It’s like these businesses will never learn…go woke, go broke.
The latest company to forge its way into the gender ideology Olympics is sadly the America Girl Doll Company…
Watch Amanda break down the controversy below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – The Biden border crisis just gets worse every day, with no help at all from the White House.
And now that a federal court has invalidated Trump’s Title 42 C*VID regulation forcing would-be asylum seekers to remain in Mexico, expect a massive new illegal migrant surge.
Much of that surge and chaos is seen along the border with Texas which takes the brunt of the migrant onslaught.
In response, Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced that he is invoking the U.S. Constitution’s invasion clause and taking “unprecedented measures” to repel a “border invasion.”
Abbott also sent out a press release and a letter to county officials along the border.
Abbott’s declaration comes one week after he won a third four-year term as governor. Former Trump administration officials had been urging the governors of Arizona and Texas to declare an “invasion” to justify more aggressive measures to stem the illegal migrant tide.
Infuriating his partisan critics and open border advocates, the Governor can expect severe legal pushback.
The question is – can he win?
As the American Bar Association Journal notes:
The invasion clause is in Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution.
It provides: “No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state or with a foreign power or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.”
Abbott said he will deploy the National Guard to “repel and turn back” immigrants trying to enter the country illegally. He will also deploy the Texas Department of Public Safety to arrest and return to the border immigrants who came into the country illegally.
Abbott also plans to build a border wall in multiple counties, deploy gun boats, enter into a compact with other states to secure the border, and “enter into agreements with foreign powers to enhance border security.”
Abbott first authorized the National Guard and Texas police to act in July, directing them to return immigrants to ports of entry. He also referenced the invasion clause at the time.
However, Abbott has yet to issue a formal invasion declaration or official order.
His office has not published such a declaration through an official news release or on the governor’s website, which means he has not yet gone much beyond his actions and declarations in July.
National security expert and Navy JAG Jonathan Hullihan told The Center Square that if Abbott had invoked his constitutional authority on Tuesday, “he would have done so in an official document, not from a personal Twitter account.”
Hence “No document, no order.”
And critics question its legality. The ABA notes:
Nunn said Abbott’s actions were actually “a thinly veiled effort to take the reins on U.S. immigration policy.” But that would also be unconstitutional under U.S. Supreme Court precedent holding that immigration policy is “unquestionably” and “exclusively” a federal power, Nunn said.
“For all these reasons, the Biden administration would likely succeed in court if it sued to stop Abbott from carrying out his plans,” Nunn concluded.
But others see this as a well-played political move putting Team Biden in a position it can’t win.
“We’re literally talking about state officials doing the same exact thing that federal officials do with Title 42,” said Ken Cuccinelli, a senior fellow at the conservative nonprofit organization Center for Renewing America.
And as the Washington Examiner reports:
“He’s [Abbott] run Operation Lone Star and kept your National Guard up and running for a show. He knows it doesn’t do anything,” said Cuccinelli, adding that the state could win a battle in federal court.
“If you’re the federal government and you sue Texas over it … they have to prove there is not an invasion, and they have the burden of proof because they’re the plaintiff in the case. Good luck proving that today with the state of the border. I don’t think it could be done.”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Bud Light’s latest partnership with transgender activist and influencer Dylan Mulvaney has proved to be a public relations nightmare for the brand. Will Bud Light recover?
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Apparently now to flailing Democrats, everything is a ‘threat to democracy.’ So much so that Chris Krebs, the discredited former head of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is joining the liberal chorus.
He simply replaced the term ‘threat’ with ‘risk.’
“Threat to democracy’ is the Democrats’ 2022 version of ‘Russia collusion.’
Recall that Krebs was fired by then-President Trump in 2020 after Krebs, without any way to confirm, stated that the 2020 election was the “most secure” ever.
CISA is part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and is tasked with“strengthening cybersecurity and infrastructure protection across all levels of government.”
However, while it plays a role in elections, and coordinates with the states, it is not the ultimate arbiter of whether election fraud occurred, or whether there were irregularities.
There is no ultimate arbiter of that, except maybe the American people.
Regardless, Krebs is now joining Team Biden in wailing about the ‘risk to democracy’ posed by Trump, his supporters, and many GOP politicians.
During a Washington Post Live event on Monday, Krebs said that election-related falsehoods and misinformation represent “a tactical and strategic risk to democracy,” citing the number of election denialists running for statewide offices that “have the ability to determine the certification of the 2024 election,” as well as the chilling effect that election-related lies can have on voter turnout.
As Defense One reports:
Krebs said that lies about the 2020 midterm elections—as well as falsehoods about the accuracy of the midterm elections—exist, because “it’s a great fundraising mechanism” for the former president, his allies and political candidates, and also because “it’s a great clout-chasing mechanism.”
“It’s a benefit to them from an incentive perspective,” Krebs added. “And I think the real harm is that it is shifting the Overton window, it’s shifting what’s politically acceptable in American political discourse into something that’s much more dangerous and much more violent.”
To combat these claims, Krebs said it’s important for Republican lawmakers, in particular, to speak truthfully about the voting process and election security.
Some of what he says is valid, and I do agree with Krebs’ last point; something Democrats ignore as they push for government efforts to quash free speech.
The best way to combat false claims by politicians (a constant for millennia, but now called ‘disinformation’), is by counterarguments.
This is the essence of America’s democracy – the marketplace of ideas.
While I believe we must ensure our elections are secure, this involves far more than worrying about, or demonizing free speech as so-called ‘disinformation.’
It involves election integrity of the voting process, mail-in ballots, voter ID, and a range of other concrete issues Democrats ignore, rebuff, and refuse to address.
And yes, there are foreign threats to America’s elections, such as Russian and Chinese hacking and influence operations, which I have repeatedly noted, and these should also be a primary focus of our federal government.
As Krebs added: “We’ve seen reports lately of Russia, China, and Iran back at their old tricks, and it is going to create a very chaotic environment.”
Indeed, Mr. Krebs.
That too is a ‘risk to our democracy, and it is where the government can have the most impact in securing our elections without unconstitutionally targeting Americans or their freedom of speech.
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 – Every now and then you see a story that just hits home, and you know you need to write about it and spread the word. This one, reported by CBS News, is absolutely one of them.
Caleb Morse, 39, an Army combat veteran, set up Rustic Renegade, a gun shop and shooting range in 2018 in Lafayette, Louisiana.
Morse had served two combat tours in Iraq with the Army’s 2nd Infantry Division Special Troops Battalion, followed by service in the National Guard, and then worked as a military contractor in Iraq for four years.
One day an Army buddy Morse served with in Iraq showed up at his gun store with his car and his dog. Then he brought a lot of guns inside the store, Morse said, adding: “And I’m like, brother, what are you doing?”
Morse knew well that often when people, especially combat veterans, start giving away their things, they may be considering suicide.
But before Morse could have a chat with his buddy, the vet simply left. And for six months his buddy didn’t answer his phone.
Meanwhile, Morse decided to hold his friend’s guns at Rustic Renegade in case he ever came back.
Thankfully, as CBS News reported:
…his friend called and explained he had been in a bad spot and wondered where his guns were. Morse said he told him, “They’re your guns, man. They’re yours, you may want them back. And whenever you’re ready, they’re here for you.
“More than half of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, according to the Centers for Disease Control. In 2022, the CDC reported that 26,993 people died by firearm suicide. Deaths by gun suicide are at an all-time high and have steadily increased, nearly uninterrupted, since 2006 according to researchers at John Hopkins School of Public Health.
In the veteran population the problem is acute; in its 2022 National Veteran Suicide Prevention Report, the Department of Veterans Affairs found that the suicide rate in 2020 was 57.3 % greater for veterans.
Guns are more commonly involved among veteran suicides, at 71%, than the rest of the population, at 50.3%, according to the CDC.
Soon after his first buddy chose to drop off his guns with Morse, another veteran came by to do the same, telling Morse that he was “in a bad spot.”
Morse, who had similarly been very depressed after returning from Iraq, accepted the vet’s gun and decided to set up a system to hold and track guns being left for storage by troubled vets in his store’s inventory, telling them to pick up their firearms when they felt better.
Within a year, other veterans dropped off guns “about a dozen times,” CBS reported. Since then, he has stored about 100 firearms.
Soon after the second vet asked for gun storage, Morse was contacted by Gala True, an associate professor at Louisiana State University School of Medicine who specializes in efforts to prevent veteran suicides.
According to CBS, she met with Morse in 2021 to work on a project she was coordinating with gun store owners who wanted to store firearm storage for those in crisis who, for a time, didn’t want their firearms in their homes.
The Armory Project was launched in Louisiana that same year with three different gun shop owners interested in providing storage for firearms.
Through a Veterans Administration (VA) grant, True and her team helped the gun dealers build local networks and partnerships.
Mike Anestis, a suicide prevention expert, professor at Rutgers University, and Executive director of the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center and a professor at Rutgers University, said that in a country with roughly 400 million guns, the solution can’t be about banning firearms or stopping people from buying them.
And Anestis is absolutely correct. Voluntary outside storage, like preventing drunk driving by “taking away the car keys,” is a far better solution for preventing suicide by gunshot, than bans that violate our 2nd Amendment rights.
However, storing guns as part of a gun store’s inventory can cause liability issues.
So, as CBS reported, in July 2023 the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) got involved (in a good way this time). It issued an open letter to Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) and gun shops advising how to legally and safely store firearms for these individuals.
Providing gun storage lockers at the gun store that individuals can open themselves and put their firearms inside, is one option.
As the ATF letter states: “In this situation, an FFL does not “receive “or “acquire ” the firearm into its inventory, nor does the FFL assume control of the individual’s firearm.” This can reduce liability for gun shop owners like Morse, who want to provide outside storage for others in need.
This is a great idea, and a great story. Look up The Armory Project and see if you can help with the effort in your state, city, or locality.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – In case there was any doubt that the entire, fabricated ‘misinformation’ threat was a Democrat-fueled campaign to squelch conservatives, new information connects the dots.
Researchers at the Capital Research Center (CRC), a conservative watchdog group, have found the Democrat dark money links funding these dangerous efforts targeting conservatives online.
According to the CRC, Arabella Advisors, a notorious political consulting firm founded by a Clinton advisor and closely tied to the Democratic Party, is quietly bankrolling the academic research into online ‘misinformation.’
Researchers funded by the Arabella network then recommended ‘strategies’ such as censorship as ways to mitigate the spread of what they call ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation.’
This misinformation is usually any opinion or news that could harm democrats or challenge their chosen narratives.
Hayden Ludwig, a senior investigative researcher at CRC told the Daily Caller News Foundation that: “Groups like the Arabella network weaponize charitable laws and tax exemption to aid Democratic electoral victories, bypassing the IRS prohibition on electioneering.”
The Daily Caller reports:
Arabella Advisors, run by former Bill Clinton official Eric Kessler, manages certain administrative, legal and philanthropic functions of several non-profits including the Sixteen Thirty Fund, Hopewell Fund, North Fund and New Venture Fund, which donate to a variety of left-leaning groups, causes and Democratic candidates, according to tax filings and statements on the funds’ and Arabella’s websites. Several funds within the network are also sponsoring research into the effects of, and how best to mitigate, misinformation and disinformation, according to a DCNF review of public grants.
Many of the Arabella-funded research projects cite conservatives predominantly as purveyors of misinformation, with several projects recommending solutions to mitigate the spread of misinformation, including censorship.
One of these Arabella Advisors financed groups, The New Venture Fund recently sponsored a project at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy called “The True Costs of Misinformation.”
The Daily Caller continues by describing one egregious panel at that Harvard event:
A presentation titled “What Is Driving Conservativism’s Post-Democratic Turn in America?” by Steven Feldstein at the Carnegie Council ostensibly examined the impact of misinformation on the perceived “anti-democratic” attitudes espoused by conservatives in the U.S., according to the workshop agenda.
“How did American conservatives reach a point where their main political messages are either blatantly anti-democratic or outright falsehoods?” the presentation’s description read, alleging that “political partisanship” in the U.S. was “largely stoked by conservative propaganda and disinformation.”
According to the Daily Caller: “One panel entirely focused on strategies for “misinformation mitigation,” with presentations from researchers at the University of Washington and Google…”
And their remedies included legislative action to change election laws to curb election misinformation, as well as “psychological inoculation” against dis- and misinformation.
This Democrat bankrolled, anti-‘misinformation’ campaign is the real threat to American democracy and just the latest war on conservatives that must be fought against and won.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Stating that judges must take all testimony into account before deciding to accept a plea deal, one congressional leader is calling on U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to release testimony from two Internal Revenue Service whistleblowers alleging President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden was given preferential treatment by the agency and is being protected from the true consequences of his crimes.
Biden has pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges, as well as federal firearms charges, as part of a deal with federal prosecutors. He awaits a July 26 plea hearing.
But U.S. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO) is now calling on U Garland and U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware David Weiss to submit to court allegations from Gary Shapley, previously the supervisor of the investigation at the IRS, and a second anonymous whistleblower alleging that investigators were pressured to go easy on Biden, ignore some crimes.
“Over the course of a single week in June, the existence of a plea agreement in this matter became public, a plea hearing was scheduled, and the Committee submitted whistleblower testimony to the full House,” said Smith in a letter to Garland and Weiss.
“Given the abruptness of the plea agreement announcement shortly after it became public that whistleblowers made disclosures to Congress, the seriousness of the whistleblower allegations, and the fact that multiple congressional investigations into the matter are ongoing, we ask that you file this letter and the attached information in the docket…,” said Smith.
“Placing the attached materials into the record is critical because the testimony provided by the two IRS whistleblowers brings new and compelling facts to light, and because it is essential for the Judge in this matter to have relevant information before her when evaluating the plea agreement,” wrote Smith.
“In his letter, Smith also highlights precedent where judges have rejected plea agreements for a variety of reasons, including situations where the judge finds that such deals were inadequate or deficient given the crimes committed or the motivation of the accused, or the plea deal was not in the best interest of the country,” a statement from the Committee reads.
Smith points out that plea agreements can be thrown out if it can be shown the plea agreement was reached improperly.
“In one state court proceeding, a judge rejected a plea agreement because ‘[i]t is contrary to justice. Justice in this society cannot be seen as being able to buy oneself out of a felony conviction.’ The Judge also went on to say, ‘[m]any in our community steal much less and go to prison or to jail…They steal much less and they don’t get a deferred judgment because they don’t have any money,’” wrote Smith.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Words matter. In a post on his Truth Social platform last Friday, former President Donald Trump suggested that outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley deserved to be executed after speaking with China’s top general during Trump’s final months in office.
Trump said Milley’s “treasonous act” was “so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!”
Clearly, Trump wasn’t threatening to do so but saying that Milley’s actions could have been punished by death in a prior era.
I condemned Milley’s actions at the time because they seemed to give the Chinese Communist regime a promise that they would be given a warning prior to any attack under Trump.
While Milley claims his actions were a normal part of his duties, I disagree.
They appeared to be more a normal part of the mission that he took upon himself, which was to counter Trump when Milley believed the president had crossed some line only Milley could see.
Some argue that Milley’s actions were not only disloyal to the president but also borderline ‘treasonous.’
Milley contends that he was behaving appropriately to avert an accidental war. He responded to Trump’s comments on CBS:
He also assured viewers that he had adequate safety measures for himself and his family.
The two backchannel calls to China’s top general, Li Zuocheng, that Milley made, and at the center of all this, were revealed in the 2021 book “Peril.”
As CNN reported:
In October 2020, as intelligence suggested China believed the US was going to attack them, Milley sought to calm Li by reassuring him that the US was not considering a strike, according to the book. Milley called again two days after the January 6 riot at the US Capitol to tell Li that the US is “100 percent steady” even though “things may look unsteady.”
How much of this reporting in the book was accurate, is hard to say. But Trump sees things very differently.
Trump said that Milley “turned out to be a Woke train wreck who, if the Fake News reporting is correct, was actually dealing with China to give them a heads up on the thinking of the President of the United States.”
And Trump may be right. For Milley to do that could be seen as highly inappropriate, if not exactly ‘treasonous.’
Still, Trump, a former president, and current front-runner for the Republican nomination for president, is way out of line. No American political leader should be using that kind of language against any American military official or political leader.
In today’s volatile climate, it is extremely dangerous.
Yet few in the GOP will condemn Trump’s statements. Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson is one of those willing to take aim at the Republican frontrunner. Politico quoted Hutchinson as saying:
To suggest that Gen. Milley should be executed is inexcusable and dangerous. While some will excuse this latest outrage as Trump just being Trump, the fact is that his statement endangers people and is an insult to those who serve in the military.
Perennial Trump critic, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, had stronger words, calling Trump an “absolute child” for the “reprehensible” remarks.
But it is part of a disturbing pattern by both sides to use dangerously inflammatory rhetoric at the highest levels against the other side.
Democrats raised the political temperature considerably against Trump, calling for, or at least condoning the calls for, his beheading and death on many occasions.
The demonization of Trump by the left and Democrat Party was more than I had ever seen in over thirty years in and around U.S. politics.
It was, and still is, outrageous.
But Trump isn’t helping things with his own dangerous rhetoric.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Joe Biden’s Chinese spy balloon fiasco keeps getting worse. As I noted earlier, almost all of the Biden spin about the Chinese balloon that spent eight long days surveilling military and strategic sites across the United States, was misleading or outright false.
Contrary to the furious pro-Biden spin, the 200ft tall balloon with a jetliner-sized surveillance package strapped to it, did pose an intelligence and military threat.
It could also have been shot down much earlier without undue risk to those on the ground – especially since it first cruised over the Aleutian Islands and parts of Alaska.
And no, President Trump did not know or ignore prior Chinese balloon incursions when he was in office.
Reports of brief crossings of Chinese balloons over peripheral parts of the U.S., like Florida, or U.S. territories far from the continental U.S. like Guam, did not surface until well after Trump left office.
Apparently, the Pentagon didn’t detect those extremely brief forays at the time, displaying a major gap in our surveillance capabilities.
But this incursion was of a whole different scope and scale.
I earlier argued that the primary goal of this latest extended cross-country balloon incursion for China was political.
It was a clear test. What would Biden and the U.S. military do? And their answer was, basically nothing until after the airship completed its 8-day surveillance mission.
However, an added, and more dangerous goal was potentially to test how to use a stratospheric balloon to employ a small nuclear device at an extremely high altitude to produce a massive electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that would fry communications, power networks and almost all electronics across much of the United States.
For more on that see my previous piece.
But let’s return to the more mundane intelligence-gathering functions of this airship.
While the Biden spinners rushed to say that the balloon could not gather intel not already gained by Chinese satellites in low earth orbit, this simply ignorant, and untrue.
One left-leaning intelligence news site, SpyTalk, edited by the elderly Jeff Stein, wrote in an almost knee-jerk fashion without waiting for more facts: “Pssst: Chinese Satellite Not a Threat. Experts say news media hysteria over the floating orb not at all warranted.”
Stein then brought in his usual suspects to buttress his pro-Biden spin.
The liberal Stein quoted one of his regular minions, Paul Cobaugh, a left-leaning retired Army information operations specialist with no intelligence or technology background, as saying we have a “variety of capabilities to render it unusable or mitigate the threat.”
This is partly true. We do have means to mitigate the threat.
A senior U.S. defense official said on Feb. 2 that when the Chinese balloon was detected near Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana, home of the 341st strategic intercontinental ballistic missile wing, the Pentagon “acted immediately to protect against the collection of secretive information.”
That likely meant shutting off signals-emitting systems and moving secretive aircraft and sensitive equipment under cover or into a hangar.
The Pentagon can take similar steps to stop satellites from gathering intelligence, but it is far more disruptive to have a giant airship looming overhead for long periods of time, as it was in this case.
But SpyTalk’s Cobaugh takes his uninformed argument about the balloon to an extreme, adding with no nuance or uncertainty:
“It’s not a threat.”
SpyTalk didn’t stop there though and added the always predictable, hyper-partisan, Trump-hating former Air Force general and CIA director Michael Hayden to the mix, who totally dismissed the Chinese balloon, and Biden’s inaction, by saying:
“Really, it’s not a big deal.”
Well, this is all just nonsense. It was a very big deal.
Beyond the various risks noted above and in my earlier piece, the ability to vacuum up valuable Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) unavailable to satellites, makes the balloon threat unique.
As Defense News reports:
Experts say balloons loitering at high altitudes can offer some advantages over satellites and drones — or could at least augment their intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities.
Tom Karako, director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, said one benefit of these balloons is their ability to hover closer to the ground than satellites, and they may be able to intercept communication or electronic signals that orbiting systems can’t.
“It could be thermal infrared, it could be signals intelligence. One of the reasons there are advantages to the suborbital position is you might not be able to do all of that from space,” he told C4ISRNET in a Feb. 3 interview. “There’s a whole lot of value to something other than space.”
Bryan Clark, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Defense Concepts and Technology, said balloons also offer more persistent, less predictable coverage over an area of interest. While satellites follow a known orbit, airships use wind currents and automated controls to maneuver in different directions. They can also hover in one place for a long period of time.
Clark told C4ISRNET: “With a satellite, you know when they’re going to go overhead, so you stop doing whatever you’re doing for the time it’s overhead. If you have a balloon, it could be out there for days or months, and you’re sort of left either having to stop whatever you’re doing that’s generating intel — or you live with it.”
And there is much more our intelligence experts and agencies can’t yet divulge about this balloon.
Hopefully, once it is fully recovered we can expect a full damage assessment.
So, yes, the high-tech, high-altitude, Chinese surveillance airship that spent 8 days traversing the U.S. was a threat, and the leftist partisan spin machine continues to churn out uninformed nonsense.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
