Random

    Opinion

    Home Opinion Page 39

    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.

    Judge Blocks Biden-Big Tech Censorship Collusion on July 4th

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    1
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    ANALYSIS – Let Freedom ring! – In a major victory for free speech in America, and a major vindication for conservatives who have been warning of Democrats using the government to censor them on social media, a federal judge is blocking federal agencies from communicating with Big Tech firms to censor posts.

    The Democrats using federal agencies and other official political bodies to coerce or direct social media firms is being called government “censorship ‘by proxy.”

    This injunction is particularly heartening to me, since I was a victim of this censorship when LinkedIn permanently banned my account for ‘multiple violations of their terms of service and user agreement. 

    In other words, I wrote about Hunter Biden’s laptop, the likelihood that COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology biolab.

    All since proven valid.

    I also noted that there are only two sexes, based on science, and refused to use ‘preferred gender pronouns.’

    All these topics were effectively banned by the major social media companies, and as has since been proven via Elon Musk’s ‘Twitter Files’ expose, and other investigations, much of this banning was done at the behest of the U.S. government, primarily for partisan political or ideological reasons.

    In the preliminary injunction, appropriately made on July 4th, the judge, Terry A. Doughty, wrote (pdf) that: 

    Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed.

    He added that government agencies, including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. Department of State, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are prohibited from taking a range of actions related to communicating or dealing with social media companies.

    The judge provided very limited exceptions, allowing government officials to contact social media companies to alert them of criminal activity or clear threats to national security.

    He also allowed, reported the Epoch Times: “contacts notifying social media companies about posts intending to mislead voters about voting requirements or procedures as well as communicating with companies about suppressing posts that are not protected free speech.”

    The decision comes as a response to Republican state attorneys general (AGs) who sued the Biden administration. According to the judge, the AGs “have produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.”

    Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey hailed the ruling on Twitter.

    Tweet

    “The Court has granted our motion to BLOCK top officials in the federal government from violating the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.”

    “What a way to celebrate Independence Day.”

    In an accompanying memorandum Judge Doughty stated that the plaintiffs are “likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition.”

    In an earlier ruling in March, according to The Epoch Times, Doughty wrote: “This suit arises out of the alleged coercion by the Biden Administration and various government agencies and officials of social-media companies, urging those companies ‘to censor viewpoints and speakers disfavored by the Left.’” 

    He added that the plaintiffs allege that “this censorship was encouraged—perhaps even mandated—by the Biden Administration and several key governmental departments.”

    The judge’s current order notes the various nefarious means in which the Biden administration colluded with Big Tech to censor opposing or dissenting views.

    These means include, per the injunction, “engaging in any communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.” 

    The Epoch Times reported:

    The agencies are also barred from flagging content on posts on social media platforms and forwarding them to the companies with requests for action such as removing or otherwise suppressing their reach.

    Encouraging or otherwise egging on social media companies to change their guidelines for the removal, suppression, or reduction of content that contains protected free speech by the government is also not allowed.

    To prevent Team Biden and other Democrats from circumventing the order by outsourcing their dirty deeds, it specifically applies to agents, officers, employees, and contractors. 

    While this is just a preliminary injunction, expect more to come in the fight against Democrat censorship.

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

    Anatomy Of A Soft Coup: McCabe’s Unprecedented Criminal Investigation Of A Sitting President

    By
    Alex Muse
    -
    2
    By Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) - Director Wray Installation Ceremony, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=63667603

    The election of Donald Trump in November 2016 was, for the entrenched political class, a thunderclap. It was not supposed to happen. The experts, the pollsters, the seasoned operatives had assured the country that Hillary Clinton’s victory was inevitable. Yet by the morning of November 9, the White House was preparing to receive a president unlike any in modern history: a political outsider with no government experience, an instinctive distrust of Washington, and a willingness to discard its conventions. For some in the outgoing administration and the permanent bureaucracy, this was not merely a surprise. It was a crisis to be managed, or better yet, undone.

    That undoing began in earnest just four months into Trump’s presidency, when Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, with the approval of FBI Counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap and General Counsel James Baker, authorized a criminal investigation into the sitting president of the United States. This probe did not arise from fresh evidence of presidential misconduct. It rested on the same thin reeds that had underpinned the Russia collusion narrative since mid-2016: opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign, laundered through the Steele dossier, and presented as intelligence. It was a case study in how partisan disinformation can metastasize into official action when it finds a willing audience inside the government.

    To understand how extraordinary this was, one must appreciate the context. Intelligence reports later declassified in the Durham Annex revealed that, as early as March 2016, the Clinton campaign had hatched a plan to tie Trump to Russian operatives, not as a matter of national security, but as an electoral tactic. These plans were known to senior Obama administration officials, including John Brennan, James Comey, and Andrew McCabe, before the election. Yet when Trump won, the machinery they had assembled did not wind down. It shifted purpose: from preventing his election to destabilizing his presidency.

    The first casualty in this internal campaign was Michael Flynn, Trump’s National Security Adviser and one of the few senior appointees with both loyalty to Trump and an understanding of the intelligence community’s inner workings. In late January 2017, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama holdover, warned the White House that Flynn had misled them about conversations with the Russian ambassador. The FBI had already interviewed Flynn, in a meeting arranged by Comey that bypassed standard White House protocol. Even Peter Strzok, one of the interviewing agents, admitted they did not believe Flynn had lied. Nevertheless, the incident was used to force Flynn’s resignation on February 13, with Vice President Pence publicly citing dishonesty over sanctions discussions. In hindsight, it is clear this was less about Flynn’s conduct than about removing a man who might have quickly uncovered the flimsiness of the Russia allegations.

    Next came Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a Trump loyalist but a DOJ outsider with no prior experience in its leadership. Under pressure over his own contacts with the same Russian ambassador, Sessions recused himself from any matters related to the 2016 campaign on March 2. This decision, encouraged by DOJ ethics officials from the Obama era and accepted without challenge by Pence and other advisers, effectively ceded control of any Trump-Russia inquiries to deep state officials and Obama holdovers. It was the opening the FBI needed.

    By mid-May, after Trump fired Comey at the recommendation of Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the FBI’s leadership was in open revolt. McCabe, Priestap, and Baker, all veterans of the Obama years, debated whether Trump had acted at Moscow’s behest. They even discussed the 25th Amendment and the idea of Rosenstein surreptitiously recording the president. These were not jokes. On May 16, McCabe authorized a full counterintelligence and criminal investigation into Trump himself, premised on the possibility that he was an agent of a foreign power. This was the first such investigation of a sitting president in US history.

    Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]

    The evidentiary basis for this move was paper-thin, much of it drawn from the Steele dossier, a work of partisan fiction that its own author was unwilling to verify. Baker, the FBI’s top lawyer, was a personal friend of Michael Sussmann, the Clinton campaign attorney who had helped funnel the dossier to the Bureau. Priestap, who signed off on the investigation, had overseen its use in obtaining FISA warrants to surveil Trump associates. They knew the source was tainted and the allegations were fiction. They proceeded anyway.

    The day after the investigation formally opened, Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel, locking the inquiry beyond Trump’s reach. Mueller’s team, stocked with Democratic donors and Obama DOJ and FBI veterans, inherited the case and its political overtones. For nearly two years, the president governed under a cloud of suspicion, his every move interpreted through the lens of an unfounded allegation.

    The impact on Trump’s presidency was profound. Key legislative initiatives stalled. Allies in Congress, warned privately by Pence and others that the investigation was serious, kept their distance. Figures like John McCain, Paul Ryan, and Jeff Flake acted in ways that hampered Trump’s agenda, from blocking Obamacare repeal to threatening his judicial nominations. Inside the executive branch, FBI Director Christopher Wray, another newcomer with no institutional knowledge of the Bureau’s internal politics, declined to purge the officials who had driven the investigation, allowing them to operate until they were forced out by Inspector General findings.

    By the time Mueller submitted his report in March 2019, concluding there was no evidence of collusion, the damage was done. Trump’s first term had been defined in large part by a manufactured scandal. The narrative of foreign compromise, though disproven, had justified a Special Counsel, sustained hostile media coverage, and ultimately greased the skids for an unfounded impeachment over Ukraine.

    The Durham Annex, unearthed years later, stripped away any lingering doubt about intent. It documented that the Russia collusion story was conceived as a political hit, that it was known to be false by the time it was weaponized in 2017, and that senior intelligence and law enforcement officials chose to advance it rather than expose it. In Madison’s terms, the accumulation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same hands, here, the unelected leadership of the FBI and DOJ, amounted to tyranny.

    That Trump survived this onslaught is remarkable. Few presidents, faced with a hostile bureaucracy, disloyal appointees, and a media eager to amplify every leak, could have done so. That the plot failed to remove him does not make it less a coup. It makes it a failed coup, one whose near-success should alarm anyone who values electoral legitimacy.

    The lesson is clear. The intelligence and law enforcement apparatus of the United States must never again be allowed to become an instrument of partisan warfare. The use of fabricated opposition research to justify surveillance, investigations, and the effective nullification of an election result is a violation not just of political norms but of the constitutional order. It took years for the facts to emerge. It will take far longer to repair the trust that was lost.

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

    Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

    MAGA in Space! America’s latest space success proves we’re still the greatest. Celebrate — donate $35 or more and get your Make the Moon Great Again shirt!

    False AP Report About Russian Missiles Hitting Poland Could’ve Triggered WWIII

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0
    Main Directorate of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine in Kyiv, CC BY 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – Last week the world was hit by the purported news of a Russian missile strike into NATO member country, Poland. 

    And now the award-winning AP reporter who wrote it has been fired.

    Based only on a single, unnamed ‘senior U.S. intelligence official,’ the initial Associated Press (AP) story by James LaPorta, a former U.S. Marine who served in Afghanistan, was widely disseminated and quickly caused a barrage of other reporting.

    Most of it was alarmist and panic-causing, with many in the news media and blogosphere quickly demanding harsh action against Russia.

    As the Blaze reports:

    Fox News and the Daily Mail similarly carried the AP reporter’s suggestion, the former running a piece entitled, “Russian missiles cross into NATO member Poland, kill 2: senior US intelligence official,” and the latter stating, “‘Russian bombs’ kill two in POLAND.”

    CBS Evening News tweeted “RUSSIAN MISSILE STRIKE: Two Russian missiles crossed over the Ukrainian border into Poland, a NATO country, killing two civilians.”

    A Russian attack on Poland could have triggered articles 4 and 5 of the NATO charter, potentially putting the U.S. into direct conflict with nuclear power.

    Article 4 requires full consultation at the North Atlantic Council, the alliance’s political decision-making body, while Article 5 requires joint NATO action to repel an attack.

    As MSN explains: “Article 5 states that the parties to the NATO treaty ‘agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.’”

    Article 5 also states that each NATO member must take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

    This of course would make the U.S. a direct combatant in this war and could escalate to a nuclear exchange.

    As such, I wrote about the ‘errant’ strike the same day, albeit in more careful ways.

    My headline was more matter-of-fact and far less alarming, and it didn’t mention a direct Russian missile strike: “Escalation in Russia-Ukraine War Leads to Emergency Crisis Meeting.”

    In the piece I did note the ramifications of any foreign missiles crashing into Poland, writing: “In what might be the greatest (albeit perhaps accidental) escalation since Russia invaded Ukraine, the war just crossed the border into a NATO country.”

    And, yes, I like to say ‘albeit.’

    I added:

    According to a senior U.S. intelligence official, as Russia pounded Ukraine’s energy facilities Tuesday with the largest barrage of missile strikes to date, some reportedly ‘stray’ Russian missiles crossed into NATO member Poland and struck a site in Poland about 15 miles from the Ukrainian border.

    The allegedly errant strike killed two persons in the Polish village of Przewodów and provoked an emergency crisis meeting of Poland’s national security team, which will be held Tuesday evening.

    While I did refer to a Ukrainian Air Force spokesman who said Russia used X-101 and X-555 cruise missiles in the latest attacks against Ukraine, and reports that expressed the belief that “one or more of these cruise missiles were the ones that struck Poland,” I was very careful in how I reported all this.

    Note the extensive use of the words “accidental,” “allegedly,” “reportedly,” “errant,” and “stray” missiles in my report. I also explained that the incident had provoked an “emergency crisis meeting” in Poland.

    The rest of my piece focused on the confirmed, massive Russian barrage of missile strikes against Ukrainian energy and infrastructure targets throughout the country.

    In the end it appears that the missile that struck Poland was a Russian-made Ukrainian air defense missile that missed its mark and fell back to earth rather than self-destructs.

    And even after its country of manufacture was known, outlets like CNN kept calling it a ‘Russian-made missile’ without adding that Ukraine uses lots of Russian-made missiles.

    Of course, in my view, Russia is still to blame for this, albeit indirectly, since no one would be firing armed missiles near a NATO country if it weren’t for the unprovoked Russian invasion, and its reckless and dangerous strikes near NATO’s borders.

    The Blaze added that:

    After having updated the initial report several times, the AP indicated [November 16] that a new assessment from three U.S. officials “contradicts information” in the original article. Shortly thereafter, the article was reportedly taken offline.

    The AP issued a retraction later that day…

    On Nov. 21, LaPorta was fired.

    But let’s use this incident as a teachable moment. 

    Lesson one – as sophisticated news consumers, be circumspect with the news you read until it is fully verified.

    Lesson two – be wary of reports using only one or two anonymous sources.

    And lesson three – journalists, and social media posters, should use words like ‘reportedly’ a lot more, and make it clear that there is room for doubt or questions when the reports are still fresh and early.

    The most important rule I’ve learned in journalism, and in intelligence, and also during my stint on Wall Street, is that – it’s never as good (or as bad) as first reported. 

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

    Amanda Head: Another Trump Indictment

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    5
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    The walls are closing in on Donald Trump.

    Will the former President have another indictment in the coming weeks over his alleged mishandling of classified documents after leaving the White House in 2021? It’s not looking good.

    Former President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he has not been told that he’s being indicted as a special counsel investigation into his handling of classified documents shows signs of wrapping up.

    “No one has told me I’m being indicted, and I shouldn’t be because I’ve done NOTHING wrong,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, adding that he has “assumed for years that I am a Target of the WEAPONIZED DOJ & FBI.”

    Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

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

    ‘Spies Who Lie’ – Ex-CIA Chief Confirms Feds Plotted Against Trump

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    7
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    ANALYSIS – As if we need any more evidence, testimony from former Obama-era CIA director and part-time partisan hack John Brennan confirms the letter smearing Hunter Biden’s bombshell laptop story as ‘Russian disinformation’ was a purely political move to help Joe Biden beat Donald Trump.

    I’ve repeatedly referred to this outrageous and unprecedented letter, signed by 51 senior former intelligence community officials, as Democrat domestic disinformation and election interference.

    The New York Post calls the entire charade – “the spies who lie.”

    While all the officials who signed the letter saying the laptop appeared to have earmarks of a “Russian information operation” were private citizens at the time, they all signed with their government titles prominently listed below their names.

    Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., a member of the investigating House subcommittee, told the Post that what is already known about the letter points to federal agencies clearly being weaponized to help Biden win the 2020 presidential election. 

    According to Cammack, Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper and others helped get the letter quickly through the CIA’s pre-publication classification review board.

    “To me, that is absolutely crazy. If that’s not weaponization of our federal government, I don’t know what is,” she added.

    Cammack is confirming what I’ve noted previously – that the unprecedented letter by dozens of supposedly nonpartisan spooks was used by the Biden campaign and its allies in the media to discredit, and help suppress, the mounds of incriminating emails, photos and other materials found on Hunter’s forgotten laptop.

    The election-eve laptop story was first reported by the New York Post, but after this letter was published and widely disseminated by the establishment media, the story was crushed. Social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn went so far as disabling links to the story and censoring or removing posts about it.

    Big Tech and Big Media labeled the story ‘disinformation’ – first based on their own bias, then justified by this Democrat disinformation.

    The laptop and most of its contents have since been independently verified as real and proven legitimate. But when Trump brought up the laptop report during their debate, Biden cited the letter as proof that the story was Russian disinformation.

    Had the story not been suppressed it could have swayed the election in favor of Trump.

    And it was all a Democrat con job.

    According to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan R-Ohio, appearing on Fox News, R-Ohio “[Brennan] sat for a four-hour interview, and he further confirmed that this thing was all political.”

    Brennan was seemingly eager to add his name to the letter. Responding to former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell’s request (Morell testified before the Judiciary Committee earlier in May), Brennan said:

    “Ok, Michael, add my name to the list. Good initiative. Thanks for asking me to sign on.” 

    Jordan also recounted what I have previously written, the fact that then-Biden 2020 campaign adviser Antony Blinken, now Biden’s Secretary of State, was the “impetus” behind the letter, and it didn’t come organically from anyone inside the community of intelligence veterans. 

    As I noted then, at Blinken’s behest, the letter was drafted and organized in part by Morell who had also served as acting CIA director. At the time he was drafting the letter and seeking approval from the CIA, Morell was considered a front-runner to lead the agency if Biden were elected.

    It appears Morell thought that putting out a false letter to help Team Biden might cinch him the job. It didn’t.

    In his testimony, Morell referred to the letter as a “talking point” to help Team Biden against Trump during their debate. On Fox News, Jordan mused why Biden, or the Democrats, believed they needed a “talking point” if they truly believed Hunter’s laptop was not real.

    Morell also reportedly told the CIA’s Prepublication Classification Review Board (PCRB) which approves all public information released by former agency employees, that he needed the letter approved as a “rush job.”

    The board approved the letter in a record five and a half hours.

    An active CIA employee working for the same board then solicited a signature for the same letter from former CIA analyst David Cariens, according to a written statement by Cariens.

    Yes, this is what some call the leftist ‘Deep State.’ Others simply know it as ‘the Swamp.’ But most dangerously, it is part of our federal government and intelligence agencies being weaponized for partisan and ideological goals.

    Next week, another partisan intelligence hack, and ‘Spy Who Lied,’ the Obama-era Director of National Intelligence (DNI), James Clapper, will appear before the committee. Let’s see what he will be forced to admit.

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

    Amanda Head: You Won’t Believe How Many Adults Still Mooch Off Their Parents

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    1

    It’s unbelievable how many adults are content still mooching off of their parents instead of being self-sufficient.

    Watch Amanda break down the situation below:

    House Investigating Democrats Who Fraudulently Obtained Private Military Records of GOP Candidates

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    6

    INVESTIGATION – As I noted in my late January PDB, a ‘Democrat Colluded With Air Force Against Black Female GOP Candidate.’ 

    In that case, the Air Force took the fall for the release of the congressional candidate’s military record, blaming “a junior individual [who] didn’t follow proper procedures.”

    However, Jennifer-Ruth Green, a Republican, continues to blame U.S. Rep. Frank Mrvan and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) for illegally obtaining and releasing the information through corrupt Air Force personnel to damage her campaign in the weeks leading up to the November election.

    The release despicably included information about a sexual assault Green had suffered while serving in Iraq.

    But, it seems there is much more to the story.

    We now learn she wasn’t the only target of the corrupt DCCC.

    We also learn that a Democrat-linked consulting and research firm called ‘Due Diligence Group’ (DDG) has been at the center of a partisan effort to improperly, and likely illegally, obtain the service records of at least 11 service members via fraudulent SF-180 requests.

    According to data from OpenSecrets.org, the DCCC has paid more than $100,000 to DDG since 2021.

    SF-180s are used by veterans, authorized legal recipients and next of kin to legally obtain information from military personnel records. 

    Third-party requests require the service member to authorize their request with their signature.

    In these 11 cases, it is clear the service members did not provide their authorization.

    Just the News reports:

    In an unprecedented breach, the Air Force improperly released to a research firm tied to Democrats’ congressional campaign arm the confidential personnel files of eleven members of the military, including one involving a retired lieutenant colonel running for office as a Republican that detailed how she had been sexually assaulted in the Air Force, Congress has been told.

    And the House Armed Services and Oversight committee are demanding answers. The news outlet continues:

    [In a February 13 letter], House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers and House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chairman James Comer are demanding that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin explain how he will prevent future breaches of military members’ private information while pressing to know if there will be criminal prosecutions.

    Just the News further reports on the letter:

    “The Office of the Secretary of the Air Force (OSAF) has informed the Committee that it released 11 individuals’ records over a 14-month period from October 2021-December 2022 to a private research firm which allegedly misrepresented itself in order to obtain access to the personnel records without authorization or consent.” 

    Rogers and Comer wrote that the release of other service members’ personal information highlights “not only the inadequacy of procedures to secure military personnel files, but also raises concerning questions of possible illicit motive or political partisanship.”

    “This conduct by the Air Force is, at a minimum, unacceptable,” they added, “The conduct by the research firm is quite possibly criminal.”

    Just the News reported that Rogers told the outlet that much more needs to be investigated.  

    Rogers stated:“It’s abhorrent that a Democrat-aligned firm would do something so despicable as fraudulently obtaining service records. Chairman James Comer and I pressed the Department of Defense for answers on this egregious breach.”

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

    New Poll Exposes Democrats’ True Thoughts About Biden

    By
    Norman Leahy
    -
    1
    Joe Biden via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    There’s a wealth of new polling data on the Democratic presidential nomination contest, with polls from The Wall Street Journal and Associated Press both finding that even Democratic voters are concerned that President Joe Biden is too old to run.

    The AP/NORC poll of adults (not registered voters) found that 77 percent of respondents believed Biden was too old to serve another term.

    And for the hardened Team Blue partisans who shout “ageism!” at such findings…69 percent of self-identified Democrats said Biden’s age is a big issue (among Republicans, it was a whopping 89 percent – which shouldn’t come as a surprise).

    But this must be a fluke, an outlier, and a one-off. Surely, the age issue can’t be that big a deal for Mr. Biden. Except The Wall Street Journal poll confirmed it is.

    The Journal asked a split question – one if voters think Biden’s mental fitness is sufficient for the job, the other specifically on whether he is “too old.”

    On the mental ability, 60 percent questioned Biden’s mental ability. On age, a total of 73 percent said he is “too old.”

    What are the comparable numbers for former President Donald Trump?

    A 49-46 split says Trump isn’t mentally up for the job. On age, another spilt, with 47 percent saying he’s too old and 45 saying he isn’t.

    As always with polls, the numbers are snapshots in time and subject to change.

    What these data points do, though, is reinforce narratives that have long been whispered in Democratic circles: Biden’s time has passed, and he would be wise to bow out and allow someone else to take the fight to what looks like Donald Trump in 2024.

    But such whispers against an incumbent are very hard to translate into hard reality. What could bring them a tad bit closer to the fore are the other items in the Journal poll, particularly the sense that most people think the economy has hit a rough patch, and they are feeling the effects:

    …58% of voters say the economy has gotten worse over the past two years, whereas only 28% say it has gotten better, and nearly three in four say inflation is headed in the wrong direction. Those views were echoed in the survey by large majorities of independents, a group that helped deliver Biden’s victory over Trump in the 2020 presidential race. Voters were almost evenly split on the direction of the job market.

    It’s not a wipeout for Biden, but the data are hardly comforting to an incumbent who has staked his presidency on a massive reworking of the economy, with government intervention and support leading the way. Team Blue partisans will say it’s early, these things take time, etc., etc. And they aren’t entirely wrong.

    But there’s also the iron law of politics to contend with: if you’re explaining, you’re losing. And until the data show voters are feeling better about their own particular economic situation, then Mr. Biden will need more than a slogan – “Bidenomics” – and promises of widespread prosperity to save his own political future.

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

    Woke Pentagon Brass and Media Cheer Tucker Carlson’s Exit

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    2
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    ANALYSIS – I rarely watch TV news. And I didn’t always agree with Tucker Carlson. Sometimes I strongly disagreed – such as on Russia. 

    But I often did agree. 

    And he challenged the left AND the GOP establishment every night on Fox.

    He will be missed.

    He also challenged the woke leadership at the Pentagon. And for that he should be greatly applauded.

    Carlson was never anti-military. 

    On the contrary, he was opposed to its current emasculation by Joe Biden and his team. Carlson was also opposed to the divisive, destructive, and subversive neo-Marxist ideology being imposed on our troops.

    Sadly, the lefty spinmeisters in the media and those same leftist ideologues, partisan hacks, and simply misguided folks at the Department of Defense (DoD) keep trying to paint a different picture.

    Politico’s Lara Seligman tries to paint Carlson as anti-military by conflating his criticism of the woke brass with the entire armed forces. In her piece, ‘Good riddance’: Pentagon officials cheer Tucker Carlson’s ouster, she writes:

    From maternity flight suits to diversity policies to Ukraine aid, the military was a favorite punching bag for Tucker Carlson. Now that he’s off the air, some Pentagon officials are quietly cheering his departure.

    Her flawed journalism is also obvious as she mostly quotes a couple of unnamed (likely Biden Pentagon appointee) sources.

    Per her two “DoD officials”: 

    “We’re a better country without him bagging on our military every night in front of hundreds of thousands of people,” said one senior DoD official, who like others interviewed for this story was granted anonymity to discuss a politically sensitive topic.

    “Good riddance,” said a second DoD official.

    Seligman goes on to quote these unnamed sources, writing:

    Carlson “made a mockery” of the free press and “repeatedly cherry-picked department policies and used them to destroy DoD as an institution,” said the first senior DoD official.

    What nonsense. The leftist ideologies in charge are the ones destroying DoD, not a cable TV talk show host.

    Still, she voids most of her own reporting when she admits that most of the American military agreed with Carlson, and it’s the Pentagon leadership that is grossly out of touch:

    Carlson’s criticism of Biden-era personnel policies appealed to many of the rank-and-file, which has a large bloc of conservative members. But at the upper levels of the Defense Department, news of Carlson’s firing from Fox News on Monday was met with delight and outright glee in some corners.

    Then there is the un-self-aware liberal executive editor of Defense One, Kevin Baron, who never served in the military, who absurdly claimed “Tucker Carlson Helped Turn Americans Against the Military.”He writes: “For all the ways Tucker Carlson left his mark on U.S. politics, few are as startling as helping to turn right-wingers against the troops they once revered.”He also ignorantly called the notoriously independent Carlson a “partisan firebrand” when he criticized GOP establishment politicians almost as much as the left.

    Well, I can tell Baron that, as one of those ‘right wingers’ who still reveres the troops – and was once one of them – he is a lefty ideologue. 

    And sadly, Baron doesn’t realize it.

    That makes him a biased, partisan journalist who tries to appear not to be.

    Every point he makes is suffused with his anti-Trump rancor and lefty disdain. And many of his arguments are unsupportable, false, or make the opposite case.

    Baron writes:

    Right-wing scholars and editorial boards interpreted the data to say that Biden’s “woke” policies were to blame, noting that half of respondents said it was a contributing factor. But that ignores the partisan cross-section: 68% of Trump voters were more upset about wokeness, while just 44% of Biden voters were. That’s the Carlson effect.

    Well, that gives a cable TV talk show host with 3 million viewers a lot of sway in a country of 330 million and a dozen liberal media outlets that reach many tens of million.

    But Baron best undermines his own case most when he concludes:

    The most recent Reagan Forum poll found that 80% of Biden voters and 83% of Trump voters said they still have either “a great deal” or “some” confidence in the U.S. military. That shows that even his audience knows the difference between the performance art of partisanship and the apolitical service to one’s country. 

    Yes, Mr. Baron, we absolutely understand. Sadly, you clearly don’t.

    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