Opinion

Home Opinion Page 39

Media and Dems Admit US ‘Border Crisis’ Only ‘Days Away’

7
Construction continues on new border wall system project near Yuma, AZ. Recently constructed border wall near Yuma, Arizona on June 3, 2020. CBP photo by Jerry Glaser.

ANALYSIS – Unfortunately it’s a little late. The Biden border crisis has been ongoing for over two years. It’s only about to get much worse. When Time publishes a piece warning about an impending border crisis, you know it’s a lot more serious than they say.

And this time it will be impossible for the establishment media to ignore or sweep under the rug.

Criminal smugglers, and the powerful drug cartels they work for, control parts of the border. They have been telling would-be illegal migrants that the end of Title 42 will allow people to come into the U.S. 

I have written that there are between 700,000 and one million migrants poised to swarm the border this week when Joe Biden has set Title 42 to expire.

In preparation for the expected migrant onslaught, Biden ordered 1,500 active-duty U.S. troops to the border to support Customs and Border Patrol (CPB) agents on the ground. Though these troops will be mostly performing administrative duties.

Of course, Time does its best to ignore Biden’s dramatic reversal of Donald Trump’s effective border and immigration policies as a cause of the current crisis. Instead, it shills for Team Biden by mindlessly repeating the left’s talking points:

There’s very little a homeland security secretary or an American President can do to reverse human migration patterns predominantly caused by climate change, new storm patterns, rampant violence and economic need. U.S. immigration laws, which could create orderly entry points for migrants to register and work and live in the U.S., are poorly designed to do so, and haven’t been updated in three decades.

Sorry Time, those are all red herrings and have been minor factors for years. The biggest factor in the crisis that has hit our border over the past two years – and is about to get far worse – is Joe Biden and his homeland security secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas. 

Republicans have been sharply critical of Mayorkas’ performance as head of DHS and have called for his removal.

Beyond national security and humanitarian concerns, the consequences of this coming illegal migrant tsunami will also have an impact on the 2024 elections.

And Biden and the Democrats have reason to be worried.

Time writes:

The expected surge in migrants at the border comes weeks after Biden announced his bid for another term in office. A protracted border crisis could become a political liability for Biden going into the 2024 election. A poll in April of swing state voters by Global Strategy Group found that 52% of voters think Biden is ignoring the problem of immigration. But Biden’s new efforts to open up more legal ways to enter the United States, while increasing the consequences for those who cross into the US illegally, may resonate with voters in the key states he needs to win reelection. The April poll found that 76% of swing state voters had positive views of increasing border security, and a similar majority of voters…

This is probably why a member of Congress from Biden’s own party is demanding that he and Mayorkas join Republicans to find a bipartisan solution on immigration as Biden ends the Trump-era Title 42 expulsion policy.

Fox News reports:

Rep. Sharice Davids, D-Kan., warned that the expected onslaught of people trying to cross the border illegally after Title 42 ends could exacerbate the “humanitarian and refugee crisis” if nothing is done to mitigate it.

“As the President has decided to lift the [Title 42] order this week, we now face a doubling of illegal crossings at our southern border by some estimates, exacerbating the current humanitarian and refugee crisis,” Davids wrote in a letter addressed to Mayorkas.

Davids adds: 

As Congress considers immigration reform in the coming weeks, we must make clear to the American people that we are taking this challenge seriously and are ready to find solutions. You [Mayorkas] have had a year to engage prior to the lifting of Title 42, and I hope that you and the President both recommit to working with Congress to achieve real results.

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

Trump Shifts All Blame to Abortion for Midterm Losses

6
Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

ANALYSIS – In typical Trump fashion, the former president just threw all pro-lifer conservatives under the bus to deflect any blame from himself for the weak ‘Red Trickle’ that was the 2022 election. But is he wrong?

On November 9, I wrote about how both issues impacted the 2022 election losses. ‘Abortion and Trump tipped the scales.’

Yes, some pro-life conservatives took the reasonable Supreme Court decision to give abortion decisions back to the states (where they belong), as a green light to push for the most aggressive anti-abortion restrictions they could.

And this was a mistake. It only reinforced Democrat women’s fears and independent women’s doubts, fueling the abortion rights extremists to rally and independents to waver or vote Democrat.

What they should have done is defend Dobbs and the Supreme Court while positioning the GOP as the reasonable party on abortion.

Abortion on demand at all times under any circumstances, until the time of birth (and sometimes even beyond), is the extreme position.

And most Americans oppose that insanity.

“Let states decide. The left is extreme on abortion.” That’s how we should have played it.

Sadly, too many on the right didn’t follow that playbook.

So, when Trump stated on Truth Social on Sunday that it wasn’t his fault that “Republicans didn’t live up to expectations” in the 2022 midterm elections, he may be partly right.

Instead, Trump blamed the “abortion issue,” writing that it was “poorly handled by many Republicans, especially those that firmly insisted on No Exceptions, even in the case of Rape, Incest, or Life of the Mother.”

And that was true. Here I agree with Trump.

When I ran for office in South Florida 10 years ago, I signed the National Right to Life Pledge, but even that staunchly pro-life organization made exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother.

Now, however, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, one of the nation’s leading pro-life groups, which spent tens of millions to mobilize the pro-life vote in the 2022 midterms, stated in response to Trump:

The approach to winning on abortion in federal races, proven for a decade is this: state clearly the ambitious consensus pro-life view on abortion and contrast that with the extreme view of Democrat opponents. We look forward to hearing that position fully articulated by Mr. Trump and all presidential candidates.

Their response was far from convincing. Taking the most extreme counterpoint to the left’s extreme position doesn’t win votes. It only makes you seem more extreme than the other guys.

In an interview with Breitbart News last month, Trump said it best: “I think a lot of Republicans didn’t handle the abortion question properly. I think if you don’t have the three exceptions, it’s almost impossible in most parts of the country to win.”

And even when Republicans were not asking for the most extreme abortion restrictions, the Democrats lied that they were.

And this was also a failure of the GOP.

The Democrats and leftist groups spent $468 million on abortion-related advertisements, whereas the Republican party focused its campaign advertising on inflation.

While some grassroots conservatives were overzealous about rolling back abortion after Dobbs, the GOP establishment was afraid of the abortion issue altogether, ignored it and hoped it would just go away.

But I think Trump is also wrong to take no blame himself. He did play a big part in the 2022 electoral defeat.

As I wrote on November 9:

But beyond the abortion issue, former president Trump likely played an outsized role in the red wave turning to a ripple.

And as someone who has been a strong Trump supporter and voted for Trump twice, I believe this sentiment [Trump was part of the problem] has validity.

Continuous ranting about election fraud in 2020 makes the future about the past.

And forcefully demanding GOP loyalty to one man doesn’t help either.

It also makes everything about Trump rather than conservative ideas, policies, and candidates.

Nothing mobilizes the Democrats, the media and the left like Trump.

Of course, the title of my November piece could have given a clue. It was: “Is It Time for the GOP to Dump Trump?”

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

Legal Theorists Try To Attack Trump. Their Argument May Be Dead On Arrival.

4
Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

A novel legal theory from two conservative legal scholars published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review that a section of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to run for president may be getting a court hearing in Florida.

As Ballot Access news editor emeritus Richard Winger notes:

On August 24, a Florida voter, Lawrence Caplan, filed a federal lawsuit seeking to bar former President Donald Trump from being placed on 2024 ballots as a presidential candidate. Caplan v Trump, s.d., 0:23cv-61618.

Caplan, who appears to be representing himself in the case, writes:

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which provides for the disqualification of an individual who commits insurrection against our government has remained on the books for some one hundred and fifty plus years without ever facing question as to its legitimacy. While one can certainly argue that it has not been thoroughly tested, that fact is only because we have not faced an insurrection against our federal government such as the one while we faced on January 6, 2021. It should also be noted that President Trump has since made statements to the effect that should he be elected, he would advocate the total elimination of the US Constitution and the creation of a new charter more in line with his personal values.

Winger believes Caplan’s suit is “misguided:”

The Fourteenth Amendment “insurrection clause” bars individuals from being sworn in to certain offices, but it does not bar them from seeking the office. When the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, there was no mechanism to prevent any voter from voting for any candidate.

Caplan appears to be taking the law review article’s authors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulson, at their word:

“No official should shrink from these duties. It would be wrong — indeed, arguably itself a breach of one’s constitutional oath of office — to abandon one’s responsibilities of faithful interpretation, application, and enforcement of Section Three,” Bode and Paulsen write.

Alternatively, ordinary citizens could file challenges on the same grounds with state election officials themselves.

And other such suits may emerge over the coming weeks. I’m not convinced any federal judge will be willing to read Section 3 like Baude and Paulson say it should be. It’s not because the Section’s words aren’t clear – they are.

My concerns are akin to those of Cato’s Walter Olsen, who writes:

…no one should assume that just because Baude and Paulsen have made a powerful intellectual case for their originalist reading, that the Supreme Court will declare itself convinced and disqualify Trump. Justice Antonin Scalia memorably described himself as a “faint‐​hearted originalist,” which captures something important about the thinking of almost every Justice—if overruling a wrongly decided old case threatens to disrupt settled expectations to the point of spreading chaos and grief through society, most of them will refrain. Stare decisis, and a general preference for continuity in law, still matters.

Exactly. While some judges may nurse images of themselves as bold crusaders for justice, most jurists aren’t eager to upset established practice and precedent on a whim. Though, to be fair to the times when such upsets have occurred – Brown v. Board of Education, for example, or Griswold v. Connecticut – have been warranted, necessary, and beneficial.

Does that apply in the Caplan case? A court will decide. But as I’ve long said about Trump, the only court he cares about is public opinion. If voters reject him, that will carry more weight and sanction than any court could ever deliver.

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. Republished with permission.

Amanda Head: According To The Left, DeSantis Is….Mussolini?

3
Ron DeSantis via Gage Skidmore Flickr

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis might as well be Darth Vader as far as the radical Left is concerned…

Watch Amanda explain the latest controversy below:

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

Amanda Head: Will Trump Be Arrested?

1
Arrest image via Pixabay

Will authorities arrest former President Donald Trump this week?

Watch Amanda explain the controversy below:

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

Declassified Report Points To Fed Cover-Up Of Sonic Weapon Causing ‘Havana Syndrome’

3
David B. Gleason from Chicago, IL, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

ANALYSIS – It seems like just yesterday that the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) was categorically disavowing claims that ‘Havana Syndrome’ was the result of a directed energy weapon.

Actually, it was a few weeks ago, and I mocked that ridiculous report by comparing it to the same idiotic IC consensus that COVID-19 could not have originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s BSL-4 biolab.

On March 1st, Avril Haines, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), told journalists that most cases of Havana Syndrome were likely attributed to “environmental factors” or “conventional illnesses.”

She added that the idea that the symptoms were caused by a “directed energy weapon” was considered “highly unlikely.”

The IC has even posited nonsensical theories ranging from mass delusion to crickets.

But now, a newly declassified, government-sponsored report says the opposite of the IC’s conclusion – that the syndrome could, in fact, be caused by “electromagnetic energy.”

Can we say: ‘smoking gun’ and cover-up?

The report was compiled by the Intelligence Community Experts Panel on Anomalous Health Incidents (AHIs) at the behest of the federal government seeking answers to the mystery ailment.

For those who need to be refreshed, ‘Havana Syndrome’ is the moniker for the bizarre rash of neurological disorders plaguing over 1,000 U.S. diplomats and spies stationed at our embassies overseas.

This number includes one or two friends of mine.

Those strange symptoms include things like hearing and memory loss, severe headaches, light sensitivity, nausea and a host of other debilitating issues.

The first known cases appeared among officers at the U.S. embassy in Havana in 2016 before spreading worldwide.

While many experts, not to mention the victims themselves, have pushed for answers and been open to the idea that their maladies were caused by some sort of ‘electromagnetic’ or ‘sonic weapon,’ the government kept the findings of this important result secret.

And the report was only declassified now due to a lawsuit filed by the James Madison Project, a non-profit that lobbies against government secrecy.

Salon has published the full (albeit heavily redacted) 153-page report.

In it, the panel dismisses almost all the other natural purported origins espoused by the IC and others. It refers to Havana Syndrome as a “unique neurosensory syndrome” that is “distinctly unusual” and is “unreported elsewhere in the medical literature.”

While it was still secret, previous news reports said that the panel’s findings supported the theory that electromagnetic energy may have been the cause.

And now we have confirmation.

According to the newly declassified report, at least one plausible culprit, and the most likely, for the range of disorders, may be “pulsed electromagnetic energy.”

It reads: “Electromagnetic energy, particularly pulsed signals in the radio frequency range, plausibly explains the core characteristics, although information gaps exist.”

Attorney Mark Zaid, with the James Madison Project, told Salon that he believed the report clearly showed that the government was hiding something.

Zaid said: “The U.S. government is covering up evidence as to what AHIs are. It is becoming apparent that these events were perpetrated either by foreign actors, or it is an experiment gone horribly wrong.”

While the government has been adamant that no foreign government or adversary is behind ‘Havana Syndrome,’ the feds may be parsing the truth to avoid an even less appealing reality.

What if, as one online commenter posted, “we did this to ourselves. It was some experiment to see if we could ‘cloak,’ for lack of a better term, our embassies from electronic surveillance from the outside. Instead, it backfired and caused damage to our own people.”

Right now, that sounds as likely as anything. And far more plausible than crickets.

It would also open up the government to a whole new world of damage control.

Perhaps this is why it has just been reported by Bloomberg Law that: “The State Department agreed to pay $460K [61% of his original demand] to Mark Lenzi, an engineer who said the government discriminated against him over his Havana Syndrome diagnosis and his public advocacy for victims of the condition.”

As part of the agreement, Bloomberg noted, Lenzi withdrew all claims against the State Department, which denied any liability.

This could be just the beginning in a wave of State Department settlements with victims now that this formerly classified report is partly seeing the light of day.

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

Poll Shows Americans Evenly Split On Sending Trump To Prison. Do You Agree?

0
Image via Pixabay

A new Associated Press poll finds Americans are almost evenly split on whether former President Donald Trump should be sentenced to prison after being found guilty of falsifying business records in New York.

“The public is divided over whether Donald Trump should be sentenced to prison for his felony conviction for falsifying business records in the hush money case,” the AP reports. “Opinions on the conviction itself have remained stable in the weeks since the decision was announced on May 30 with nearly half approving of the jury’s decision and about a quarter disapproving. The public is also divided on whether Trump has received fair treatment from the legal system.”

Trump, convicted in June, is scheduled to be sentenced Sept. 18, just weeks ahead of the November election.  Experts predict Trump will likely receive probation and a fine, but a prison sentence is a distinct possibility.

The AP/NORC poll, conducted June 20-24, finds 48 percent believe Trump should receive a prison sentence, while 50 percent disagree.  That gap is within the poll’s margin of error, meaning Americans are essentially evenly split.

Among independent voters, who will decide the election, 50 percent believe Trump should be imprisoned while 46 percent disagree.

While Americans are split on whether Trump should go to prison, the number who support Trump’s conviction outnumber those who oppose it by nearly a two-to-one margin.

The poll finds 46 percent of Americans support the jury’s decision to convict Trump, while 27 percent disapprove and 25 percent are unsure.

Among independents, 32 percent agree with the conviction, 21 percent disagree and 47 percent are unsure.

The nationwide poll was conducted June 20-24, 2024 using the AmeriSpeak® Panel, the probability-based panel of NORC at the University of Chicago. 

The poll, using online and telephone interviews using landlines and cell phones, was conducted with 1,088 adults. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.0 percentage points.

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

Should the Government Regulate Artificial Intelligence (AI)? Less is Best

6
Image via Pixabay free images.

ANALYSIS – Artificial Intelligence (AI) is basically self-learning software (algorithms) that grows smarter over time using the entire world’s ever-growing library of data as its teacher. It can learn to do myriad complex tasks in a fraction of the time humans could.

It will revolutionize and upend entire economies, and dominate future warfare. It is also developing at an unprecedented rate. 

Many are concerned AI will take away entire career fields and tens of millions of American jobs. AI advancements could eliminate up to 300 million jobs globally, according to Goldman Sachs.

Fox News reported: “Up to 30% of hours currently worked across the U.S. economy could become automated by 2030, creating the possibility of around 12 million occupational transitions in the coming years, according to a McKinsey Global Institute study.”

Others worry that it will make a few corporations extremely rich and powerful. 

And then, many worry that Al may supersede human intelligence in just a few years and eventually make humans redundant.

Few would deny that whoever dominates AI may dominate the world. China certainly believes this and is forging ahead to become the world leader in AI.

The Pentagon is also looking closely at how it can use AI to more quickly make strategic or battlefield assessments and technologically leapfrog over our enemies.

But what about our government? Should it regulate AI?

Democrats tend to favor regulating everything. And they have shown the danger of doing so with social media. I recently wrote on how Joe Biden is already using executive power to weaponize Artificial Intelligence to be woke.

I noted that: “The American Accountability Foundation (AAF), a government watchdog group, recently warned that Team Biden is actively using the federal government’s vast power to regulate AI to promote a “woke” ideology in the basic architecture of this revolutionary, powerful, and dangerous new technology.”

“That ‘woke’ ideology promotes affirmative action under the guise of ‘anti-racism,’ and transgenderism as gender ‘equity.’”

And that is a huge concern.

Republicans tend to be more skeptical of regulation in general, especially in a dynamic, fast-moving technology that few lawmakers understand.

“Let a bunch of guys up here that are wearing JCPenney leisure suits that still have 8-track tape players in their ’72 Vegas start talking about technology, then you got some problems,” Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., told Fox News when asked about regulation keeping pace with the AI sector.

“The problem with AI is that it’s advancing so fast,” Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina said. “It’s very difficult to regulate because you don’t know what the next thing is going to be.”

Republicans, like Burchett and Mace, also worry government regulation will stifle AI innovation and put the U.S. at a strategic disadvantage, especially vis a vis China.

“I don’t know that we need regulation,” Burchett said. “You want to stifle growth; you start putting laws on it.”

“If you overregulate, like the government often does, you stifle innovation,” Mace told Fox News. “And if we just stop AI, nothing is stopping China. We want to make sure that we are No. 1 in AI technology in the world and that it stays that way.”

But we may be losing that race. As Time reported:

“The country that is able to most rapidly and effectively integrate new technology into war-fighting wins,” Alexandr Wang, the CEO of Scale AI, told lawmakers on a House Armed Services subcommittee. China is spending three times more than the U.S. on developing AI tools, Wang noted. “The Chinese Communist Party deeply understands the potential for AI to disrupt warfare, and is investing heavily to capitalize,” he said. “AI is China’s Apollo project.”

But Republicans in Congress aren’t doing anything to take away Biden’s power to regulate AI himself. And time is of the essence.

As a former Democrat Senator, Kent Conrad, and ex-Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss wrote recently in Fox News:

This comes at a pivotal moment. We are on the precipice of a new tech revolution—one in which a collection of next-generation capabilities—such as AI, quantum computing, and biotechnology—promise to fundamentally upend every facet of society.

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

Trump’s Voter Citizenship Requirement Blocked By Federal Judge

In a controversial decision that critics say undermines basic electoral integrity, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction Thursday blocking the Trump administration from implementing key provisions of its election reform order — including a requirement that individuals provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.

The Trump administration’s order, signed in March, sought to address the widespread public concern over election security by aligning U.S. registration standards with those used by many developed nations — where proof of citizenship is a basic requirement to cast a vote. Yet, in her ruling, Judge Kollar-Kotelly sided with Democratic operatives and partisan groups, granting their request to halt implementation of what should be a commonsense safeguard.

It’s already a felony for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. So why oppose a mechanism to verify that voters are, in fact, eligible citizens? The administration’s proposed policy simply sought to enforce existing law, not change it. But for activists and partisan lawyers, that’s apparently too much.

Critics of the ruling argue that it demonstrates a disturbing disconnect between legal theory and electoral reality. While the plaintiffs claimed the executive order infringes on the “Elections Clause” of the Constitution — which delegates much of the authority over elections to the states — the Trump order targeted the federal voter registration form, which is a product of federal law and administered by a federal agency.

Among the more absurd arguments presented during the case was the suggestion that requiring proof of citizenship would complicate voter registration drives at grocery stores and public venues. In other words, ensuring that only citizens vote is too inconvenient for activists looking to register voters en masse.

But this framing reveals the central issue: voter registration is being treated like a political campaign tactic, not a civic responsibility. If accuracy and integrity are seen as barriers to convenience, something is deeply wrong with the system.

If the courts won’t even allow the federal form to be updated to reflect current law, critics argue, how can Americans have confidence that elections are fair and secure?

Ironically, while liberal groups celebrate the decision as a “victory for voters,” many Americans see it as a victory for loopholes and ambiguity. The same people who insist elections are sacred and democracy is under threat are now openly opposing the most basic eligibility checks used around the world.

Meanwhile, Trump’s other proposed reforms — including tighter mail ballot deadlines and review of voter rolls against immigration databases — were allowed to stand. But with the citizenship requirement blocked, many worry that the core vulnerability in the system remains unaddressed.

When noncitizens can easily register to vote — intentionally or accidentally — and the federal government is barred from checking, who exactly benefits?

This article originally appeared on American Liberty News. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It is republished with permission.

READ NEXT: President Trump Signs Executive Order Requiring Proof Of Citizenship To Vote In Federal Elections

Wave of Chinese Spy Craft or UFOs Over the US?

0
President Joe Biden delivers remarks in National Statuary Hall on the one-year anniversary of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Thursday, January 6, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Cameron Smith)

The U.S. military has now sh*t down four high-altitude aerial objects over the United States or Canada within a week.

One object was the massive Chinese spy balloon downed off the coast of South Carolina Feb. 4 after it completed its eight-day journey conducting surveillance of sensitive military and nuclear sites across the entire United States.

The three other objects remain unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) – the new term for UFOs.

The Chinese spy balloon and UAPs are raising concerns over major gaps in North American security.

On Sunday U.S. military jet fighters shot down its fourth high-altitude aerial object, an octagonal entity over Lake Huron, Michigan.

Prior to that, on Friday, a second object was shot down over sea ice near Deadhorse, Alaska. And a third object was destroyed over Canada’s Yukon on Saturday, with investigators still hunting for the wreckage.

The U.S. military used AIM-9X Sidewinder short-range heat-seeking, supersonic missiles to bring down all four airborne objects.

One Sidewinder reportedly missed its target and landed harmlessly in Lake Huron.

Fox News reported:

“First shot missed. Second shot hit,” Milley told reporters. “We go to great lengths to make sure that the airspace is clear and the backdrop is clear up to the max effective range of the missile. And in this case, the missiles land, or the missile landed, harmlessly in the water of Lake Huron.”

While the weapons are primarily manufactured for U.S. forces, the missile is also sold in large quantities to a range of American allies, including South Korea, the UAE and Indonesia.

Canada, which is part of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) uses Sidewinders as well, but has not yet received its order of these latest, more capable, AIM-9X missiles.

One ex Canadian Air Force general stated that the older Sidewinders still fitted on Canadian CF-18s could not take down these objects at that high an altitude.

Canada’s Global News reported:

Retired Canadian general Tom Lawson, who flew CF-18s before serving as Norad deputy commander and then chief of the defence staff, said Canada’s CF-18s currently use an older version of the AIM-9 Sidewinder.

“When I was flying CF-18s, I did not have a weapon that would shoot down something over 40,000 feet if it was moving too slowly,” he said. “My radar wouldn’t have locked onto it. My heat-seeking missile, my AIM-9, would not have locked onto this thing.”


Meanwhile, the downing of China’s alleged spy balloon by the stealth F-22 Raptor jet fighter marked the first time the 5th generation jet has shot down an airborne target, and may be the first time an AIM-9X was fired in anger since it debuted in combat in Syria and Iraq almost a decade ago.

It was also likely the first time the missile was ever fired at the mind-boggling height of 60,000 ft, which is also near the top reported operational ceiling of 65,000 ft for the F-22.

The rapid-fire series of shoot-downs over Alaska, Canada and Michigan beginning February 10, after the initial balloon downing near South Carolina on Feb 4, has raised pressure on the Biden administration to explain the nature of the high-altitude craft and whether they pose a threat to national security.

From mid-October to December 2022, the National UFO Reporting Center catalogued some 1,255 new sightings of UAPs.

One U.S. official attributed the rise in the sightings to boosted surveillance capabilities by the military and not a rush of new foreign objects flying over American airspace.

However, later on Sunday, the U.S. Air Force general overseeing North American airspace said it still wasn’t clear how the objects were remaining aloft or being propelled through the air, or where they originated.

He also said he had not ruled any explanation out – including extraterrestrial life.

Since then, the U.S. government has announced that it suspects that three unidentified flying objects downed since last Friday were benign commercial or research craft and not linked to China’s alleged surveillance balloon program.

The comments may ease concerns that China is conducting an even more aggressive surveillance effort against the United States than initially believed.

They should also dampen fears of a UFO invasion.

However, these sightings and downing of UAPs over North American airspace still appear to be generating far more questions than answers.

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