-leaning retired Army information operations specialist with no intelligence or technology background, as saying we have a “variety of capabilities to render it unusable or mitigate the threat.” 

    This is partly true. We do have means to mitigate the threat. 

    A senior U.S. defense official said on Feb. 2 that when the Chinese balloon was detected near Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana, home of the 341st strategic intercontinental ballistic missile wing, the Pentagon “acted immediately to protect against the collection of secretive information.” 

    That likely meant shutting off signals-emitting systems and moving secretive aircraft and sensitive equipment under cover or into a hangar.

    The Pentagon can take similar steps to stop satellites from gathering intelligence, but it is far more disruptive to have a giant airship looming overhead for long periods of time, as it was in this case.

    But SpyTalk’s Cobaugh takes his uninformed argument about the balloon to an extreme, adding with no nuance or uncertainty:

    “It’s not a threat.”

    SpyTalk didn’t stop there though and added the always predictable, hyper-partisan, Trump-hating former Air Force general and CIA director Michael Hayden to the mix, who totally dismissed the Chinese balloon, and Biden’s inaction, by saying:

    “Really, it’s not a big deal.” 

    Well, this is all just nonsense. It was a very big deal.

    Beyond the various risks noted above and in my earlier piece, the ability to vacuum up valuable Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) unavailable to satellites, makes the balloon threat unique. 

    As Defense News reports:

    Experts say balloons loitering at high altitudes can offer some advantages over satellites and drones — or could at least augment their intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities.

    Tom Karako, director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, said one benefit of these balloons is their ability to hover closer to the ground than satellites, and they may be able to intercept communication or electronic signals that orbiting systems can’t.

    “It could be thermal infrared, it could be signals intelligence. One of the reasons there are advantages to the suborbital position is you might not be able to do all of that from space,” he told C4ISRNET in a Feb. 3 interview. “There’s a whole lot of value to something other than space.”

    Bryan Clark, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Defense Concepts and Technology, said balloons also offer more persistent, less predictable coverage over an area of interest. While satellites follow a known orbit, airships use wind currents and automated controls to maneuver in different directions. They can also hover in one place for a long period of time.

    Clark told C4ISRNET: “With a satellite, you know when they’re going to go overhead, so you stop doing whatever you’re doing for the time it’s overhead. If you have a balloon, it could be out there for days or months, and you’re sort of left either having to stop whatever you’re doing that’s generating intel — or you live with it.”

    And there is much more our intelligence experts and agencies can’t yet divulge about this balloon.

    Hopefully, once it is fully recovered we can expect a full damage assessment.

    So, yes, the high-tech, high-altitude, Chinese surveillance airship that spent 8 days traversing the U.S. was a threat, and the leftist partisan spin machine continues to churn out uninformed nonsense.

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

    Amanda Head: Highlights From Devon Archer’s Testimony

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    1
    Amanda Head

    See everything you missed from Devon Archer’s testimony on Capitol Hill.

    Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

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

    Feds Gave $400 BILLION in ‘COVID Relief’ to Criminals and Scammers

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    4
    Secretary of Health Dr. Rachel Levine answering questions from the press. As states across the country begin to reopen and nearly half are seeing COVID-19 cases rise, Governor Tom Wolf announced Friday that Pennsylvania is not one of them. ...Today at a daily COVID briefing with Health Secretary Dr. Rachel Levine, he noted another milestone: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention proprietary data for states indicates that we are one of just three states that has had a downward trajectory of COVID- 19 cases for more than 42 days. The other two states are Montana and Hawaii. JUNE 17, 2020 - HARRISBURG, PA.

    ANALYSIS– This should be one of the biggest stories in America. The bloated, overreaching, over-powerful, over-taxing federal government gave nearly half a TRILLION of our tax dollars for so-called ‘COVID-19 relief’ to grifters, scammers and fraudsters. 

    If that doesn’t cause national outrage, nothing will.

    They used to say sarcastically, ‘a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.’

    Well, this is $400 billion worth of real money, and the monstrosity we call the federal government literally gave it away to criminals.

    Often the fraud involved identity theft and crooks overseas. Sadly, some of those criminals might also be your next-door neighbors, family, or friends. 

    Everyone, it seems, ‘wanted in’ on an easy payday.

    And the government gave it all to them in about three years. Fortune reported:

    An Associated Press analysis found that fraudsters potentially stole more than $280 billion in COVID-19 relief funding; another $123 billion was wasted or misspent. Combined, the loss represents a jarring 10% of the $4.2 trillion the U.S. government has so far disbursed in COVID-relief aid.

    That number is certain to grow as investigators dig deeper into thousands of potential schemes.

    There are myriad reasons for the staggering loss. Investigators and outside experts say the government, in seeking to quickly spend trillions in relief aid, conducted too little oversight during the pandemic’s early stages and instituted too few restrictions on applicants. In short, they say, the grift was just way too easy.

    “Here was this sort of endless pot of money that anyone could access,” said Dan Fruchter, chief of the fraud and white-collar crime unit at the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Eastern District of Washington. “Folks kind of fooled themselves into thinking that it was a socially acceptable thing to do, even though it wasn’t legal.”

    It was theft. Some big; some small. But together it equaled a mass of scams so large it is unprecedented in U.S. history.

    And it all occurred when America was being devastated with overrun hospitals, school closures, closed businesses, and many others who really needed help.

    This is what happens when a giant faceless government bureaucracy is enabled by politicians from both parties (but generally more so from the Democrats) and detached from reality, taken from the people, and then decide who to give it to afterward.

    As Fortune notes: “Too much government money, Republicans argue, breeds fraud, waste, and inflation.” And it does.

    But it also shows the state of American society where almost everyone wants something for nothing and is willing to scam and steal to get it.

    And in this case, both sides are to blame for the massive spending and waste.

    At the height of the pandemic, President Donald Trump approved emergency aid measures totaling $3.2 trillion, according to figures from the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, and reported by Fortune.

    And then came Joe Biden with his 2021 ‘American Rescue Plan’ spending another $1.9 trillion. 

    The committee’s most recent accounting shows that about a fifth of the $5.2 trillion (over $1 TRILLION) has yet to be fully paid out. 

    Perhaps they should put that on hold until they can figure out what fraudsters they will be giving it out to, and also recover the $400 billion already wasted.

    At least Republicans and Democrats have agreed on one way to fix it. 

    They are giving the government more time to catch fraudsters with legislation passed in August To increase the statute of limitations from five to 10 years on crimes involving the two major programs managed by the Small Business Administration.

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

    Universities Training Gen Z to be Woke Snitches and to Punish Speech

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    1

    ANALYSIS – It is becoming sadly clear that this may be the last generation of any real freedom in America as Generation Z (Gen Z or Zoomers) increasingly supports the surveillance and punishment state. Many are also exhibitionists craving 24-7 attention.

    As I wrote about earlier – Gen Z ‘loves Big Brother.’ Big Brother is the term used by George Orwell to describe the totalitarian surveillance state in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984).

    In that piece, I noted a CATO Institute poll that showed 30 percent of people under 30 support allowing the government to install video cameras in our homes to “reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity.”

    And we can blame a lot of that on the far-l*ft w*ke culture at our colleges and universities.

    It’s bad enough that many of this generation is willing to let faceless bureaucrats watch us in our homes, but Zoomers appear willing to go beyond even that. They are the generation of snitches, and punishers, going after anyone they disagree with.

    This generation has been taught to equate ‘unapproved’ speech with actual violence, so it makes sense that they’ll do whatever it takes to eliminate it. 

    Much of this can be traced back to higher education. Our colleges and schools are teaching our kids to be hypersensitive, ideological, w*ke snitches. 

    After providing various scary examples, including one where a professor used the oft-used term “sacred cow,” and a student filed a complaint that said the student would “not feel safe around him” any longer, Christian Schneider writes in National Review:

    …part of the reason Gen Z has an unquenchable thirst for surveillance is what they are being taught at their colleges and universities. All the above examples were reports filed with campus “Bias Response Teams” — programs set up by institutions of higher education that incentivize students to narc on each other for expressing unpopular opinions or engaging in disfavored behavior.

    Decades ago, courts threw out college “speech codes,” finding that public universities banning language was impermissible under the First Amendment. So when the internet grew as a tool, schools crafted a workaround: What if, instead of the schools targeting students for unpopular speech, it was the students themselves doing the targeting? And thus a majority of public colleges and universities began crowdsourcing their speech codes.

    In fact, bias-response teams are actually worse than the traditional speech codes, which outlawed specific words: The new standard for determining whether speech is forbidden is simply anything that offends someone. Any oversensitive campus resident now has the power to log on and anonymously report a fellow student or professor.

    Not to be outdone by its elite competitors, Stanford University implemented its own Orwellian system in which the school offered students a cash bounty if they reported insensitive speech on campus. In April, the school backtracked on the plan after an ensuing episode of national outrage.

    You can’t get much more Orwellian than that. 

    But there is a big added factor in why this generation loves surveillance, “cameras are what young people now seek, hoping to parlay their everyday goings-on into a Kardashian-like media empire.”

    Schneider notes that one poll found that nearly one-quarter of Zoomers in the United States planned to be internet ‘influencers,’ making their living creating videos for YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram. 

    Apparently, we no longer need doctors, engineers, scientists, or lawyers (well, maybe not so many lawyers).

    I don’t know about you, but a nation of empty-headed TikTok influencers scares me almost more than the Orwellian surveillance they like so much.

    Schneider adds: “Today’s young people have become both informers and self-exposers. If we’re not careful, their snitch culture will threaten privacy and freedom.” 

    I would go further. If we aren’t careful, very soon, America, as a free country, will be totally unrecognizable.

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

    Amanda Head: DeSantis Is In! Tell Us Your Thoughts!

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    28

    The showdown between former President Donald Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has America hooked.

    Have you already made up your mind or are you waiting for a fight?

    Watch Amanda 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