Opinion

Home Opinion Page 39

General Milley Stoops To Trump Lows With ‘Wannabe Dictator’ Jab

3
Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Michael J. McCord provide testimony at a Senate Armed Services Committee budget hearing, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., March 28, 2023. (DoD photo by Chad J. McNeeley)

ANALYSIS – General Milley’s comments were beneath him, even if Trump provoked him. As I wrote about earlier, former President Donald Trump made typically inappropriate remarks when he implied outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, due to his back-channel calls to China’s top general, deserved the ‘DEATH’ penalty for treason (all caps were in Trump’s post on Truth Social).

While no one should take Trump’s bombastic social media posts too seriously, I did say Trump was wrong to add fuel to an already flammable political environment in our country with his comments. I have also criticized Milley for his many overreactions to Trump’s words and deeds during his time in office.

In doing so, Milley made Trump out to be something he wasn’t, placed himself smack in the middle of the Democrat Party narrative of Trump, and undermined the commander-in-chief and the presidency.

In my view Milley has also been at the very least deliberately and willfully ignorant of the extreme woke policies the Pentagon has been pushing. Still, despite all my jabs at Milley, I respected his decades of service to the uniform and our country.

It’s a shame then, that Milley chose to take the low road on his way out of the DC swamp, demeaning himself and the institution, while himself politicizing the military against Trump.

As the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board wrote:

Gen. Milley retired this week after four years as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “We are unique among the world’s militaries,” the top military officer said at a retirement ceremony on Friday, noting that service members swear an oath to the Constitution.

“We don’t take an oath to a country. We don’t take an oath to a tribe. We don’t take an oath to a religion. We don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or a tyrant or a dictator. And we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator.”

Readers will catch the parting shot at Mr. Trump. The media certainly did. And who could blame Gen. Milley for loathing Mr. Trump? Casually floating the idea of harming a U.S. military officer is conduct unworthy of a wannabe Commander in Chief.

Yet it was still dispiriting to hear Gen. Milley’s remarks about a former President, in public, while wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army. Mr. Trump is the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. Like it or not, he commands political support in the country. That doubtless includes a large chunk of the enlisted ranks of the United States military services. The end-of-tour catharsis of a swipe at Mr. Trump isn’t worth polarizing the force over politics.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Journal. Milley knows better, and with his bitter and snarky jabs at Trump chose to take the low road rather than the high road on his way out. 

Despite my great misgivings about the truly woke new Joint Chiefs Chairman, Air Force General C.Q. Brown, I also concur with the Journal’s parting words: “We hope that turning down the temperature of politics in the U.S. armed forces is a priority for the new chairman—perhaps behind only the military threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party.”

Message to Brown: We need an apolitical military leadership no matter the provocations from any political leader. That also means being non-ideological and non-woke. 

It’s a shame Milley couldn’t see that while he was chairman, and also couldn’t just leave gracefully.

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

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.

Amanda Head: Leftist Censorship is Now Targeting Talk Radio!

7
Image from Pixabay free images

Nothing is off limits to the radical left…

Electric vehicle producers are contemplating removing AM radio from future models citing safety concerns…but there’s more to it.

Watch Amanda explain the controversy below:

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

Why Secret Service Officers Missed Intruder at Biden Official’s Home

3
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

ALERT – If you’re reading this on your cell phone, and you are a Secret Service agent or officer on duty, please stop and put away the phone – immediately. 

Otherwise, you can continue reading.

Ok. Now that we got that out of the way, we can inform you of how an intoxicated intruder was able to enter the home of Joe Biden’s National Security Advisor – Jake Sullivan – back in April.

While Sullivan isn’t particularly impressive (and I’m being gracious), he is one of Biden’s top national security officials. By virtue of his position, he is a very big deal.

He has direct access to the president, the White House, and to the nation’s most classified intelligence and national security information.

Terrorists or spies would love to get their hands on some of that stature, or just get into their homes undetected.

And one unidentified person did just that. But how?

Well, sadly the agents protecting Sullivan were distracted, at least in part, because they were using their personal cell phones while on duty.

 A scourge that is affecting most of society.

This is according to an internal investigation by the Secret Service.

The incident at Sullivan’s home occurred in the early morning hours. Sullivan reportedly confronted the intruder inside his home and later told investigators that he believed the person, who was later seen on surveillance video entering and exiting the property, was intoxicated and entered the home by mistake. 

Sullivan made the confused man leave his home and then went outside to tell the agents what happened.

Whether the intruder was really just a drunk nobody, or just pretending to be one, is still to be determined.

Meanwhile, Sullivan and his family were unharmed, but the Secret Service officers won’t be so lucky.

As CNN reported: “A law enforcement official familiar with the internal investigation said the agents on duty that night and their supervisors, are likely to be subject to disciplinary action, including an evaluation of whether they can maintain their federal security clearance, a requirement for their positions.”

So, basically, they could lose their jobs over this. And they probably should.

More importantly, the Secret Service, and all federal law enforcement agencies, and their private security contractors, must enforce rules limiting personal cell phone use while on duty.

Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle appears to be doing just that when last week she ordered increased penalties for employees who violate agency policies while on duty, including the use of personal electronic devices on the job.

According to CNN, Cheatle ordered “disciplinary penalties be increased to up to 21-day suspensions, and up to removal for infractions that lead to operational failure. Those include for the use of personal phones or the use of alcohol while on assignments.”

Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi stated:

We have zero tolerance for anything that jeopardizes operational success. While human errors may occur, what sets us apart is our unwavering commitment to maintaining very high professional standards and ethics. This includes enhanced penalties for incidents involving alcohol and a strict policy regarding personal cell phone use while on duty.

Well, that’s a start. The Secret Service is our nation’s, and perhaps the world’s, leading dignitary protection agency. It simply can’t allow things like this to happen. 

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

Congress May Blow Lid Off Backroom Deal For Trump Tax Return Leaker

1

Americans may soon learn why the man who stole the confidential financial information of 18,000 taxpayers got the lightest possible criminal sentence from the Biden administration after leaking the tax returns of one of those people – President Donald Trump.

U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) announced in a statement he has “sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi requesting information about the prosecution of Charles Littlejohn, the former IRS contractor who leaked the tax returns of President and Trump and thousands of others to ProPublica and the New York Times.”

“During Littlejohn’s sentencing, Biden-Harris Justice Department prosecutors stated that the scope and scale his unauthorized disclosure was unparalleled in the IRS’s history yet allowed Littlejohn to plead guilty to only one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax information, resulting in only a five-year prison sentence, three years’ supervised release, and a $5,000 fine,” the statement explains.

“It remains unclear why the Biden-Harris Justice Department chose to allow him to plead guilty to only a single felony count,” the statement notes.

Jordan’s letter reads, in part:

“The Committee on the Judiciary is continuing to investigate the unprecedented leak of protected taxpayer information by Charles E. Littlejohn. Despite confessing to leaking ‘thousands of individuals’ and entities’ tax returns’ to ProPublica and the New York Times, the Biden-Harris Administration charged Mr. Littlejohn, a former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) contractor, with only one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax information. Due to the Trump Administration’s commitment to transparency and accountability, the Committee has learned that the scope of Mr. Littlejohn’s leak was much broader than the Biden-Harris Administration had led the public to believe. Accordingly, we respectfully renew our request for documents relating to Mr. Littlejohn’s prosecution.

“During Mr. Littlejohn’s sentencing, Justice Department prosecutors stated that the ‘scope and scale’ of Mr. Littlejohn’s unauthorized disclosure was ‘unparalleled in the IRS’s history.’ They claimed at the time that the data stolen by Mr. Littlejohn included ‘returns’ and ‘return information’ for approximately 18,000 individuals and 73,000 businesses. Yet, the Justice Department under President Biden allowed Mr. Littlejohn to plead guilty to only one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax information, which resulted in a five-year prison sentence, three years’ supervised release, and a $5,000 fine.

“During Mr. Littlejohn’s sentencing, the judge expressed that she was ‘perplexed’ and ‘troubled’ by the overly lenient plea agreement, stating: ‘The fact that [Mr. Littlejohn] is facing one felony count, I have no words for.’

“On February 8, 2024, the Committee wrote to the Biden-Harris Justice Department requesting documents about the Department’s decision to pursue one charge against Mr. Littlejohn despite the severity of his actions. On March 18, 2024, the Biden-Harris Justice Department responded by defending Mr. Littlejohn’s single felony charge and his five-year prison sentence. The Biden-Harris Justice Department failed to produce any substantive or nonpublic information to the Committee.

“After President Trump took office, the IRS disclosed to the Committee that over 405,000 taxpayers were victims of Mr. Littlejohn’s leaks and that ’89 [percent] of the taxpayers [we]re business entities.’ While it is now clear that Mr. Littlejohn’s conduct violated the privacy of hundreds of thousands of American taxpayers, it remains unclear why the Biden-Harris Justice Department chose to allow him to plead guilty to only a single felony count. It appears that the Biden-Harris Justice Department authorized a plea agreement in this case that did not ensure full accountability for criminal conduct that was unprecedented in its scope and scale.”

Democrat House Intel Committee Chief Pressured Twitter to Ban Journalists and Critics

0

ANALYSIS – In the ‘yes, we were right all’ along category, it is crystal clear that leading Democrats politicos held enormous sway over the woke peons at Twitter, and still do at other Big Tech social media companies. 

And, in clear violation of the First Amendment, and press freedom, these top Democrats use that power to pressure these companies to suspend and ban journalists and critics alike.

In the latest bombshell drop from Musk’s Twitter Files we learn that by 2020, Twitter was inundated with requests and demands from elements of the government to censor various personalities and narratives.

The most egregious example is that of Adam Schiff, his position as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee gave him credibility to push false narratives, and then push Big Tech to censor any contrary views.

Significantly, Schiff’s office wanted Twitter to shut down one of the most effective journalists pushing back on his phony Russia collusion narrative.

Fox News reports:

Published Tuesday, the latest round of the Twitter Files – internal documents revealing how Twitter engaged in censorship and promoted disinformation in tandem with government agencies for the past few years – revealed that Schiff’s office asked Twitter to remove journalist Paul Sperry and others from the site. 

Taibbi, who published the Twitter Files post-by-post to Twitter at the behest of Musk, provided documentation showing that “the office for Democrat and House Intel Committee chief Adam Schiff” asked “Twitter to ban journalist Paul Sperry.”

The document Taibbi shared featured correspondence between the “House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee” – Schiff’s office – and Twitter, which included a request to “Suspend the many accounts, including @GregRubini and @paulsperry, which repeatedly promoted false QAnon conspiracies and harassed [REDACTED].”

In the article [Schiff wanted banned], Sperry said then-CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella was overheard talking in the White House with Sean Misko, a holdover staffer from former President Barack Obama’s administration.

A former official who reportedly heard the conversation told Sperry, “Just days after [Trump] was sworn in they were already trying to get rid of him.”

Paul Sperry is a senior staff writer for RealClearInvestigations and has also penned pieces for the New York Post, the Federalist, and other publications.

RealClearInvestigations senior writer Mark Hemingway tweeted, “Of course, Sperry’s real crime was doing vital reporting exposing the mistruths about Russia collusion, a subject Schiff lied about for years.”

The New York Post explained:

Sperry’s reporting clearly showed the partisan motives behind the leaks, and how they were partly manufactured partisan CIA hacks to bring down the former president.

Schiff’s outrageous demands and pressures were solely intended to crush that news from ever being seen.

Thankfully, not all the Twits at Twitter were as easy to manipulate as others. 

In response to the last Schiff request, another unidentified Twitter employee wrote, “no, this isn’t feasible/we don’t do that.”

But the fact that Schiff and other partisan Democrats succeeded many other times is the real issue. 

It’s also a good reason to have Schiff not only removed from the intelligence committee as the new GOP leadership intends, but to also remove him from Congress entirely for gross abuse of power and other ethical breaches.

Amanda Head: Who’s Smarter? Cats or Democrats?

6

Amanda Head welcomes a special guest today.

Today woke dialogue surrounding the topic of gender has exposed just how dumb some people can be…

Watch Amanda explain the latest controversy below:

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

Former Trump National Security Advisor Sounds Alarm Bell Over Foreign Policy Disasters

0
Lorie Shaull, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Amb. Robert C. O’Brien, the Former Trump National Security Advisor, joins Liberty & Justice to discuss the Brittney Griner prisoner swap, the current state of global affairs and the Ukraine war.

Per Matt Whitaker:

Co-founder and chairman of American Global Strategies LLC. He was the 27th United States National Security Advisor from 2019 – 2021. O’Brien served as the President’s principal advisor all aspects of American foreign policy and national security affairs.

O’Brien brought a renewed focus to defense and industrial base issues to the NSC. A long-time advocate of a sea power and a 355 ship Navy, O’Brien visited leading shipyards during his tenure. He also spent time at defense plants and with our troops at bases around the world.

During O’Brien’s time as National Security Advisor, the United States orchestrated the historic Abraham Accords in the Middle East, brokered economic normalization between Serbia and Kosovo, achieved significant defense spending increases among our NATO allies and increased cooperation with America’s allies across the Indo-Pacific.

Prior to serving as NSA, O’Brien was the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs with the personal rank of Ambassador. He was directly involved in the return of over 25 detainees and hostages to the United States. O’Brien previously served as Co-Chairman of the U.S. Department of State Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan under both Secretaries of State Rice and Clinton.

O’Brien was also a presidentially-appointed member of the U.S. Cultural Property Advisory Committee from 2008-2011. In 2005, O’Brien was nominated by President George W. Bush and unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as a U.S. Representative to the 60th session of the UN General Assembly. Earlier in his career, O’Brien served as a Senior Legal Officer for the UN Security Council commission that decided claims against Iraq arising out of the first Gulf War. He was a Major in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps of the U.S. Army Reserve.

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

Amanda Head: The Hollywood Conservative’s PSA

1

You need to hear this.

Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

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

Poll: Americans Oppose US Involvement In Iran, Believe US Should Stay Out Of Other Countries’ Business

3

A new poll finds overwhelming majorities of Americans oppose the U.S. government’s military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and believe the federal government should stay out of other countries’ disputes.

Reuters/Ipsos reports their new poll finds “most Americans support immediately ending U.S. involvement in the conflict with Iran. The poll also finds that Americans oppose U.S. military involvement in the Middle East unless the U.S. is directly threatened and that most Americans do not feel that U.S. airstrikes against Iran make America safer.”

Only 36 percent of Americans support the strikes, with 45 percent opposing.  

A whopping 69 percent of Americans, including 57 percent of Republicans, oppose “any military action in the Middle East unless America is directly threatened”.

58 percent of Americans say “it is better for the nation if the U.S. stays out of the affairs of other nations”

Republicans generally opposed U.S. strikes on Iran when Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden were president, warning it would lead to “World War 3.”  They now report supporting the policy under Republican President Donald Trump.

Reuters summarized the findings, noting:

* Seven in ten say they have been following the U.S. airstrikes against Iran (70%) or the war between Israel and Iran (67%) very or somewhat closely. Republicans are slightly more likely to say they are following the U.S. airstrikes very closely (39%) compared to Democrats (32%), independents (31%), and the general population (33%).

* Four in five Americans say they are concerned with the conflict growing between the U.S. and Iran (84%) and U.S. military personnel stationed in the Middle East (79%). In comparison, similar numbers of Americans are concerned about rising inflation (81%) and growing U.S. debt (78%).

* Republicans (69% support, 17% oppose) are significantly more likely to support the strikes compared to Democrats (13% support, 74% oppose) and independents (29% support, 48% oppose).

* Just over one in three Americans (36%) say they agree that U.S. airstrikes against Iran make America safer, while 60% disagree and 4% refused or skipped. This is heavily divided along partisan lines, with 12% of Democrats, 29% of independents, and 67% of Republicans agreeing with this statement.

* Most Americans say the U.S. should not become involved in any military action in the Middle East unless America is directly threatened (69%). Majorities across partisanship feel this way, with 57% of Republicans, 73% of independents, and 80% of Democrats agreeing with this statement. 

“This Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted June 21-23, 2025. The poll began fielding immediately after the June 21 U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. The poll closed before the June 23 Iranian strikes on a U.S. military base in Qatar, which has reportedly caused no fatalities,” Reuters notes.