Random

    Opinion

    Home Opinion Page 39

    House Conservative Explains Why Big Beautiful Bill Was Big Ugly Spending Spree

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    2

    A leading House conservative and member of the Budget Committee used his time in a committee hearing on the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” spending package to explain that the bill does little to reform spending and the supposed spending cuts are pushed to future years, giving future congresses and the next president time to repeal them.

    Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy explained that while the bill does deliver tax relief it dramatically increases budget deficits by putting off spending reform:

    “I appreciate my friend from Texas, the chairman, and you know, my Democratic colleagues keep telling things that are not true. The vast majority of Americans will get tax benefits under this bill. It’s just simply false to say that that’s not true. Hardworking Americans who will benefit from the standard deduction increase, hardworking Americans who will benefit from child tax credits and lower tax rates—stop saying things that aren’t true. Those things are true. The fact is, we have money in here for the border to undo the damage of Joe Biden. We have more money in here for defense to undo the damage of Joe Biden, but we also address Medicaid and Medicaid spending goes up. Stop lying. Medicaid spending goes up. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are profoundly unserious when it comes to being real about what’s happening with the numbers. I applaud Chairman Arrington. I applaud my colleagues on this side of the aisle for taking a step forward in dealing with the spending problem in this town.

    But I have to now admonish my colleagues on this side of the aisle: this bill falls profoundly short. It does not do what we say it does with respect to deficits. The fact of the matter is, on the spending, what we’re dealing with here is tax cuts and spending a massive front-loaded deficit increase. That’s the truth. That’s the truth. Deficits will go up in the first half of the 10-year budget window. And we all know it’s true, and we shouldn’t do that. We shouldn’t say that we’re doing something we’re not doing.

    The fact of the matter is, this bill has back-loaded savings and front-loaded spending, nowhere near the Senate Budget top line, by the way. The Senate Budget top line of six and a half trillion dollars, which, by the way, is what we were pre-COVID, inflation-adjusted, on interest, on Medicare and Social Security. And if we would reform Medicaid, we could actually get to the core of the problem, but we refuse to do it. And I’m not going to sit here and say that everything is hunky-dory when this is the Budget Committee. This is the Budget Committee. We are supposed to do something to actually result in balanced budgets, but we’re not doing it. Look at what happens under deficits… Only in Washington are we expected to bet on the come that in five years, everything will work, then we will solve the problem.

    We have got to change the direction of this town, and to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: yes, that means touching Medicaid. It went from $400 billion in 2019 to $600 billion this year. It’ll be over a trillion in the 2030s. We are making promises that we cannot keep. We do need to reform it. We need to stop giving seven times as much money to the able-bodied over the vulnerable. Why are we sticking it to the vulnerable population, the disabled and the sick, to give money to single able-bodied male adults? We shouldn’t do that. We should reform it. But guess what? That message needs to be delivered to my colleagues on this side of the aisle too.

    We are writing checks we cannot cash, and our children are going to pay the price. So I am a no on this bill unless serious reforms are made today, tomorrow, Sunday. We’re having conversations as we speak, but something needs to change, or you’re not going to get my support.”

    The Legal Hit Squad Targeting Trump Lawyers

    By
    Alex Muse
    -
    1
    Gavel via Wikimedia Commons Image
    Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]

    Without a whisper, David Brock once again took his seat in that deep club chair, the one upholstered in battered oxblood leather and steeped in quiet menace. He reached for his tailor-crafted inner pocket, drawing from it a fresh Davidoff 702 Double R. The oily Ecuadorian leaf caught flame with practiced ease, releasing those same familiar notes of dark chocolate and café crema. Nearby, a Baccarat tumbler appeared in a silent ritual of service, filled just so with Pappy Van Winkle, as though it had always been there. This wasn’t just habit. It was stagecraft, and the man in the chair was directing a performance with constitutional consequences.

    There was no need for preamble. Those in the room knew why they were there. Brock was about to reintroduce the legal profession to its own velvet-clad nightmare. His audience, a quiet circle of left-wing patrons and media barons, leaned in as he explained the next phase of his campaign, not against Donald Trump per se, but against anyone daring to offer him or his allies a legal defense. This wasn’t about winning court cases. This was about ensuring those cases were never filed at all.

    The 65 Project, Brock explained, was not an electoral effort. It was not a messaging campaign. It was war. A war against the 6th Amendment, that slender but essential clause guaranteeing every American the right to legal counsel. Its aim? To deprive Republicans, particularly those challenging elections or government orthodoxy, of any capable legal defense.

    Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]

    Run through Brock’s network of nonprofits and housed under Law Works, the 65 Project deployed seasoned political operatives to file bar complaints, ethics charges, and sanctions motions against Trump-affiliated attorneys. The power of the model lay in its asymmetry. A single complaint, even meritless, could cost an attorney tens of thousands of dollars and a year or more in disciplinary review. And even if dismissed, the stain was permanent.

    In 2025, this campaign has not slowed. In February, the 65 Project filed a high-profile complaint against Edward Martin, then the interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia. His offense? Alleged conflicts of interest tied to representing January 6 defendants before his federal appointment. The complaint cited violations of Rule 4-1.7 of professional conduct, a detail blasted across the headlines of friendly media outlets. As of June, there is no word on whether the complaint succeeded, but that isn’t the point. The accusation is the punishment.

    Incredibly, the 65 Project also targeted the sitting Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi. On June 5, 2025, a coalition including the 65 Project, Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law filed a 23-page ethics complaint with the Florida Bar, accusing Bondi of “serious professional misconduct.” The complaint alleged that Bondi threatened DOJ lawyers with discipline or termination for failing to pursue President Trump’s political objectives, particularly via a February 5 “zealous advocacy” memo. It claimed her actions led to resignations and firings in violation of DOJ norms and Florida Bar rules. Yet, on June 6, the Florida Bar summarily rejected the complaint, citing a policy against investigating sitting officers appointed under the US Constitution. It was the third such complaint against Bondi, and the third rejection. Critics like DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle called the filings “vexatious” and politically motivated. That the 65 Project would go after a sitting Attorney General at all illustrates the sheer audacity, and absurdity, of their campaign. They have announced they will be filing more complaints against Bondi.

    Even more outrageous, the same coalition named two additional Trump administration officials in their June 5 complaint: Emil Bove, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General and Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General. The complaint accused them contributing to a culture of unethical conduct within the Justice Department by pressuring career lawyers to ignore professional responsibilities and instead pursue political objectives at the behest of President Trump. The goal was clear: not just to intimidate one leader, but to undermine the credibility of an entire legal team working within the bounds of the law.

    This complaint, like so many others, underscores the project’s enduring mission: to ensure lawyers think twice before defending Trump or any of his associates. Public defenders and private litigators alike have been swept into the net. Whether you were in court for Giuliani, or simply filed an amicus brief on election integrity, the 65 Project likely has your name on a list.

    This strategy, weaponizing legal ethics as a partisan bludgeon, would have made Boss Tweed grin from ear to ear. Backroom operators like Col. George Brinton McClellan Harvey would recognize it instantly. Harvey, managing editor of the Democratic Party’s press empire at the turn of the 20th century, orchestrated conventions from smoke-filled rooms in Chicago’s Blackstone Hotel, where policies were written not in law books, but on cocktail napkins between puffs of Havana cigars. Brock, in many ways, is his spiritual heir, using legal bureaucracy the way Harvey used ink and influence.

    The Biden-appointed judiciary has not resisted. In Michigan, Democratic activists succeeded in convincing a federal judge to sanction every lawyer who filed election-related litigation for Trump in 2020. Among them: Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, and Stefanie Junttila. Each was ordered to pay legal fees to Democratic Party groups and attend re-education courses, under the euphemism of continuing legal education. The court referred them for possible disbarment, fulfilling Brock’s vision.

    Michael Teter, managing director of the 65 Project, has filed complaints against more than 100 attorneys across 26 states. The targets include high-profile figures like Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, and Cleta Mitchell. And while many of these complaints were dismissed by mid-2023, the damage to reputations and client relationships lingers.

    The project’s tactics have drawn sharp rebuke. Congressman Lance Gooden, in April 2025, called the 65 Project a “political hit squad” and demanded a Justice Department investigation. Others on social media have accused the group of colluding with establishment Republicans to kneecap Trump’s legal allies. Yet Brock’s defenders frame the group as guardians of democracy, protecting the legal profession from ethical collapse.

    Such framing is dishonest. When Alan Dershowitz defended Al Gore in 2000, no one suggested he should be disbarred for challenging election results. But now, lawyers challenging questionable election conduct on behalf of Republicans face professional ruin. This is not accountability. It is ideological warfare.

    Critics may point out that the 65 Project has not secured many disbarments. That may be true, but they have achieved some high-profile penalties. Jenna Ellis was publicly censured by a Colorado judge in March 2023. Rudy Giuliani had his law license suspended in New York and is facing permanent disbarment proceedings in Washington, DC. John Eastman was disbarred in California following a March 27, 2024, decision by State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland, who found him culpable of 10 out of 11 disciplinary charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. His license was placed on involuntary inactive status days later, rendering him ineligible to practice law in California. Eastman has appealed, but as of June 15, 2025, no reversal has been reported. He was also suspended from practicing law in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2024, pending resolution of the California case. Lin Wood surrendered his law license in Georgia under pressure from multiple complaints. These results are rare but not insignificant. Still, the goal was never just disbarment. It was deterrence. It was a public display of consequence, a digital scarlet letter. No need to win in court when you can win in LinkedIn’s HR department.

    The project has inspired imitators including the Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law. The Lincoln Project also targets law firms, encouraging junior associates to pressure partners against accepting GOP clients. Shutdown DC and the Un-American Bar maintain lists of “insurrectionist” lawyers. Others push the American Bar Association to adopt rules banning election challenges altogether, cloaking censorship in the rhetoric of professionalism.

    Marc Elias, the left’s court general, has taken the mission even further, seeking to disqualify GOP candidates under the 14th Amendment, resurrecting post-Civil War measures to bar Trump allies from holding office. Lawsuits against Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, and others reflect this broader ecosystem of lawfare. It is a constellation of coordinated attacks designed to render conservative legal advocacy untenable.

    And what of the Constitution? The Sixth Amendment was never meant to be partisan. It exists not to protect the powerful, but the accused. In America, even pariahs have lawyers. Even the guilty deserve defense. The 65 Project’s perverse genius is to flip that premise, treating legal representation as complicity, and enforcing political loyalty through professional terror.

    David Brock did not build this machinery alone. Melissa Moss, a Clinton veteran, helped architect the effort. She recruited Democratic grandees, Tom Daschle, ABA presidents, former state judges, to lend legitimacy. Their goal? To make conservative legal advocacy professionally radioactive.

    And it may be working. Some lawyers are declining GOP clients outright. Others fear disciplinary complaints, X mobs, or worse. The chilling effect is real, and precisely what the architects intended. The War on the Sixth is a war on courage, a war on professional independence, a war on the idea that justice should be blind.

    In the end, Brock’s smoke-filled rooms are not about cigars or cocktails. They are about control. They are about ensuring that when Republicans step into a courtroom, they do so alone.

    If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing: https://x.com/amuse.

    Stunner: CIA Approved and Promoted Biden Campaign Letter Falsely Claiming Russians Faked Hunter Laptop

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    6
    President Joe Biden hugs his family during the 59th Presidential Inauguration ceremony in Washington, Jan. 20, 2021. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took the oath of office on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol. (DOD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II)

    In a stunning revelation, congressional investigators reveal the Central Intelligence Agency reviewed, approved and may have even recruited signers for an October 2020 public letter from 51 intelligence officials that falsely claimed damaging information against Democrat nominee Joe Biden had been “planted” the Russian government.

    Specifically, the letter, produced with the help of the CIA, claims Russian agents faked the contents of a laptop computer, abandoned at a Delaware computer shop by Biden’s middle-aged son Hunter.  Files, documents, and photograps on the laptop show Hunter Biden using drugs, frequenting prostitutes and engaged in shadowy business deals with foreign officials, which may also allegedly Joe Biden.

    As part of a plan to assist Biden’s campaign and defeat President Donald Trump, 51 intelligence officials signed their name to a public letter claiming, without evidence, the laptop was planted by the Russian government.

    That claim has since been proven to be a lie.


    It is now also revealed the CIA had a hand in its production.

    After an investigation, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Intelligence Committee Chairman Michael Turner (R-OH) have released a report revealing 

    the CIA’s “Prepublication Classification Review Board” or “PCRB” “reviewed and approved the statement before its release.”

    “Furthermore, evidence suggests that one CIA employee working at the PCRB may have shopped the letter to a former CIA officer who later agreed to add his name to the statement,” the lawmakers reveal in a statement.

    The House Judiciary Committee, in a statement, further reveals:

    On April 5, 2023, former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell testified before the Committees that Secretary Blinken, then serving as a senior Biden campaign advisor, was the impetus of the public statement. Documents also revealed that Morell rushed the statement through the PCRB process in order for Vice President Biden to have a “talking point” to use during the October 22, 2020, presidential debate.

    Additionally, evidence suggests that senior Biden campaign officials, including now Secretary of State Antony Blinken, now Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates, and now Counselor to the President Steve Ricchetti, took active measures to discredit the allegations about Hunter Biden by exploiting the national security credentials of former intelligence officials and coordinated efforts to disseminate the statement with members of the media. Morell’s testimony also exposed that the CIA’s PCRB reviewed and approved the statement before its release.

    According to a written statement provided to the Committees by former CIA official David Cariens, the CIA—or at least an employee of the CIA—may have helped in the effort to solicit signatures for the statement. Cariens explained that he spoke with the PCRB in October 2020 regarding the review of his memoir and during that call the CIA employee “asked” him if he would sign the statement.

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

    Famous Navy Seal Now De-transitioning – Says He Was Manipulated

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0
    Katy Blackwood, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    Former decorated Navy SEAL Chris Beck, who publicly announced his transition to look like a woman in 2013, has now said that this was a life-shattering mistake, and he is de-transitioning back to his biologically male gender.

    Beck, who started going by the name Kirsten, was a poster child of the trans movement and was used aggressively by them to promote and impose their radical agenda in the U.S. military.

    Beck earlier served in the Navy SEALs for 20 years, going on 13 deployments, including with the famed SEAL Team Six.

    According to his speaker bio, he was awarded over 50 citations and medals, including the Bronze Star with valor and the Purple Heart.

    But now Beck calls the trans movement a ‘cult’ that used, manipulated, and propagandized him into making this radical life change.

    He is also speaking out to warn about the devastating effect of the trans agenda on children.

    Beck made his explosive comments during an interview with political commentator Robby Starbuck. 

    Starbuck tweeted that “Navy SEAL Chris Beck came out in 2013 as transgender. @andersoncooper did a special on @cnn about it. His story was used as propaganda to allow trans people in the military and to popularize the issue. Now Chris is ready to expose the truth.”

    The Daily Caller reported:

    He [Beck]told Starbuck that he is “not transgender” and used his confusion as an example of why psychologists should not “push their agenda” onto children. Beck claimed in the interview that it took a one hour long meeting at the Department of Veterans Affairs for him to be recommended hormones, which he has now been off for seven years. He went on to break down the effects of the hormones used for the gender transition on his body.

    Beck was turned into a national figure when he came out as transgender in a 2013 CNN interview with Anderson Cooper. The interview came after he co-wrote the book “Warrior Princess” with psychologist Anne Speckhard. The book detailed him coming out as transgender. He warned viewers in the interview not to believe anything CNN said about him because he claims they “used [him]” and “destroyed [his] life” over the past decade.

    Beck is also extremely concerned about the trans movement’s damaging effects on children.

    The Blaze notes:

    Beck explained the dangers of medical professionals’ “automatic acceptance” of children who have self-diagnosed themselves as transgender. He added that doctors should require “a minimum number of sessions” before allowing children to undergo life-altering hormone therapy treatment or gender-mutilating surgeries.

    “There’s a lot of complications with these surgeries,” Beck noted. “And that’s a part that they don’t really talk about.”

    Beck told Starbuck that he came on the podcast to take “full responsibility” for promoting gender ideology and stated that, at the time, he was “naive.” He explained that he is concerned that children are “being talked into this.”

    “I don’t want this to continue, and I don’t want these kids to get hurt,” Beck stated.

    And this a growing concern, especially as Team Biden is pushing to have taxpayer-funded transition surgeries for kids.

    The Christian Post reports:

    The United States Department of Health and Human Services says that taxpayer funds should be used to cover the cost of body mutilating “gender transition” surgeries for minors. In written responses to Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra said that the Biden administration supports using taxpayer dollars to cover the costs of elective body-deforming surgeries on youth, such as mastectomies and vaginoplasties. His responses were submitted Tuesday to the U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor.

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

    Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis Is Running – Not Afraid of Trump

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    2
    Ron DeSantis via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    ANALYSIS – ‘Run, Ron, Run.’ – It’s about as official as it can get without a formal filing – Florida’s conservative Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, is running for the GOP nomination to be President of the United States. 

    And he is clearly not afraid of Donald Trump.

    With the end of the Florida legislative session now over – after making an exception to allow Florida officeholders to run for President or Vice President without resigning their office – DeSantis seems to have unofficially launched his campaign.

    He is expected to formally file within two weeks but is already making waves with his speeches and weekend stops in Iowa, shortly after Trump canceled his planned Iowa stop due to “bad weather.” And even the New York Times took note with a story titled: DeSantis Impresses in Iowa, Showing Up an Absent Trump.

    While echoing some of the policies and positions of Trump, DeSantis took some veiled shots at the former president who is leading massively among GOP primary voters, blasting Republicans (aka: Trump) as having been losers.

    And that seems to be his initial strategy. Attacking Trump without attacking him directly.

    This despite Trump striving to make his own GOP nomination appear inevitable and having launched numerous broadsides directly at DeSantis who he sees as his biggest potential GOP rival. 

    Trump has called DeSantis disloyal and said that his political career would have been over had Trump not endorsed the governor’s ultimately successful 2018 campaign.

    “He was dead as a dog; he was a dead politician. He would have been working perhaps for a law firm or maybe a Pizza Hut, I don’t know,” Trump told reporters aboard his plane enroute to Iowa back in March, reported Politico.

    Asked if he regretted endorsing Ron DeSantis for governor in 2018, Trump responded this March: “Yeah maybe, this guy was dead. He was dead as a doornail.”

    Whether that is true or not, DeSantis has gone on to be a highly popular and effective governor. He has also won over conservatives with his battles against wokeness and Disney. During his time as governor, Florida has also gone from being a battleground state to one that is solidly Republican.

    As Newsmax reported: “We had a lot of those folks in places like Miami who had been Democrats and voted for Democrats and they came on our side – not only voting for me, but now they’re registering as Republicans,” DeSantis said. “So don’t buy this idea that we can’t expand our bases of support.

    “Of course, you can do that, he added. “You can’t win big with just Republicans, and we proved that. But here’s the thing: We didn’t do it by trimming our sails. We didn’t comport ourselves to be anything that we’re not. We lead boldly. We lead conservatively, and we delivered results and people responded.”

    Trump appears to be having trouble picking an insulting nickname for DeSantis, something that proved effective against previous rivals. He has called him ‘Ron DeSanctimonous,’ but that one doesn’t seem to be sticking.

    The former president has also reportedly nixed calling him ‘Meatball Ron,’ as being too crude. Meanwhile, in Iowa, DeSantis continued to reference Trump without naming him. DeSantis told the small, but passionate, crowd:

    If we make the 2024 election a referendum on Joe Biden and his failures, and if we provide a positive alternative for the future of this country, Republicans will win across the board. If we do not do that, if we get distracted, if we focus the election on the past or on other side issues, then I think the Democrats are going to beat us again, and I think it will be very difficult to recover from that defeat.

    DeSantis added his warning about the current and future state of our nation under Democrat rule:

    I think our country is floundering, in part because so many of our institutions have become unmoored from the truth: They’ve been lost in a sea of relativism. And this is important because we’re really at a crossroads as a country.

    As bad as things are going right now, if things do not go well for us Republicans in 2024, it’s going to get a whole lot worse. The left in this country is really playing for keeps. They are more aggressive and more strident than at any time in my lifetime.

    Amen to that. 

    Still, even after being found liable for sexual assault and defamation, Trump’s status as the GOP front-runner was amplified Wednesday night during a CNN’s town hall event. 

    The fireworks are just beginning.

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

    Credible US Officials Testify to Congress About Real UFO Threat

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    1

    ANALYSIS – Decades after the infamous Roswell incident captivated Americans, the House of Representatives has convened a landmark panel on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAPs), also known as Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs).

    In what would have been unimaginable just a few years ago, the hearing is the most serious acknowledgment yet that the mysterious sightings require scrutiny at the highest levels of government.

    The debate about UAP has become a hot topic in recent years following multiple leaked photographs and video recordings from the U.S. Navy showing UAP craft operating at high speed over American airspace, often with no visible propulsion and maneuvering in ways that baffle aeronautics experts.

    A leaked navy video, captured in July 2019, for example, shows a sphere-shaped unidentified object flying over water near San Diego before apparently disappearing into the ocean.

    At the hearing, three witnesses testified under oath about their experiences with UFOs. Significantly, former military and intelligence officials testified to the panel Wednesday that they have seen UFOs and said they could pose risks to national security. 

    All three witnesses said the UAP may be probing for weakness in the U.S. military system.

    The highly credible former officials called for the U.S. government to share what it knows about the phenomena.

    But the Pentagon’s UAP task force, the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, says it hasn’t been able to substantiate claims that any federal programs have possessed or reverse-engineered extraterrestrial materials.

    Still, during two hours of testimony on July 26, three witnesses shared their encounters with flying objects that they say defy explanation:

    1) David Grusch, an ex-Air Force intelligence officer, claims the U.S. has been running a secret program to retrieve and reverse engineer UAPs for decades, and has been aware of “non-human” activity since the 1930s.

    Grusch said he believes the U.S. government is in possession of UAP based on interviewing 40 witnesses over four years with direct knowledge of the program. 

    Perhaps more sensationally, in response to a question regarding aliens, he replied “biologics [life forms] came with some of these [UAP] recoveries.”

    2) Ryan Graves, a former navy fighter pilot, testified his squadron repeatedly encountered mysterious flying objects which could remain stationary despite hurricane-level winds – claiming he saw them off the Atlantic coast “every day for at least a couple years.”

    The Wall Street Journal reported on one sighting:

    Graves said his aircrew saw UAP during a training exercise off the coast of Virginia Beach, Va. Two jets encountered “a dark gray or black cube inside of a clear sphere” and the object came within 50 feet of the lead aircraft, he said. It was estimated to be 5 to 15 feet in diameter, he said.

    3) Retired U.S. Navy commander David Fravor recounted a 2004 encounter with a “Tic Tac” shaped UAP that moved in a way that baffled aviators. Fravor said it had no visible rotors or wings. 

    It was “moving very abruptly over the white water, like a ping-pong ball,” he added, noting that he flew his aircraft closer to get a better view of the UAP, but “it rapidly accelerated and disappeared.”

    But this is only the latest and most significant public inquiry into the UFO threat.

    In 2021 the U.S. intelligence agencies were called to deliver a report on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) to Congress.

    The first unclassified report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) made public what the Pentagon reportedly knows about UAP, renewing interest in the mysterious objects which have grown into a modern myth in American society.

    ODNI produced a second UAP report in 2022.

    Whether UAP is the result of advanced foreign technology or from a more otherworldly source, government officials are now demanding to know more about them. And so is the public.

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

    Pelosi Knew – Tucker Carlson Interviews Capitol Police Chief Again over Jan 6

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    3
    Nancy Pelosi via Gage Skidmore flickr

    ANALYSIS – The original interview Tucker Carlson did with former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund about the Capitol Riot never aired on Fox News because Tucker was fired just before. Still, a lot about that interview has leaked. 

    I wrote about some of Sund’s claims earlier in August. 

    In that piece, I note that the Jan 6 riot was not a false flag operation, and most of the rioters were confirmed Trump supporters. However, in many ways, it was allowed to happen.

    But to put the entire thing on the record, Carlson did the interview again – and posted it to X, formerly known as Twitter. And it is damning to those Democrats who benefited from the Capitol Riot.

    Much of what Sund has said coincides with or dovetails with facts I have written about previously, especially how the Sergeant at Arms for both the House under Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the Senate under Democrat Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, both declined National Guard support until it was too late.

    The same occurred with the Democrat Mayor of Washington, DC, Muriel Bowser who specifically stated that troops not be deployed unless the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) approved. 

    She added that she believed her police department was “well trained and prepared to lead the way” to ensure Jan. 6 unfolded safely. They weren’t. And they didn’t.

    This despite President Donald Trump offering the National Guard to them more than once.

    *(Note that the graphic above is incorrect in one detail – Officer Brian Sicknick was NOT killed defending the Capitol. He died later of natural causes (a stroke) unrelated to the riot.)

    In the case of Pelosi, Carlson is direct: “So this is an event that Pelosi herself has likened to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 — you know, the worst thing that’s ever happened on American soil — and she’s in charge of allowing the National Guard to come in and respond but she doesn’t for 71 minutes? What is that?”

    But Sund adds more details and perspective to the event that makes the lead up even more damning for the Democrats.

    The Blaze reported:

    In the interview, Sund indicated critical intelligence pertaining to possible threats ahead of the Jan. 6 protest was withheld from the Capitol Police and that the absence of such intelligence was cited by the congressional sergeants at arms — who were reporting to then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at the time — as cause not to reinforce the Capitol in advance with the National Guard and federal assets.

    However, the outlet added the former Chief now understands that the intelligence was there. It just wasn’t provided to his department:

    According to the former chief, “We now know FBI [and] DHS was swimming in that intelligence. We also know now that the military seemed to have some very concerning intelligence as well,” adding that the FBI field office in Washington and other outfits “didn’t put out a single official document specific to January 6. That’s very unusual.”

    During a conference call on Jan. 5, 2021, with the leaders of the Metropolitan Police Department and the FBI Washington field office along with National Guard, military officials, and others, “not one person on that call talked about any concerns from the intelligence … that was out there.”

    “This was handled differently. … It’s almost like they wanted it to be watered down, the intelligence to be watered down for some reason,” said Sund. “It wasn’t right the way the intelligence was handled and the way we were set up on the Hill.”

    The question is – did these federal security agencies make the decisions not to forward this intelligence on their own, or where they told not to send it?

    In the interview, Sund noted that then-acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley had “both discussed locking down the city of Washington, D.C., because they were so worried about violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6.”

    Sund added: “On Sunday and Monday, they had been discussing locking down the city, revoking permits on Capitol hill because of the concern for violence.” 

    He continued: “You know who issues the permits on Capitol Hill for demonstrations? I do. You know who wasn’t told? Me.”

    This deserves much more investigation. The Jan 6 Committee was a partisan circus and designed only to blame Trump.

    I have argued that the Pentagon leadership was extremely wary of bringing in the National Guard or any federal assets to DC due to the extreme overreaction by Democrats over Trump sending federal officers to quell riots in Portland a few months earlier.

    Democrats also were apoplectic with rage at Trump’s actions to stop violent rioters outside the White House on June 1st. 

    There was also the incessant talk in the media about Trump using the military for a ‘coup,’ which Miller has stated as a constraint several times. These all remain valid explanations for the Pentagon’s preferred inaction. 

    And maybe for the Mayor’s decision to initially reject Guard troops.

    But what about Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer? What did they know and when did they know it? And why did they veto reinforcing the Capitol till the chaos had already begun?

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

    Backlash Grows as Well-Known Conservatives Sell Out to Woke Bud Light

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    4
    Mike Mozart, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – Easily bought conservatives. In the aftermath of the brutal fallout from Bud Light’s woke transgender promotion fiasco with man-pretending-to-be-a-woman, ‘transgender influencer’ Dylan Mulvaney, the beer giant tried everything to woo back angry conservatives who have been successfully boycotting it. 

    Bud Light sales have crashed, dropping almost over 27% in a few short months.

    In a panicked response, parent company Anheuser-Busch brought back the majestic Clydesdale horses, it also highlighted its events for, and donations to, veteran’s groups. It even made a commercial with football star Travis Kelce. 

    But nothing. Nada.

    Videos and images of empty Bud Light venues went viral, as did shelves filled with untouched Bud Light cases being almost given away free. Bud Light kept crashing and Mexico’s Modelo beer passed it up as top-selling beer in America.

    Along the way, Modelo became a sponsor of the UFC.

    The only thing the American beer behemoth hasn’t done is apologize for its huge mistake. And Bud Light executives, apparently fearing a minority of leftist woke activists more than they fear losing hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, stubbornly refuse to do that.

    Bud Light even co-sponsored an LGBTQ+ Pride event in Arizona over the weekend.

    Instead, Anheuser-Busch made a more than $100 million bet (“well into nine figures”), and essentially bought a powerful, Trump-supporting conservative personality to become its shill, and affiliated itself with one of the most conservative and masculine sports entertainment venues in the country.

    The big conservative personality is UFC CEO Dana White, the organization is the UFC, promoter of mixed martial arts (MMA) fights. Both are being paid handsomely via a “multi-year marketing partnership” to promote Bud Light as the much-hated beer returns as the official beer of the sports juggernaut. 

    As part of Dana White’s new job promoting his sellout, he is doing the rounds of conservative media. As part of that ‘we aren’t woke’ spin tour, he went on the Sean Hannity show to repeatedly claim – unconvincingly to me – that the UFC, Anheuser-Busch and Bud Light “are very aligned when it comes to our core values.”

    That is the talking point. You will hear it a lot.

    Well, apparently that’s all it took for Hannity to embrace Bud Light’s faux return to the conservative fold. After a little mild, mostly symbolic, pushback, Hannity quickly folded and said he could give the unrepentant woke beer brand ‘one more chance.’

    White also went on the The Charlie Kirk Show on October 26 to push back at conservative critics calling him a sellout. He said he admired the beer company’s core values, adding: “It’s this unbelievable, powerful, American-built business…”

    When discussing the deal, conservative radio hosts Buck Sexton and Clay Travis (who I generally agree with and like) also sympathized with White and the UFC, meekly saying, ‘that’s a lot of money,’ and they might take it from Bud Light too. 

    One of the two also predicted that Bud Light’s huge bet with White and the UFC might pay off, and in a year the transgender boycott will be forgotten, seemingly trying to help make it so.

    I hope they are all dead wrong, and their kowtowing to Bud Light just to please Dana White and his powerful organization will be condemned by conservatives. And there is evidence that a backlash against the UFC decision is now growing.

    It has ignited a firestorm of criticism on Elon Musk’s social media platform X. Many fans have said they will now be boycotting the UFC and canceling their pay-per-view subscription because of the brand partnership.

    As Newsweek reported:

    “I’m canceling my subscription and never buying ANY PPV (pay-per-view) fights anymore until this sponsorship is gone. This is the worst business deal UFC has ever made EVER,” one angry fan wrote.

    “How about you explain your pathetic Bud Light sponsorship!!?? What you doing rainbow uniforms next?? Canceling my UFC fight pass subscription,” said another.

    “I just canceled my ESPN+ subscription. I used to buy every PPV but this is the last straw,” wrote another.

    A fourth added: “Canceled my UFC fight pass subscription. Enjoy your Bud Light, hope it was worth it.”

    But realize it’s not just Dana White and the UFC that are sellouts, it’s also conservative powerhouse commentators like Sean Hannity, and lesser ones like Buck and Clay who seem to be quickly and meekly surrendering to Bud Light and their new partners, the UFC.

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

    Trump Dominates GOP Presidential Rivals as Biden Approval Tanking

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    4
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    ANALYSIS – Even as the indictments pile up, or maybe because of them, a new national NBC News poll finds former President Donald Trump expanding his national lead in the Republican presidential nominating contest to 43 points over his nearest rival, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

    Trump leads the first-choice field with 59% of national Republican primary voters. In comparison, Ron DeSantis gets support from 16% — followed by former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley at 7% and former Vice President Mike Pence at 4%.

    The poll also includes an all-time high disapproval of Joe Biden’s job performance. Fewer than 4 in 10 voters (37%) approve of his handling of the economy. This is huge.

    As NBC News reported: 

    Deeper inside those numbers, Biden is underwater among voters between the ages of 18 and 34 (46% of them approve of his job performance), all women (46%), Latinos (43%) and independents (36%).

    What’s more, the NBC News poll finds 37% of voters approve of Biden’s handling of the economy, and 41% approve of his handling of foreign policy.

    Biden is also taking a big hit for his open borders policy and unprecedented waves of illegal immigration on his watch, as also shown by a recent The Washington Post-ABC News poll. 

    Axios noted: 

    “A variety of factors may be at play,” [ABC News’ Gary] Langer writes in his analysis. “Biden’s poor performance ratings, the extent of economic discontent, the immigration crisis and doubts about his age clearly are relevant.”

    Axios added: “In the Post-ABC poll, 44% said they’re worse off — the most for any president in the poll since… 1986, ABC News’ Gary Langer said in his poll analysis.”

    “In NBC, Biden’s disapproval rating is the highest of his term for that poll.”

    NBC News also noted that: “Another 60% have major concerns (45%) or moderate concerns (15%) about Biden’s possible awareness or involvement in the business dealings of his son, Hunter, including alleged financial wrongdoing and corruption.”

    “This [NBC] survey is a startling flashing red light for an incumbent party,” said Republican pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies. McInturff conducted the September 15-19 poll with Democratic pollster Jeff Horwitt and his team at Hart Research Associates.

    “Yes, the numbers for Biden aren’t where he needs them to be,” said Horwitt. However, Trump and Republicans have challenges, such as the GOP front-runner’s unpopularity with the general electorate.

    Most polls show that both Trump and Biden have high unfavorability going into a general election.

    NBC News reported: “Three-quarters of voters say they’re concerned about President Joe Biden’s age and mental fitness, while nearly two-thirds have concerns about the multiple trials former President Donald Trump faces, a new national NBC News poll finds, casting a gloomy shadow over the upcoming 2024 presidential election.”

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

    Did Biden Appoint a Chinese Mole? GOP Lawmakers Demand FBI Investigate

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    10
    Joe Biden via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    ANALYSIS – While Joe Biden’s weak response to the Chinese spy balloon that crossed the entire country before being shot down has put him under pressure, Biden is now also under fire for possibly appointing a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) mole to a U.S. government post focused on Asia.

    And several Republican lawmakers are demanding the FBI investigate.

    The suspected Chinese communist mole, or spy, is Dominic Ng, CEO of East West Bank, appointed by Biden to represent the U.S. at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).

    In a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray the lawmakers wrote: “We request the FBI investigate and provide a report to Congress on the extent of Mr. Ng’s knowledge of sensitive information, as well as any potential violations of The Espionage Act.” 

    The lawmakers add: “The Biden Administration has allowed the CCP to infiltrate the third-party sector and, consequently, political leaders that have existing relationships to these groups and are privy to U.S. intelligence.”

    According to the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF), Ng is a current and former member of two alleged front groups serving a “Chinese intelligence service.”

    According to the Daily Caller: “Ng served as ‘executive director’ of the China Overseas Exchange Association until 2017 and still serves in that capacity at the related China Overseas Friendship Association, according to DCNF translations of those groups’ archived rosters.”

    Multiple China intelligence analysts have identified these two entities as front groups for China’s United Front Work Department (UFWD), a Chinese intelligence service.

    UFWD is tasked with infiltrating U.S. and other foreign political parties, conducting ‘influence’ operations, and collecting intelligence.

    In 2020, Ng helped grease the wheels for his appointment by donating $100,000 to the Biden Victory Fund and $35,500 to the Democratic National Committee in 2020.

    The Daily Caller reports that Ng’s CCP ties first came under scrutiny in April 2022, when Biden appointed the banker to a one-year position representing the U.S. on the Business Advisory Council of APEC, soon after he made his large political donations. 

    Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio called Ng’s alleged CCP ties “beyond disturbing and concerning” in a Feb. 10 tweet. 

    Texas Republican Rep. Lance Gooden told the DCNF: “President Biden ignored Dominic Ng’s extensive ties to the CCP and Chinese intelligence groups, happily took his campaign donations, and in return appointed a possible Chinese spy to a senior government position.” 

    Gooden added that Ng was “compromised at best and a traitor at worst.”

    But this one appointee is only the tip of the Chinese infiltration of the U.S. political system, primarily via the Democrat Party in California. 

    We all know California Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell, who was compromised by an attractive female Chinese spy aptly called Fang Fang, even as he served on the House Intelligence Committee.

    The letter notes how other influential Democrat politicians from California may also be linked to the CCP:

    Prior to his appointment to APEC, California Democratic Representative Judy Chu advocated for Mr. Ng’s nomination to be the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. Like Mr. Ng, California Representative Judy Chu is the “honorary president” for the All America Chinese Youth Federations (AACYF), a 501(c)(3) non-profit whose mission is to strengthen the social impact of the Chinese community within the U.S.

    However, under Representative Chu’s tenure, five of AACYF’s leaders have been alleged members of organizations belonging to UFWD.

    The letter signed by six Republican members of Congress, Lance Gooden and Keith Self of Texas, Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Ben Cline of Virginia and Doug LaMalfa of California, adds: 

    China has proved themselves as our greatest adversary and foreign competitor, and yet our leaders continuously jeopardize U.S. national security by allowing the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to infiltrate our third-party sector and federal government.

    The letter continues: “This lack of scrutiny should be promptly evaluated, and the Biden Administration should take immediate steps to ensure blunders like this will not happen again.”

    “These are incredibly troubling disclosures,” Tiffany told the DCNF. “The FBI ought to be taking a very serious look at them.”

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

    1...383940Page 39 of 40
    © Great America News Desk 2022