Opinion

Home Opinion Page 39

GOP Leaders Fund Anti-Freedom Caucus Primary Candidates

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.

.

Democrats Give Their Media Green Light to Go After Bidens

7
CNN Headquarters via Wikimedia Commons

ANALYSIS – It seems that the Democrat establishment has given its media the green light to start reporting real news about the Bidens. Some will see it as them going after Joe and Hunter Biden, but most will see it as something long forgotten by these organizations – journalism.

Either way, as Hot Air asked: “Who let the dogs out?” 

And more importantly, why now?

White House Press reporters not from Fox News, or other conservative outlets, are finally asking Joe Biden tough questions, including whether he was involved in his son’s shady business deals.

And CBS Evening News did an entire national broadcast piece interviewing the senior IRS whistleblower about how the agency held back in its investigation into Hunter Biden.

The segment was only three minutes long, but that’s a lifetime in broadcast news, especially when the topic has literally been banned from the establishment media since Biden launched his campaign in 2020.

In the CBS segment reporter Jim Axelrod interviewed IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley in a professional manner and allowed him time to fully answer his questions.

The segment included reporting “…the stunning claim he [Shapley] was blocked from pursuing leads that could have led to the president himself.”

This follows another CBS News story on the two whistleblowers last Thursday that included transcripts of their interviews with GOP lawmakers.

That story noted that: “Two IRS whistleblowers allege sweeping misconduct, including interference in the Hunter Biden tax investigation, according to the GOP House Ways and Means Committee chairman and newly released transcripts of congressional interviews with the whistleblowers.”

This can only start building to a bigger deluge of actual reporting on the Biden scandals. The question is why now? David Catron explained his view of the Democrat intrigue in the Spectator:

Something changed last week inside the Beltway that suggests the people who run the Democratic Party now realize President Biden’s tenure in office is not sustainable beyond 2024. The “tell” was not, however, the latest revelation by IRS whistleblowers about his corrupt administration. It was instead the sudden awakening of the White House press corps. The same “reporters” who snored through more than two years of preposterous claims by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and her predecessor simultaneously woke up Friday. Correspondents from media outlets CNN, CBS, NBC, and even the New York Times aggressively questioned Jean-Pierre about the metastasizing Hunter Biden scandals. 

This wasn’t spontaneous. The word has gone out that regime change is coming [emphasis added].

So, it seems Democrats want Biden out. And Kamala Harris too. And can you blame them?

I have long predicted that Biden would not finish the 2024 race. Too old. Too frail. Too demented. Too scandal plagued. And Harris is just plain dumb. And unelectable.

But what now? Conservative commentator Chad Prather notes in The Blaze:

“They’re gonna really run Joe down, and it’s gonna get to a point where basically, Jill’s gonna come along and pull Joe and say, ‘You know, Joe and I have decided that we have fixed everything Trump messed up. We’ve done our job; it’s time to pass the mantle on to the successor.’”

Prather adds that Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 race will allow him to avoid any criminal liability and believes he and Jill will sign a very big book deal, and as part of a bigger deal, will likely let Harris be president, briefly.

 “She’ll get to be the first female president — just for a second. That’ll keep her from running her mouth too much later on, because they’ll throw her that bone,” Prather adds.

“She’ll go down in history as that.”

I must admit this scenario sounds plausible to me. The only remaining question is, who will be the real Democrat candidate for president in 2024?

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

Amanda Head: Brutal Polls Numbers Are In For Biden!

1
Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

Democrats didn’t expect it to be this bad…

Weeks after Joe Biden announced his re-election campaign and pollsters are already showing massive red flags.]

Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

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

Pentagon Spying on Everything for Bad Comments About Generals

2
David B. Gleason from Chicago, IL, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

ANALYSIS – Big Brother keeps growing – As part of the broader government war against free speech, the Department of Defense (DoD) is now using Orwellian means to search the internet, social media, and just about everything else, for things we say or post.

And it’s not just for legitimate physical threats against generals, it will also be looking for simple negative comments about our top military leaders.

And we should all be outraged. This really is scary stuff. This even goes beyond recent reports of the government buying our detailed personal information from data brokers, which I wrote about here.

The military runs a little-known outfit called the Army Protective Services Battalion under the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division (CID). Think of it as the Pentagon’s Secret Service for generals.

Its mission specifically falls under CID’s Executive Protection and Special Investigations Field Office. And it has a lot of resources. Its new webpage notes:

With over 400 assigned special agents, police officers, analysts, physical security specialists, and professional support personnel spread across three continents, the Executive Protection Field Office is the largest office within CID providing worldwide dignitary protection for the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of the Army, Chief of Staff of the Army, and over a dozen other protectees in domestic and overseas locations.

Executive Protection also protects foreign counterparts during official visits to the United States, along with designated former or retired Department of Defense officials. Army CID’s dignitary protection mission is supported by robust protective intelligence and threat management investigative capabilities. [Emphasis added].

This perfectly legitimate organization exists to safeguard our senior military brass, as well as foreign brass visiting our country. As part of its duties, it conducts legitimate ‘protective intelligence’ to identify potential physical threats to its protectees. 

I am very familiar with their mission having worked with some of these folks as a military attaché during high-level foreign visits by our Defense Secretary and generals. I also have professional experience with dignitary protection. 

All this is very good and vital stuff.

The problem arises when the scope of the protective intelligence mission expands to include things that it shouldn’t. In this case, the unit is tasked to protect current and former high-ranking military officers from “assassination, kidnapping, injury or embarrassment.” 

Yes, among the big threats is “embarrassment.” 

That’s bad enough since it opens the door to looking into things that they shouldn’t just because they might embarrass a general. 

But now, according to an Army procurement document from September 2022, reports the Intercept, the detachment’s mission has expanded to include monitoring social media for “direct, indirect, and veiled” threats and identifying “negative sentiment” regarding its protectees. 

And it’s hiring a technology contractor to do its dirty work.

“Negative sentiment” – that is almost as bad as “mean tweets.” It is beyond outrageous.

I have expressed ‘negative sentiment’ toward a few senior military leaders numerous times online and in published articles – including Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Milley.

And I will continue to do so, as is my 1st amendment right.

The line should be when anyone makes veiled or direct physical threats against any political or military leader, not just says mean things.

As The Intercept reports: “There may be legally valid reasons to intrude on someone’s privacy by searching for, collecting, and analyzing publicly available information, particularly when it pertains to serious crimes and terrorist threats,” Ilia Siatitsa, program director at Privacy International, said.

“However,” he added, “expressing ‘positive or negative sentiment towards a senior high-risk individual’ cannot be deemed sufficient grounds for government agencies to conduct surveillance operations.”

Siatitsa rightly concluded: “The ability to express opinions, criticize, make assumptions, or form value judgments — especially regarding public officials — is a quintessential part of democratic society.”

Beyond that, what if the Army is protecting a Chinese general visiting the United States? Will they surveil or target Americans who are critical of this foreign adversary’s general or of China?

And according to the documents uncovered by The Intercept, the program the Army is procuring for its newly expanded intelligence mission is a dystopian surveillance nightmare. 

It will scour everything, everywhere, and then even pinpoint the location of the person making the comment.

This is extremely frightening.

The Army describes their surveillance system as “a reliable social media threat mitigation service” with an “Open-Source Web-based toolkit with advanced capabilities to collect publicly available information (PAI).”

Information is not only grabbed up from Twitter’s “firehose” but also from 4Chan, Reddit, YouTube, Discord, Telegram, private contractors like Dataminr, as well as smartphone apps and advertisers.

Combined with cellular location data the Army could also precisely pinpoint those who might make a mean tweet about current or former military officials. 

The Intercept adds that all this data, plus CCTV feeds, radio stations, personal records, and even webcams – would be available via a “universal search selector.” That means they can access just about anything.

The Army also wants the contractor to preserve the “anonymity and security needed” by “using various egress points globally to mask their identity.” This means they can conveniently make it look like the folks doing the snooping are in China or Russia.

This is a very scary domestic spying capability to use against Americans. Congress must investigate this Orwellian program immediately and remove elements that will infringe on our constitutional rights.

Or it will soon be used against you.

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

New FBI Records Reveal Warnings About Suspicious Individual Before Sniper Attack On Trump

0

A stash of newly-released documents reveal FBI, Secret Service and other officials noted a suspicious person carrying bags and scouting security measures in the hours before a sniper attempted to kill President Donald Trump in Butler, Penn., but no one seems to have taken any action to investigate.

The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced in a statement it “forced the release of 37 heavily redacted pages from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit revealing that law enforcement personnel broadcast radio warnings about an ‘unknown male acting suspiciously’ prior to the attempted assassination of then-candidate Donald Trump at a July 13, 2024, rally in Butler, PA. These are the first records the FBI has released about the Butler assassination attempt on Trump.”

“These documents raise troubling new questions about Secret Service failures to protect President Trump.  And it shouldn’t have taken years and a federal lawsuit to get this basic FBI material about the near assassination of President Trump,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

Judicial Watch reports it “filed the July 2025 lawsuit after the FBI failed to respond to a July 2024 FOIA request (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:25-cv-02216)). Judicial Watch asked for:”

All records, including but not limited to, investigative reports, interview summaries (Forms 1023), letterhead memoranda, photos, audio/visual recordings, database inquiries, interagency communications, and any other records, whether contained in the Central Records System or cross-referenced files, related to Thomas Matthew Crooks, born September 20, 2003 in Butler Township, PA and died on July 13, 2024, who attempted the assassination of former President Donald Trump on July 13, 2024.

All records of communication in any form, including but not limited to emails, text messages, encrypted app communications and voice recordings, between FBI officials and/or FBI sources, contractors, and assets on the one hand, and Thomas Matthew Crooks on the other hand.

Judicial Watch reports its “records include a July 16, 2024, ‘FD-302’ investigative report that states that on the day of the shooting:”

Prior to the start of the shooting, [Redacted] received reports over the radio about an unknown male acting suspiciously. The unknown male had bags and was wearing a gray T-shirt with “Demolition Ranch” written on the front of it. One report included the unknown male looking at a law enforcement sniper position. Several operators were communicating information about the unknown male back and forth over the radio–including to/from Command, to the Secret Service, to PSP [PA State Police], to “everybody.”

Judicial Watch’s statement reports:

A July 15 electronic communication titled “Opening EC for Investigation of Thomas Matthew Crooks” that launched the FBI investigation of Thomas Crooks notes that one purpose of the investigation, given that Crooks himself was killed by Secret Service agents, was to determine “the subject’s motivation and to identify if there were any co-conspirators.” 

A July 14 investigative report describes an unidentified acquaintance of Thomas Crooks and his family, the acquaintance indicated that sometime between May and June 2024, Crooks “was dehydrated and needed to be taken to the hospital.” It continued, “[Redacted] stated that she thought it was strange that [redacted] did not take him to the hospital themselves.” 

A July 16 electronic communication states that on the previous day, the FBI returned a flip phone seized as evidence in their investigation of Crooks, and that that “Lead is fully covered.”

A July 16 report notes that on the previous day a person who was apparently a neighbor, described the Crooks family as “normal, nice people” and that Crooks “seemed like a normal dorky kid.”

A July 16 electronic communication details that acting on a tip, sent to the FBI regarding a “concerning” Facebook post regarding Crooks’ attempted assassination of Trump:

Facebook “Damn, bad shot. Would have done the world a service” and another comment on the original post “We should watched his ficking brains brains blown away.” The tipster also provided the Facebook page that posted this was [redacted]. 

A July 16 electronic communication indicates that a business card was located at the crime scene of Trump’s attempted assassination, and the person associated with it was investigated, although nothing derogatory about that individual was identified in law enforcement records. An interview of that individual was recommended.

A July 16 interview report states that investigators talked with an individual who had attended the Butler rally:

[Redacted] recalled that approximately 5 minutes after the shots were fired, a light silver Subaru Hatchback sped past her and almost struck her. [Redacted] didn’t remember the vehicle having any stickers or distinct markings. [Redacted] didn’t get a look at the license plate, but believed the driver to be an older white male with short hair and tan skin. [Redacted] saw the Subaru in the parking lot near houses specifically a brown house with a pool. The vehicle departed the parking lot making a sharp right turn near the old buildings.

[Redacted] was with [redacted] in the parking lot and observed the vehicle too. [Redacted] described the vehicle as a 2017 silver Subaru Forester…. [Redacted] noted the terrain was too rough to drive at the rate of speed the Subaru was doing. [Redacted] thought the incident with the vehicle occurred maybe 10 minutes after the shooting.

A July 16 interview report details the observations of a member of the Saxonburg Police Department who was also a member of the Butler Emergency Services Unit:

[Redacted] was on the counter assault team. His position was in the turret inside the armor vehicle next to the barns behind the stage. [Redacted] stated sniper teams called out and sent photos of a suspicious person with a range finder. [Redacted] stated he watched a guy fitting the description walking from the water tower to the stage area and out of view. He did not see anything on the individual.

[Redacted] stated prior to anything happening he saw four people one child walking away from the AGR [American Glass Research] building towards the houses then two units took off in the direction of where the shooter was later found. A call came out over the radio of a long gun on the roof. Shortly after shots started going off. [Redacted] rode in the armor behind the tents near the stage, but did not ever have a view of the roof where the shooter was. [Redacted] ran out of the armor vehicle with a ladder to AGR and was told they didn’t need any more guys on the roof. So he came back and held security for a medic working on the deceased individual. The Secret Service then took over the tent.

In a July 16 interview summary of an individual who had attended the Butler rally:

[S]he noticed a white male with dark hair interacting with a uniformed law enforcement officer. They both were seen looking at two open windows of the property/building adjacent to the AGR Building. The white male told the officer that those windows were not supposed to be open. [Redacted] saw the windows that appeared to be opened from the inside. As the officer walked around towards the other side of the building, the white male stood on the side where the windows were facing towards the event/stage.  

Shortly thereafter, at approximately some time after 6PM, she heard another white male yell the following, “He’s got a gun, everybody run!” This white male appeared to be in his late [redacted] who was seen wearing a white shirt, who had dark colored hair and a [redacted]. She remembered seeing a “panicked” look on his face. After he yelled, [redacted] heard six gunshots that sounded like they came from the two open windows. She took [redacted] and ran towards the vehicle along with many others from the crowd. She lost [redacted] in the crowd but continued running towards the vehicle with [redacted] and another white male who helped with getting [redacted] to the vehicle. She eventually located [redacted] with the help of the same male.

She recalled seeing the law enforcement officer wearing a brown/tan uniform but she did not see the patch.

When she returned to the vehicle, she recalled seeing the Suburban still parked behind her with no occupants inside. She departed the scene shortly thereafter.

After reflection, [Redacted] thought the security outside of the fence line was a concern because there was a lot of open access. She did not see anybody screening individuals near or outside the fence line.

[Redacted] told agents that she does not support conspiracy theorist or is one but she wanted to provide this information to investigators just in case it would help with the investigation.

A July 16 interview report details the observations of a member of the Slippery Rock Police Department who was also a member of the Butler Emergency Services Unit:

Once Trump started to move toward the stage, [redacted] and the Bravo squad were prepared to move in the armored vehicle. At that time, a report came in over the radio stating there was a male on one of the roofs ([redacted] was not sure which roof) and that the male had a long gun.

Almost immediately after the report came over the radio, [redacted] heard several gunshots. [Redacted] was not sure how many, possibly seven or eight shots. The Bravo squad then responded in the armored vehicle to the grand stand. When they arrived, they exited the armored vehicle and pushed up the grand stand. They were there briefly, attempting to determine what was happening, and then pulled back. At that time, [Redacted] observed a male on the ground with a gun shot wound to his chest. The team then formed a tight perimeter around the medics as they addressed the injured male.

The Secret Service then requested a tactical team to provide security at the Butler Hospital. [Redacted] and three other operators drove the armored vehicle to the hospital and formed a hard perimeter around the outside of the hospital and the helicopter landing pad. [Redacted] stayed there until they “took Donald Trump out.”

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk.

Biden DOJ Wants Even Harsher Sentences for Key Jan. 6 Rioters

3
Elvert Barnes, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

ANALYSIS – First, let’s be clear. I was at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, as a security contractor for a foreign TV news crew. I witnessed the chaos firsthand and was not happy about it. 

I strongly condemned those who violently rioted there in an article the very next day.

In my piece, I even said they should go to jail, just like any other violent rioters.

And they should. But Joe Biden’s DoJ isn’t content with ‘hard time’ for some of these rioters. They want a much longer time.

To also be clear, at the Capitol that day I saw tens of thousands of peaceful protesters before the riot. And saw many ‘rioters’ who weren’t violent.

Meanwhile, I have written about how many peaceful Jan. 6 protesters have been persecuted unfairly, and how harshly many violent rioters have been treated compared to equally violent Black Lives Matter (BLM) rioters.

Some of it is due to the Biden Department of Justice (DoJ) being hyper-political and overzealous, and part of it is the fact that these folks are getting tried and sentenced in the ‘People’s Republic of DC.’

When I first read of the case of Stewart Rhodes, head of the Oath Keepers, I thought he was one of the few who should get serious jail time. He and his gang were part of an organized, violent cadre that went to the Capitol to create violent chaos.

This is why they were charged and convicted of ‘seditious conspiracy’ – the only ones to be found guilty of that serious charge.

But when I heard he had gotten 18 years, I was floored. Child molesters get less time. Repeat violent offenders get less time. Even convicted spies sometimes get less time.

Eighteen years is a lot of time.

Even so, federal prosecutors are not satisfied with the severity of the jail terms delivered by the federal judge overseeing the case.

In the case of Rhodes, they wanted 25 years.

U.S. District Court Judge, and Barack Obama appointee, Amit Mehta sentenced Rhodes, and his colleagues, harshly due what he characterized as a dangerous criminal conspiracy aimed at violently derailing the transfer of presidential power.

But even if you believe these knuckleheads were intent on blocking the certification of the Electoral College vote, their chances of ‘derailing the transfer of presidential power’ two weeks later, on Jan 20, were little to none.

This is why Mehta’s sentences, while harsh, were still less than the prison terms prosecutors recommended and years below an agreed-upon “guidelines range” based upon their charges.

Of the others convicted of seditious conspiracy, Florida Oath Keeper leader Kelly Meggs received a 12-year term instead of the 21 DOJ wanted. Roberto Minuta of New York was sentenced to 4.5 years instead of 17. Joseph Hackett of Florida got a 3.5-year sentence; DOJ sought 12 years. 

Ed Vallejo of Arizona was sentenced to 3-years, while DOJ wanted 17. And David Moerschel of Florida was sentenced to three years instead of the 10 DoJ wanted.

All of these are significant sentences in federal prison. A few might be deserved, but Biden’s DoJ isn’t happy with that. They want these folks to suffer even more. 

If only DoJ was that zealous with other political crimes, and criminals, Hunter Biden might actually be in jail.

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

NYT, Scientists and Journalists’ Failed Miserably on C*VID Lab Leak Story: National Security Experts

1
Haxorjoe, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

ANALYSIS – Thankfully the pressure continues to build on the establishment media and scientific community for its massive failure and cover-up of the C*VID-19 lab leak origin theory. 

From day one of the C*VID outbreak in Wuhan, China, I argued that it would be dereliction of duty for any intelligence analyst worth his/her salt, or any journalist or expert, to ignore the elephant in the room – that there was a rare Chinese government Level 4 Biosafety Lab (BSL-4) within a few miles of the alleged ground zero for the virus.

Compounding this fact with the understanding that China has a robust bioweapons research effort, and shoddy safety protocols at the relatively new lab in Wuhan, it should have been a no-brainer, everyone should have been all over this scenario.

But sure enough, for partisan, ideological, and just plain stupid, reasons the establishment mob quickly dismissed that possibility outright, calling it a conspiracy theory and even worse, racist. 

Many of these players wanted to stay on the good side of China, some had vested interests in keeping a lid on it, others instinctively rebuked anything President Trump proposed, and others simply wanted to obsessively focus on how Trump was allegedly failing on COVID rather than on where this deadly virus originated.

Meanwhile, Big Tech social media platforms openly censored any views, including mine on LinkedIn, that simply reported on and explored the facts and available intelligence on the Wuhan lab and its potential relation to C*VID.

Over time however, this subpar reporting, and the massive effort bordering on a conspiracy to suppress the truth on C*VID’s origins, began to crumble.

The June 9 World Health Organization Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens report, and various other serious investigations, concluded that deliberate human involvement, or at least human error, may ultimately have been at the root of the pandemic that has killed over 15 million people worldwide.

In December, reports The Blaze, Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also concluded in their interim report that it was “plausible” that Ch*nese military researchers possessed the C*VID-19 virus “as part of bioweapons research” prior to its release into the world as a consequence of a safety incident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Many of the obtuse big media outlets, colluding with Big Tech, and the misguided science experts have begun to retract and recant. Some even quietly admitting they may have been wrong on the lab leak origin theory.

But that isn’t enough. Far from it.

As reported by The Blaze:

A group of national security experts published a letter this week denouncing those in the mainstream media who downplayed, ignored, or outright denied the possibility that the C*VID-19 virus originated in a Chinese c*mmunist l*b in Wuhan.

The January 11 letter addressed to the editors of the Lancet, Nature Medicine, the New York Times, and Time magazine, was signed by forty-three national security experts, including House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCaul (R-Texas), former Defense Intelligence Agency acting Director David Shedd, former national security adviser Robert O’Brien, and numerous former State Department and National Security Council officials. 

The Blaze continues:

The letter implicates news outlets like the New York Times and scientific journals such as the Lancet in an apparent campaign to censor or displace dissenting voices around the pandemic’s origins.

Not only was journalists’ and editors’ failure to entertain the possibility that the W*han Institute of Vir*logy — controlled by the genocidal Chinese regime and notorious for performing gain-of-function experiments on coronaviruses — a dereliction of duty, it “served to hamper national and international policy discussions about how to mitigate against future pandemics of any origin — natural, accidental, or deliberate.”

Their letter calls for those who intentionally or not helped absolve the Chinese c*mmunist regime of any guilt in originating and spreading the deadly C*VID virus to be held accountable. 

The authors also called on major news organizations “to carry out deeper investigations into the pandemic’s origins, particularly by examining all credible origins hypotheses.”

This is the minimum they should do.

As the letter states, American security and prosperity depend upon “rigorous scientific debate, research, and scholarship, as well as an intrepid and independent news media.”

And all these media outlets, scientific journals, and individual journalists and experts “failed in their duty.”

They should all be called out and shamed publicly, and they should provide the nation, and the world a very public apology.

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

Mass Shooter Still on the Run is Previously Deported Illegal Alien

3
Image via Pixabay images

ALERT – It has now been confirmed – the Mexican national who murdered five other migrants ‘execution-style’ over a noise complaint is here illegally. 

And he was previously deported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) three times.

We have been waiting for this shoe to drop, and for the media to ignore or spin away, ever since he was reported as a ‘Mexican national,’ but his immigration status was unknown or went unreported.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott sparked outrage on the Left by simply referring to the five victims of the deadly mass shooting as “illegal immigrants,” which they were.

And as we now know, so is the alleged killer, who also illegally possessed numerous firearms.

You don’t have to be here illegally to commit violent crimes, but when the entire community where these murders occurred consists primarily of illegal immigrants, their immigration status matters.

The drunken gunman, 38-year-old Francisco Oropesa Perez-Torres, was first arrested and removed by ICE in September 2009, but he returned to the U.S. illegally at an unknown time and location.

This is according to an ICE spokesperson who confirmed it to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The killer (who is still on the run three days later) was then arrested and removed by ICE in January 2012 and July 2016.

In 2012 the murder suspect was also sentenced and jailed for driving while intoxicated. 

Oropesa went on his murderous rampage Friday evening when neighbor Wilson Garcia asked him to stop shooting his rifle so his baby could sleep.

Oropesa had been drinking when Garcia asked him to stop firing his gun. According to the local Sheriff, Oropesa responded, “I’ll do what I want to in my front yard.

Rene Arevalo Sr., a nearby neighbor, said he heard gunshots around midnight but was unfazed, as gunfire is normal in this mostly migrant neighborhood.

‘It’s a normal thing people do around here, especially on Fridays after work,’ Arevalo said.

‘They get home and start drinking in their backyards and shooting out there.’

A couple of questions I have is – why did this illegal alien have firearms, and why is it considered ‘normal’ for illegal migrants to illegally fire their illegal weapons in their yards?

The New York Times (NYT) reported that Oropesa then allegedly walked to Garcia’s home and fatally shot Garcia’s wife, son, and the three other victims with his AR-15 before fleeing.

Mr. Garcia miraculously escaped.

Most, if not all, of his victims, were also reportedly here illegally from Honduras. The victims included an eight-year-old child, an 18-year-old boy, and three women.

Two of the women were killed while maternally protecting Garcia’s baby and 2-year-old daughter by embracing them and covering them with clothing. 

The baby and toddler thankfully survived.

“We do not know where he is,” James Smith, the special agent in charge of the F.B.I. in the Houston area, told reporters at a news conference. “We do not have any tips right now as to where he may be. Right now, we have zero leads.”

More than 200 officers, including state troopers, are looking for Oropesa. Authorities have offered an $80,000 reward for information leading to his capture.

The horrible murders come as U.S. border agents brace for an expected surge of illegal migrants in the coming weeks following the May 11 expiration of Title 42, a pandemic-era rule that granted agents power to turn away migrants for health concerns.

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

85,000 Migrant Kids Go Missing at US Border Under Biden as Questions About Trafficking Explode

6
CBP Photography, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The Biden administration is unable to locate 85,000 child migrants initially processed at the U.S. border, and now members of Congress are demanding an explanation amid reports the children are being trafficked.

Seventy-six House Republican reveal in a letter that Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas are “knowingly and recklessly discharging unaccompanied children to adults across the country and doing nothing to find the tens of thousands they had lost touch with,” the Washington Examiner reports.

The letter was issued after the New York Times reported the Biden administration cannot locate 85,000 children initially processed as migrants seeking asylum, and many are being forced into child labor.

Lawmakers “referenced reports by the New York Times that concluded children were extorted by smugglers to pay off the thousands they owed through forced labor, including sex trafficking. Other children were trafficked against their will and are effectively slaves within the U.S.,” the Examiner reports

“The border crisis is not a stand-alone crisis. It has created a new catastrophe in every direction,” said Congressman Morgan Luttrell (R-TX) 

“Unaccompanied migrant children are crossing our border, and Joe Biden’s failed policies aren’t leading them to the American Dream. Instead, these children are released with no follow-up and are facing forced labor, sex trafficking, and abuse,” said Luttrell.

“The policies of the Biden Administration are failing everyone. Secretary Mayorkas and President Biden not only need to address the ongoing exploitation and lack of contact with minors, but also secure our southern border and ensure people seeking to come to our great country are going through the proper, legal channels,” Luttrell added.

Even worse, it appears many of the children tried to contact U.S. officials to seek help.

“We are particularly heartbroken to read reports of children contacting HHS after their release to their sponsors in hopes of the agency intervening, with no follow up,” the letter reveals. 

“The policies of this administration are enriching the cartels and transnational criminal organizations, who are profiting from the pain, abuse, and exploitation of these children as they smuggle them into the country,” the lawmakers conclude.

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

Trump Is Right To Reject RNC’s Unpatriotic Demand – But He Needs To Go Further

3
Gage Skidmore Flickr

Former President Donald Trump is right: There’s no reason he should sign a GOP loyalty oath in order to participate in the candidates’ debates.

Such oaths, which the Republican National Committee employed in the 2016 presidential primary – only to see the last remaining candidates, including Trump, abandon it – aren’t just signs of a party’s weakness; they are also profoundly silly and even un-American.

Yes, we swear plenty of legally enforceable oaths – in court cases, for example, or declarations on tax forms and other legal documents. But oaths binding candidates to support someone who they’ve campaigned against, throwing elbows, mud and other rhetorical barbs at them for months to convince voters the guy was a bum?

I’ll defer to what Sen. Ted Cruz said of such an oath back in the 2016 presidential primary:

Cruz has dodged the question of whether the pledge still holds by insisting he will be the nominee. Though on Friday, in an apparent reference to Trump, Cruz said, “I don’t make a habit out of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my family.”

We all know that Cruz eventually did support Trump’s candidacy and became one of his biggest defenders in the Senate (which was amusing).

But the oath? Nah. The 2016 primary should have been instructive to party leaders that such commitments are transactional at best and unenforceable in fact. Which brings us to the state parties.

They have been long-time players in loyalty oaths, often attempting to bind voters to the party’s eventual nominees. While such pledges are even sillier and utterly unenforceable, that hasn’t stopped new ones from cropping up this year. Consider the case of Florida‘s pledge:

Christian Ziegler, the chairman of the Florida GOP, said in an email that the loyalty pledge is an effort to “ensure maximum unity” headed into the 2024 general election.

“The days of outlier party grifters – such as Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger – using Republican Party resources to secure a title and then weaponize that title against our own team must end,” Ziegler said, referring to two former House members, who are among Trump’s most vocal GOP critics.

“Contested primaries are part of the process,” he said, “but we must always remember that the Democrats are the true threat to the America we love and we must be unified to defeat every single one of them.”

The true threat to America is noxious oaths that bind us to men rather than pledges or oaths that bind individuals to uphold the law or tell the truth.

You know, like the only oath that should ever matter for a presidential candidate: the one the Constitution requires:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Every other partisan oath is legally dubious, intellectually suspect and, in the end, not worth the paper it’s printed on.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of  Great America News Desk. It first appeared in American Liberty News.