Sometimes reality is even stranger than fiction…
Is conservative satire site Babylon Bee psychic?
Let Amanda explain the controversy below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – The pressure on incompetent ideologue, Alejandro Mayorkas, Joe Biden’s Homeland Security chief, is increasing daily.
His inability, or unwillingness to control the violent chaos at the border, and other major missteps, such as overhyping the ‘right wing’ domestic threat, are making him the lightning rod for the newly elected GOP-led House.
As I wrote earlier, the House must aggressively investigate Mayorkas, and if needed, impeach him.
He should be one of the first Team Biden heads to roll in 2023.
Newsmax reports: “The White House will pressure Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to resign before House Republicans can push for his impeachment, but he likely won’t willingly step down…”
“The White House sees the writing on the wall,” said Mark Morgan, the acting Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner under former President Donald Trump, on Newsmax TV’s “Wake Up America.”
“They know what’s going on. I think they’re going to put pressure on Secretary Mayorkas to resign to prevent them the embarrassment of being dragged through hearings.”
But Mayorkas’ “ego and pride” won’t let him “do what he needs to do in the best interests of this country,” Morgan added.
Newsmax continued:
His comments come after remarks by House Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who hopes to become the House speaker after the new Congress is sworn in this coming January.
Tuesday, McCarthy called on Mayorkas to step down and warned that the House might call for his impeachment after Republicans take over the majority…
“We know Mayorkas has been this administration’s chief architect of the open border,” said Morgan. “He took the most secure border in our lifetime and intentionally un-secured it. In the last 22 months, we’ve had over 4.5 million encounters and 1.1 million known gotaways.
We know drugs are pouring into this country, literally killing Americans every single day. We know among the 1.1. million known gotaways are hardcore criminals, murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and gang members.
But while McCarthy emphasizes the border crisis, Mayorkas is also guilty of falsely demonizing and targeting half of all Americans.
As the Center for Security Policy (CSP) explains:
Alejandro Mayorkas [has] parroted the oft-repeated line that the biggest terrorist threat America faces comes from “domestic ideologically motivated extremism.”
This is a central assertion by the Biden Administration…They have even gone so far as to claim U.S. law enforcement and the military are riddled with domestic extremists despite the fact there has been no real evidence released to support this supposition.
CSP continues:
In order to hype the seriousness of the domestic threat, the Biden Administration has soft-pedaled the very real danger of international terrorism. According to Forbes, Mayorkas reported “that since the September 11 attacks, the threat landscape against the U.S. has substantially ‘evolved’ to the point that foreign terrorism is no longer the chief concern of DHS.”
In other words, the threat from jihad receded and now takes a back seat to domestic “extremism.” In fact, Mayorkas said that the main threat was now what occurred on January 6 at the U.S. Capitol.
The actions by Mayorkas at the border, and by hyping the so-called domestic threat are nothing short of disgraceful.
We can only hope his ego doesn’t allow him to resign. It’s time for a real prime-time Congressional hearing focused on all these critical Team Biden- created issues.
And then, if Biden doesn’t fire him, he should be impeached. GAND
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – This could be huge. Donald Trump is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court – which he helped shape as president – following a ruling in Colorado to bar him from its presidential primary ballot over his engagement in an “insurrection.”
Colorado’s all Democrat appointed, left-leaning Supreme Court has ruled 4 to 3 that former President Donald Trump is disqualified from holding office again because he engaged in an “insurrection” over the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
Republicans see the Colorado court’s decision as yet another egregious example of the Democrats’ ongoing campaign of election interference against Trump.
The majority justices’ decision reversed a Denver district judge’s finding last month that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment did not apply to the presidency.
The three justices who dissented did so on procedural grounds. In three separate dissenting opinions, each based on different legal arguments, they all concluded that the Colorado Supreme Court had overstepped its authority.
Colorado’s decision will go into effect on Jan. 4, 2024 – the eve of Colorado’s March 5 Republican primary.
In the wake of the decision, Team Trump came out swinging. As The New York Times reported:
“Unsurprisingly, the all-Democrat appointed Colorado Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump, supporting a Soros-funded, left-wing group’s scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden by removing President Trump’s name from the ballot and eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice,” a campaign spokesman, Steven Cheung, said. “We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits.”
Similar challenges in New Hampshire, Michigan and Minnesota have all been dismissed in court, because the idea is nonsense. The courts there also decided that the Constitution is unclear about whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies to the president.
As Trump’s lawyers have already said he will appeal the verdict. The shock ruling will put an exceptional case before the U.S. Supreme Court – possibly being forced to decide the question for all 50 U.S. states.
The U.S. Supreme Court is made up of nine justices, six of whom are conservatives, or “constitutionalists,” three of whom were appointed by President Trump.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
This article was republished with permission from American Liberty News.
ANALYSIS – Until now, only billionaires could afford to enter sub-orbital space. And it needed to be by high-powered rocket (think Jeff Bezos in his Blue Origin, or Richard Branson in his Virgin Galactic).
Star Trek actor William Shatner also did a flight on a Blue Origin’s rocket.
But now you too can see the earth from 20 miles high. It will cost you just over $120,000 and it’s by a high-altitude balloon.
And, no, it’s not aboard a Chinese spy balloon. These will be private companies running the trips.
The billionaires in rockets still have one treat we can’t get – they can briefly experience weightlessness. They also go twice as high.
Space officially starts at the Karman line, 62 miles above the earth’s surface. But for most people there won’t be that much of a difference.
And at half the price, no training required, and a much softer, smoother ride, these edge-of-space balloons will be far more accessible and may become popular among the slightly less rich.
And unlike the rockets, these balloons will give you a much longer ride, with luxury amenities, food, and drink.
There now appears at least two companies on the verge of launching these space balloon trips. One is American and the other is French.
Both seem to avoid mention of the 1937 Hindenburg hydrogen-filled dirigible disaster.
The French company Zephalto with its Celeste balloon will provide Michelin-starred fine dining. It is partnered with France’s national space agency.
These balloons filled with helium or hydrogen will depart from France with two pilots on board and six passengers and rise 15.5 miles into the stratosphere.
Once at peak altitude, the balloon, carrying a pressurized capsule, will stay aloft for three hours, giving guests a chance to take in views previously seen only by astronauts. While in the air, passengers will be served high-end French food and wines.
These near-space rides will start at €120,000 ($132,000) per person in 2025, Bloomberg reports.
The other option will be Florida-based Space Perspective, which is testing its own passenger balloon, designed to reach the edge of space.
Eight civilians and a pilot will be able to comfortably travel up 100,000 feet (19 miles) to near space in a reusable pressurized capsule carried by a gigantic hydrogen-filled balloon called Spacecraft Neptune – because Neptune’s atmosphere is predominantly hydrogen.
The company operates out of leased facilities at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, but plans to expand to Alaska and Hawaii, and then possibly to other countries around the world.
Flight will cost about $125,000 per person. And it plans to launch a year earlier than the Celeste.
Neptune’s ride will be similar to the Zephalto balloons, ascending at a sedate 12.5 miles per hour. It will give passengers two full hours to observe 360° views of Earth rotating beneath them and space above.
The overall ride will last six hours – two hours to ascend, two hours to float along the stratosphere, and two hours to descend into the Atlantic Ocean, where a recovery ship will be waiting.
The capsule comes complete with luxury seating, refreshments, a restroom, and Wi-Fi (so you can post to Instagram or live stream on Facebook as you fly – because – of course). The company plans to offer flights for weddings, corporate events, and scientific excursions.
Its flights are scheduled to begin in 2024, but the first batch of 600 tickets is already sold out.
Bon voyage. No smoking aboard.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – General Milley’s comments were beneath him, even if Trump provoked him. As I wrote about earlier, former President Donald Trump made typically inappropriate remarks when he implied outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, due to his back-channel calls to China’s top general, deserved the ‘DEATH’ penalty for treason (all caps were in Trump’s post on Truth Social).
While no one should take Trump’s bombastic social media posts too seriously, I did say Trump was wrong to add fuel to an already flammable political environment in our country with his comments. I have also criticized Milley for his many overreactions to Trump’s words and deeds during his time in office.
In doing so, Milley made Trump out to be something he wasn’t, placed himself smack in the middle of the Democrat Party narrative of Trump, and undermined the commander-in-chief and the presidency.
In my view Milley has also been at the very least deliberately and willfully ignorant of the extreme woke policies the Pentagon has been pushing. Still, despite all my jabs at Milley, I respected his decades of service to the uniform and our country.
It’s a shame then, that Milley chose to take the low road on his way out of the DC swamp, demeaning himself and the institution, while himself politicizing the military against Trump.
As the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board wrote:
Gen. Milley retired this week after four years as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “We are unique among the world’s militaries,” the top military officer said at a retirement ceremony on Friday, noting that service members swear an oath to the Constitution.
“We don’t take an oath to a country. We don’t take an oath to a tribe. We don’t take an oath to a religion. We don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or a tyrant or a dictator. And we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator.”
Readers will catch the parting shot at Mr. Trump. The media certainly did. And who could blame Gen. Milley for loathing Mr. Trump? Casually floating the idea of harming a U.S. military officer is conduct unworthy of a wannabe Commander in Chief.
Yet it was still dispiriting to hear Gen. Milley’s remarks about a former President, in public, while wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army. Mr. Trump is the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. Like it or not, he commands political support in the country. That doubtless includes a large chunk of the enlisted ranks of the United States military services. The end-of-tour catharsis of a swipe at Mr. Trump isn’t worth polarizing the force over politics.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Journal. Milley knows better, and with his bitter and snarky jabs at Trump chose to take the low road rather than the high road on his way out.
Despite my great misgivings about the truly woke new Joint Chiefs Chairman, Air Force General C.Q. Brown, I also concur with the Journal’s parting words: “We hope that turning down the temperature of politics in the U.S. armed forces is a priority for the new chairman—perhaps behind only the military threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party.”
Message to Brown: We need an apolitical military leadership no matter the provocations from any political leader. That also means being non-ideological and non-woke.
It’s a shame Milley couldn’t see that while he was chairman, and also couldn’t just leave gracefully.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – As we end yet another crazy year, we have a new report on how Democrats continue to be the crazy party.
Despite substantial scientific evidence to the contrary, a majority of Democrats still favor masking toddlers to battle the spread of COVID.
A recent I&I/TIPP Poll showed this mass insanity when 56% of Democrats said they believed masking children under the age of 5 is still a good idea.
In contrast, only 24% of Republicans and 31% of independents believed that masking toddlers is a good idea.
When asked if masking toddlers was a bad idea, as much of the scientific evidence now shows, 58% of Republicans and 38% of independents said they think it is a bad idea.
And only 24% of Democrats thought the same way.
But the divide goes deeper, with ideology, race, and ethnicity playing big roles as well.
The Blaze reported:
When respondents were grouped by ideology rather than party, there was a similar divide: 56% of conservatives thought it was a bad idea; 31% of alleged conservatives supported the initiative. Liberals again majoritively (54%) supported covering children’s faces.
Ideology and party were not the only differentiators.
Only 33% of white Americans said it was a good idea, whereas 48% of black and Hispanic respondents supported masking kids. On the other hand, 44% of white respondents and 28% of black and Hispanic respondents were opposed.
When it came to opposing the idea, 39% of women were opposed — two points higher than their male counterparts.
The Blaze continued:
I&I intimated that what might partially account for the significant ideological split between the right and the left on the matter of masking kids is media and activist suppression of legitimate medical studies putting the efficacy of masking children in doubt.
Numerous studies questioned the effectiveness of masking in protecting from serious COVID effects.
As The Blaze explains, these studies highlight the adverse impact masks have on toddlers’ communication skills and the relative unlikelihood of children becoming severely sick from COVID.
The Blaze also notes that neither the World Health Organization (WHO) nor the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control recommends masking little kids.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – One of the most egregious efforts at election interference in 2020 was when the Joe Biden campaign successfully quashed the bombshell New York Post story of Hunter Biden’s laptop.
The laptop has proven to hold a treasure trove of incriminating evidence against the Bidens.
But it was effectively kept from the American people in the final weeks of the campaign through a concerted conspiracy between the Biden campaign, Big Tech social media companies, the major news networks, and a group of former spies.
And one of those who helped hide it from the public is now an on-air CNN analyst.
It has since been documented that Antony Blinken, then with the Biden campaign, now Biden Secretary of State, retained former senior U.S. intelligence officials to smear the laptop story as Russian disinformation.
As I have written about, 51 former spooks eventually signed a letter calling the laptop story likely Russian disinformation. This was then used as justification by the media to censor and ban the story.
One of the most senior of those partisan intelligence hacks was ex-Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper.
As a reward for his disservice, Clapper has now been hired by CNN as an analyst where he will be able to spew disinformation on all manner of national security and political topics.
And Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy made a big deal about this on a recent CNN appearance.
In a tense back-and-forth exchange with the reporter McCarthy ignored the question about Trump’s classified documents case and instead emphasized that Clapper had been one of dozens of former intelligence officials who signed the letter dismissing the Post’s October 2020 expose on Hunter’s laptop as a Russian disinformation.
He also threw in CNN’s hiring of discredited former deputy FBI chief Andrew McCabe who was fired for leaking classified information.
Fox News reported:
“Are you prepared to defend your network, CNN?” McCarthy said as they spoke over each other. “Even though your network hired Andrew McCabe, who was fired from the FBI for leaking classified documents, did you remove him from your network? No, you continue to put him on to give judgment against President Trump. You also hired Clapper …”
McCarthy later continued, according to Fox:
“So, your network hires Clapper, who literally lied to the American public – one of 51 other individuals that had briefings and used it politically to tell the American public that a laptop was Russia collusion, even though it had all this information about the Biden administration,” the speaker said.
“Are you prepared to get rid of those people from your network? Because my concern as a policymaker is that when [you] weaponize government, and now you’re weaponizing networks, that is wrong,” McCarthy continued. “I have a real problem that your network actually pays people who did classified information and then lied to the American public to try to influence a presidential election, and then you put them on your network to give an opinion.”
This line of attack against CNN and other major news outlets who hire ex-officials involved in partisan election interference is valid and should be continued.
This goes well beyond just being partisan.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Last week the world was hit by the purported news of a Russian missile strike into NATO member country, Poland.
And now the award-winning AP reporter who wrote it has been fired.
Based only on a single, unnamed ‘senior U.S. intelligence official,’ the initial Associated Press (AP) story by James LaPorta, a former U.S. Marine who served in Afghanistan, was widely disseminated and quickly caused a barrage of other reporting.
Most of it was alarmist and panic-causing, with many in the news media and blogosphere quickly demanding harsh action against Russia.
As the Blaze reports:
Fox News and the Daily Mail similarly carried the AP reporter’s suggestion, the former running a piece entitled, “Russian missiles cross into NATO member Poland, kill 2: senior US intelligence official,” and the latter stating, “‘Russian bombs’ kill two in POLAND.”
CBS Evening News tweeted “RUSSIAN MISSILE STRIKE: Two Russian missiles crossed over the Ukrainian border into Poland, a NATO country, killing two civilians.”
A Russian attack on Poland could have triggered articles 4 and 5 of the NATO charter, potentially putting the U.S. into direct conflict with nuclear power.
Article 4 requires full consultation at the North Atlantic Council, the alliance’s political decision-making body, while Article 5 requires joint NATO action to repel an attack.
As MSN explains: “Article 5 states that the parties to the NATO treaty ‘agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.’”
Article 5 also states that each NATO member must take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
This of course would make the U.S. a direct combatant in this war and could escalate to a nuclear exchange.
As such, I wrote about the ‘errant’ strike the same day, albeit in more careful ways.
My headline was more matter-of-fact and far less alarming, and it didn’t mention a direct Russian missile strike: “Escalation in Russia-Ukraine War Leads to Emergency Crisis Meeting.”
In the piece I did note the ramifications of any foreign missiles crashing into Poland, writing: “In what might be the greatest (albeit perhaps accidental) escalation since Russia invaded Ukraine, the war just crossed the border into a NATO country.”
And, yes, I like to say ‘albeit.’
I added:
According to a senior U.S. intelligence official, as Russia pounded Ukraine’s energy facilities Tuesday with the largest barrage of missile strikes to date, some reportedly ‘stray’ Russian missiles crossed into NATO member Poland and struck a site in Poland about 15 miles from the Ukrainian border.
The allegedly errant strike killed two persons in the Polish village of Przewodów and provoked an emergency crisis meeting of Poland’s national security team, which will be held Tuesday evening.
While I did refer to a Ukrainian Air Force spokesman who said Russia used X-101 and X-555 cruise missiles in the latest attacks against Ukraine, and reports that expressed the belief that “one or more of these cruise missiles were the ones that struck Poland,” I was very careful in how I reported all this.
Note the extensive use of the words “accidental,” “allegedly,” “reportedly,” “errant,” and “stray” missiles in my report. I also explained that the incident had provoked an “emergency crisis meeting” in Poland.
The rest of my piece focused on the confirmed, massive Russian barrage of missile strikes against Ukrainian energy and infrastructure targets throughout the country.
In the end it appears that the missile that struck Poland was a Russian-made Ukrainian air defense missile that missed its mark and fell back to earth rather than self-destructs.
And even after its country of manufacture was known, outlets like CNN kept calling it a ‘Russian-made missile’ without adding that Ukraine uses lots of Russian-made missiles.
Of course, in my view, Russia is still to blame for this, albeit indirectly, since no one would be firing armed missiles near a NATO country if it weren’t for the unprovoked Russian invasion, and its reckless and dangerous strikes near NATO’s borders.
The Blaze added that:
After having updated the initial report several times, the AP indicated [November 16] that a new assessment from three U.S. officials “contradicts information” in the original article. Shortly thereafter, the article was reportedly taken offline.
The AP issued a retraction later that day…
On Nov. 21, LaPorta was fired.
But let’s use this incident as a teachable moment.
Lesson one – as sophisticated news consumers, be circumspect with the news you read until it is fully verified.
Lesson two – be wary of reports using only one or two anonymous sources.
And lesson three – journalists, and social media posters, should use words like ‘reportedly’ a lot more, and make it clear that there is room for doubt or questions when the reports are still fresh and early.
The most important rule I’ve learned in journalism, and in intelligence, and also during my stint on Wall Street, is that – it’s never as good (or as bad) as first reported.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
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.
