Random

    Opinion

    Home Opinion Page 39

    Did Trump Threaten to Execute Gen. Mark Milley for Treason?

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    4
    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 – Words matter. In a post on his Truth Social platform last Friday, former President Donald Trump suggested that outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley deserved to be executed after speaking with China’s top general during Trump’s final months in office. 

    Trump said Milley’s “treasonous act” was “so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!”

    Clearly, Trump wasn’t threatening to do so but saying that Milley’s actions could have been punished by death in a prior era.

    I condemned Milley’s actions at the time because they seemed to give the Chinese Communist regime a promise that they would be given a warning prior to any attack under Trump.

    While Milley claims his actions were a normal part of his duties, I disagree. 

    They appeared to be more a normal part of the mission that he took upon himself, which was to counter Trump when Milley believed the president had crossed some line only Milley could see.

    Some argue that Milley’s actions were not only disloyal to the president but also borderline ‘treasonous.’

    Milley contends that he was behaving appropriately to avert an accidental war. He responded to Trump’s comments on CBS:

    He also assured viewers that he had adequate safety measures for himself and his family.

    The two backchannel calls to China’s top general, Li Zuocheng, that Milley made, and at the center of all this, were revealed in the 2021 book “Peril.”  

    As CNN reported:

    In October 2020, as intelligence suggested China believed the US was going to attack them, Milley sought to calm Li by reassuring him that the US was not considering a strike, according to the book. Milley called again two days after the January 6 riot at the US Capitol to tell Li that the US is “100 percent steady” even though “things may look unsteady.”

    How much of this reporting in the book was accurate, is hard to say. But Trump sees things very differently. 

    Trump said that Milley “turned out to be a Woke train wreck who, if the Fake News reporting is correct, was actually dealing with China to give them a heads up on the thinking of the President of the United States.”

    And Trump may be right. For Milley to do that could be seen as highly inappropriate, if not exactly ‘treasonous.’

    Still, Trump, a former president, and current front-runner for the Republican nomination for president, is way out of line. No American political leader should be using that kind of language against any American military official or political leader.

    In today’s volatile climate, it is extremely dangerous.

    Yet few in the GOP will condemn Trump’s statements. Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson is one of those willing to take aim at the Republican frontrunner. Politico quoted Hutchinson as saying:

    To suggest that Gen. Milley should be executed is inexcusable and dangerous. While some will excuse this latest outrage as Trump just being Trump, the fact is that his statement endangers people and is an insult to those who serve in the military.

    Perennial Trump critic, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, had stronger words, calling Trump an “absolute child” for the “reprehensible” remarks. 

    But it is part of a disturbing pattern by both sides to use dangerously inflammatory rhetoric at the highest levels against the other side.

    Democrats raised the political temperature considerably against Trump, calling for, or at least condoning the calls for, his beheading and death on many occasions. 

    The demonization of Trump by the left and Democrat Party was more than I had ever seen in over thirty years in and around U.S. politics. 

    It was, and still is, outrageous.

    But Trump isn’t helping things with his own dangerous rhetoric.

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

    Amanda Head: Who’s Your Pick For 2024 – Trump or DeSantis?

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    6

    As Americans continue to wait for official midterm results to trickle in Republicans are already diving themselves into two camps: Ron DeSantis or Donald Trump.

    Who are you siding with?

    Watch Amanda break it down below.

    CNN Blasted for Hiring ‘Spy Who Lied’ About Hunter Laptop

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0
    Jay Godwin, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – One of the most egregious efforts at election interference in 2020 was when the Joe Biden campaign successfully quashed the bombshell New York Post story of Hunter Biden’s laptop. 

    The laptop has proven to hold a treasure trove of incriminating evidence against the Bidens.

    But it was effectively kept from the American people in the final weeks of the campaign through a concerted conspiracy between the Biden campaign, Big Tech social media companies, the major news networks, and a group of former spies.

    And one of those who helped hide it from the public is now an on-air CNN analyst.

    It has since been documented that Antony Blinken, then with the Biden campaign, now Biden Secretary of State, retained former senior U.S. intelligence officials to smear the laptop story as Russian disinformation.

    As I have written about, 51 former spooks eventually signed a letter calling the laptop story likely Russian disinformation. This was then used as justification by the media to censor and ban the story.

    One of the most senior of those partisan intelligence hacks was ex-Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper. 

    As a reward for his disservice, Clapper has now been hired by CNN as an analyst where he will be able to spew disinformation on all manner of national security and political topics.

    And Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy made a big deal about this on a recent CNN appearance. 

    In a tense back-and-forth exchange with the reporter McCarthy ignored the question about Trump’s classified documents case and instead emphasized that Clapper had been one of dozens of former intelligence officials who signed the letter dismissing the Post’s October 2020 expose on Hunter’s laptop as a Russian disinformation.

    He also threw in CNN’s hiring of discredited former deputy FBI chief Andrew McCabe who was fired for leaking classified information.

    Fox News reported:

    “Are you prepared to defend your network, CNN?” McCarthy said as they spoke over each other. “Even though your network hired Andrew McCabe, who was fired from the FBI for leaking classified documents, did you remove him from your network? No, you continue to put him on to give judgment against President Trump. You also hired Clapper …”

    McCarthy later continued, according to Fox:

    “So, your network hires Clapper, who literally lied to the American public – one of 51 other individuals that had briefings and used it politically to tell the American public that a laptop was Russia collusion, even though it had all this information about the Biden administration,” the speaker said.

    “Are you prepared to get rid of those people from your network? Because my concern as a policymaker is that when [you] weaponize government, and now you’re weaponizing networks, that is wrong,” McCarthy continued. “I have a real problem that your network actually pays people who did classified information and then lied to the American public to try to influence a presidential election, and then you put them on your network to give an opinion.”

    This line of attack against CNN and other major news outlets who hire ex-officials involved in partisan election interference is valid and should be continued. 

    This goes well beyond just being partisan.

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

    Conservative Pundit Walks Off Washinton Post Live Show

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    3
    Daniel X. O'Neil from USA, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    Tensions are running high…

    On Friday, Conservative radio host and political pundit Hugh Hewitt stormed off a Washington Post live event after an argument over former President Trump’s rhetoric on election integrity ahead of Election Day.

    “Is it me or does it seem like Donald Trump is laying the ground work for contesting the election,” Post host Jonathan Capehart asked Ruth Marcus, who was appearing with Hewitt as part of the live event. “By claiming that cheating was taking place, but suing Bucks County [Pennsylvania] for alleged irregularities … ”

    Marcus replied Trump has been “laying the ground work” to contest the election for months, setting Hewitt off.

    “Jonathan, I’ve gotta speak up,” he tried to interject.

    “Let Ruth finish, Hugh,” Capehart shot back.

    “Well, I’ve just got to say, we’re news people, even though it’s the opinion section,” Hewitt said after Marcus finished. “It’s got to be reported. Bucks County was reversed by the court and instructed to open up extra days because they violated the law and told people to go home. So, that lawsuit was brought by the Republican National Committee, and it was successful. The Supreme Court ruled that Glenn Youngkin was successful,” he added, referring to the GOP Virginia governor’s efforts to purge some 1,600 people from the voter rolls.

    “We are news people, even though we have opinions, and we have to report the whole story if we bring up part of the story. So, yes, he’s upset about Bucks County, but he was right and he won in court. That’s the story,” Hewitt said.

    After a brief pause, Capehart told Hewitt, “I don’t appreciate being lectured about reporting when, Hugh, many times you come here saying lots of things that aren’t based in fact.”

    “I won’t come back, Jonathan, I’m done,” Hewitt said, ripping his earpiece out and standing up.

    “I’m done. This is the most unfair election ad I’ve ever been a part of,” Hewitt continued, his face no longer visible on the screen. “You guys are working, that’s fine, I’m done.”

    Watch:

    The host was eventually forced to end the event early, saying, “Everybody if you’ve been watching … you know these conversations can be interesting, contentious.”

    “You just saw Hugh Hewitt leave which is lamentable, unfortunate. It is what it is. Thank you very much for joining us,” he continued and urged viewers to subscribe to the Post.

    After the incident, Hewitt announced his resignation from the Washington Post.

    “I have in fact quit the Post but I was only writing a column for them every six weeks or so,” Hewitt told Fox News Digital, adding he’d recently offered to write another pro-Trump column for the paper ahead of the election. He informed editorial page editor David Shipley on Friday morning.

    Tulsi Gabbard is SICK of the woke mob. Help Trump defeats Kamala Harris! Will you Donate?

    Congress Looking Into Virginia Prosecutor After Threats To Top Trump Staffer

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    4

    Congress is taking action after a Virginia prosecutor seems to have allowed liberal activists to cultivate threats against a top Trump official and his children.

    The U.S. House Judiciary Committee report Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) has “sent a letter to Parisa Dehghani-Tafti, prosecutor for Arlington County and the City of Falls Church, demanding information about her ignoring threats to White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller and the intimidation of his family.”

    “The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) determined that a left-wing activist likely violated state and federal anti-doxing laws when she posted flyers depicting Miller’s face and publicizing his home address. The FBI sought a search warrant for Wien’s phone; however, U.S. Magistrate Judge Lindsey Vaala, who has previously donated to the presidential campaigns of Presidents Obama and Biden, denied the FBI’s request,” the committee reports.

    “According to investigators involved in the case, Dehghani-Tafti has been ‘stymying the investigation’ into the threats made against the Miller family. Dehghani-Tafti’s conduct suggests that she is willing to not only ignore threats of political violence against those with whom she disagrees, but will actively side with those making the threats,” the committee reports.

    “The Miller family deserves the same protections afforded to all Americans, particularly when it comes to feeling safe in their own home. Their safety is especially important in light of recent left-wing political violence against prominent Republicans, and the election of an attorney general in Virginia who fantasizes about murdering the children of his political opponents,” the committee adds.

    In the letter to Dehghani-Tafti, Jordan writes, in part:

    Since the 118th Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary has been conducting oversight of politically motivated prosecutorial actions of state and local prosecutors. On September 11, 2025, a left-wing activist, Barbara Wien, posted flyers in her Arlington, Virginia neighborhood depicting White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller’s face and publicizing his home address. While posting the flyers, Wien walked past Miller’s house and attempted to intimidate his wife, who was sitting on the front porch, by indicating she was watching the Miller family,” the committee further reports.

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) determined Wien likely violated state and federal anti-doxing laws and sought a search warrant for her phone. However, U.S. Magistrate Judge Lindsey Vaala, who has previously donated to the presidential campaigns of Presidents Obama and Biden, denied the FBI’s request” the committee writes.  On October 1, 2025, Virginia State Police secured a warrant from a state court judge.

    After determining that Wien had misled investigators during an interview on October 1, the FBI sought another search warrant. Once again, Magistrate Judge Vaala denied the request. On October 2, 2025, in the matter pending before a court in Arlington County, you made ‘an unusual request’ by siding ‘with the defense’ in requesting that the judge overseeing the matter limit the search warrant and the information that state police could share with the FBI, which the judge so ordered. According to investigators involved in the case, you have been “stymying the investigation” into the threats made against the Miller family.

    Additionally, you reportedly support a left-wing ‘activist group’ known as Arlington Neighbors United for Humanity (ANUFH). Wien is a member of ANUFH and the flyers she posted displaying the Millers’ home address also featured a QR code linking to ANUFH’s Instagram account. ANUFH has previously left threatening chalk messages outside the Millers’ home and praised the violent anarchist network Antifa.

    Your unmistakably partisan actions suggest that you are willing to not only ignore threats of political violence against those with whom you disagree, but will actively side with those making the threats. The Miller family deserves the same protections afforded to all Americans, particularly when it comes to feeling safe in their own home. Their safety is especially important in light of recent left-wing political violence against prominent Republicans, and the election of an attorney general in Virginia who fantasizes about murdering the children of his political opponents.”

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

    President Trump is fighting to make the U.S. Census citizens-only, and he needs every patriot standing with him. ADD YOUR NAME & STAND WITH TRUMP.

    Tucker Carlson Jan 6 Exposé – Partly True and Also Kinda Dumb

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    20
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    ANALYSIS – Tucker Carlson’s misguided attempt to use cherry-picked moments of the newly released video of Jan. 6 to argue that nothing bad happened at the Capitol that day, is horribly timed and very dumb. 

    As I wrote the day after I personally observed events at the Capitol that day, January 6 was neither a deadly coup, insurrection nor peaceful guided tours of the Capitol. 

    It was a mixture of some of those things, none of those things, and everything in between.

    And Tucker would have been far more effective, and credible had he used the video to show that the Left’s Jan. 6 narrative was incomplete, distorted, and totally one-sided, rather than trying to say it was totally false.

    Because the truth is that Jan 6 was like the story of the blind men and the elephant, each one grasping one part of the animal, like the leg, tail, or trunk, and describing the giant beast as something totally different.

    On Jan. 6 what began as a massive peaceful rally of tens of thousands of pro-Trump protesters, soon degraded when smaller elements (a few hundred) of the much larger peaceful crowd broke off and did conduct a violent attack on parts of the Capitol.

    Hundreds more just stupidly followed the initial ‘attack mob’ inside.

    In the first group, some had military training, used stack formations, and were very organized and intent on forcefully breaching the building. 

    While none were found with, or used firearms, during the riot, there was violence with sticks, flagpoles, and pepper spray.

    I called these violent rioters, thugs, and criminals.

    They were similar to the violent BLM rioters who had violently attacked police at the White House in the summer of 2020 or besieged the Portland Federal Courthouse for months.

    On Jan. 6 police officers were similarly attacked and beaten, and the Capitol was ultimately breached unlawfully.

    Inside, one non-violent protester, Ashley Babbitt, an Air Force security forces veteran, was shot by a Capitol Police Officer. Likely, unjustly. 

    She was the only person killed during the riot.

    All this occurred in the span of just a few hours.

    But the Capitol complex is massive, and what was happening violently on one end was not being replicated at other parts of the Capitol. 

    As much of the Tucker video showed truthfully, in many places and entrances, Capitol Police had allowed protesters inside, in some cases escorted them around. 

    In other cases, the police simply stood by as the ‘tourist’ protesters milled around and took selfies or acted stupidly.

    Still, ever since then, there has been a profound narrative battle pitting those fanatics on the right who said nothing at all happened and the fanatics on the left who claim Jan. 6 was worse than Pearl Harbor or 9/11, and an insurrection that risked the essence of American democracy. 

    Sadly, neither side is correct, but only the most extreme one-sided ‘insurrection’ narrative was put forward by the left and last Congress’ Democratic-run Jan. 6 committee, and repeated daily by the partisan, anti-Trump media.

    The insurrection narrative was pushed by cherry-picked videos and photos of the same short-lived Capitol violence from different views and angles, repeated in a nearly constant loop for the most distorted and dramatic effect possible.

    But now Tucker has done the same.

    As Politico reported:

    Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger wrote in an internal message to officers that Carlson’s Monday night primetime program “conveniently cherry-picked from the calmer moments of our 41,000 hours of video” to incorrectly portray the violent assault as more akin to a peaceful protest. He added that Carlson’s “commentary fails to provide context about the chaos and violence that happened before or during these less tense moments.”

    And many Republican leaders agreed.

    The timing is also horrible.

    As Politico reported:

    “It’s definitely stupid to keep talking about this … So what is the purpose of continuing to bring it up unless you’re trying to feed Democrat narratives even further?” Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) said in an interview, noting the videos didn’t show “anything we don’t already know.”

    “I don’t really have a problem with making it all public. But if your message is then to try and convince people that nothing bad happened, then it’s just gonna make us look silly.”

    So how should we view the events of the January 6 riot accurately and fairly?

    Probably the best description was provided by Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.) when he said he has “a hard time with all of it.”

    He added that Jan. 6 “was not a peaceful protest. It was not an insurrection. It was a riot that should have never happened. And a lot of people share the blame for that. The truth is always messier than any narrative.”

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

    62% of Americans Want Hunter Biden Investigated – Real Focus Will be on Joe

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0
    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)

    ANALYSIS – Despite the still ongoing media-Big Tech-Democrat Party c*llusion to ignore, minimize or denigrate any calls to investigate H*nter B*den’s foreign business deals, Americans are increasingly supportive of the idea.

    This is great news for the incoming Republican House Majority which plans to do just that.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports survey found that a whopping 62% of Americans want H*nter Bi*en’s business dealings investigated, especially those with C*mmunist China.

    Similarly, about 63% told Rasmussen that the H*nter B*den l*ptop computer is an important story.

    Of course, out of this nearly 2/3 majority, Republicans and independent voters are the most eager for a thorough H*nter probe, and Democrats less so.

    But the numbers should still be highly concerning to the White House and its apologists.

    The Washington Examiner noted that:

    …a majority joined Republicans in raising questions about H*nter B*den’s computer files and advice the president gave his son prior to scoring big money payoffs from his overseas businesses

    The survey found the public is gobbling up stories in the media about H*nter B**en and that they are especially interested in those about his computer.

    Conservative media covered the computer stories heavily, but only recently have the liberal media joined in drawing attention to the controversy.

    The Examiner added:

    Frustrated with the liberal media’s slow wake-up to the computer and H*nter B*den controversy, the new House GOP has promised to make a big deal out of probing the president’s son, and the poll of likely voters showed support for that move.

    However, let’s be clear. This isn’t just an investigation into the President’s w*yward son. It is a much-needed investigation into the entire B*den family enr*ching themselves un*thically, if not ill*gally.

    And the real focus is on the ‘B*g Guy’ – J*e Bid*n. 

    As Spectrum News reported right before the GOP won control of the House:

    GOP members of the Oversight and Reform Committee held a news conference Thursday in which they alleged, among other things, that Pre*ident B*den “personally participated in meetings and phone calls” regarding his s*n’s business exploits and that there was personal business conducted on Air Force Two while he was vice president. 

    Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., who is poised to chair the panel beginning in January, called the president “chairman of the board” and a “partner with access to an office.” 

    Republicans, who released an interim report Thursday, said they identified more than 50 countries where the B*den family, often led by H*nter B*den, sought business transactions.

    “To be clear, J*e Biden is the b*g g*y,” Comer said. “This evidence raises troubling questions about whether President Biden is a national security risk and about whether he is compromised by foreign governments.”

    Comer made it clear the investigation will focus on the  pr*sident, not his s*n.

    “We’re not trying to prove H*nter B*den is a b*d actor,” he said. “He is. If anybody wants to disagree with that, there’s nothing we have to talk about. Our investigation is about J*e B*den. And we already have e*idence that would point that J*e B*den was inv*lved with Hu*ter Bi*en on this.”

    …

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

    UN Legal Body Normalizes Sex With Children – Crimes Against Humanity Next?

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    4
    U.S. Department of State from United States, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – No, this isn’t a story of a wacky conspiracy theory about global elites and pedophilia, it is real news. And this time the truth is close to the mark.

    According to a shocking report produced by legal experts backed by the United Nations, children can consent to sex with adults.

    This is not only despicable; it violates the very UN principles that protect children from sexual violence. 

    The widespread raping of women and children is an especially serious concern in the world’s war zones, where the heinous acts are considered war crimes. 

    And in other UN documents, allowing sex with children “may amount to grave breaches of international humanitarian law.”

    The findings of these supposedly enlightened jurists only blurs the lines of perverse criminal behavior and will embolden those animals who abuse children.

    And, in an insult to all women, the report was released on March 8 ‘in recognition of International Women’s Day,’ suggesting some sort of connection between women’s rights and the age of consent.

    While the report does not specifically call for decriminalizing sex between adults and minors and doesn’t define an age of sexual consent, it states that children have both the mental ability and legal right to make sexual decisions.

    We should note that while there is a difference between mature, sexually active older teenagers, and young children, these experts appear to simply reference all minors under age 18.

    Listed under Principle 16 – ‘Consensual Sexual Conduct,’ the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists, aided by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, wrote: “Sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law.” 

    If that is true, then how long before the UN and ‘global elites’ do in fact decriminalize adults having sex with children?

    Well, the commission answers that question when it added in its report, “In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them.”

    According to Influencer Ian Miles Chong, “This has been the plan all along.”

    https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1647416022637629440

    The perverse findings which seem to open the door to normalize sex with minors appears in a report with the esoteric and convoluted title: “The 8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty.”

    The report is posted prominently on the Commission’s website.

    Its deranged conclusions also clash directly with the reality the UN Human Rights Commission reports on the ground in many countries.

    As noted by the UN’s own organization “Children and Armed Conflict:

    Sexual violence against children during conflict is one of the six grave violations identified and condemned by the UN Security Council .  The six grave violations form the basis of the Council’s architecture to monitor, report and respond to abuses suffered by children in times of war. Ending and preventing these violations is also the focus of the Special Representative’s work and advocacy.

    Sexual violence is increasingly a characteristic of conflict and is often perpetrated against girls and boys in a rule of law vacuum. In some instances sexual violence has been used as a tactic of war designed to humiliate a population or to force displacement.

    The UN group clearly states:

    Rape and other forms of sexual violence against children are human rights violations, and may amount to grave breaches of international humanitarian law. If committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population, sexual violence can constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

    So, which is it, UN? Where do you draw the line? If children can consent to sex, when is it a humanitarian or war crime and when is it just fine?

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

    Amanda Head: Gabrielle Union & Dwyane Wade Give Ridiculous Interview About Kid

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0

    Woke Hollywood has gone too far…

    Watch Amanda explain the controversy below:

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

    Trump Is Right To Reject RNC’s Unpatriotic Demand – But He Needs To Go Further

    By
    Norman Leahy
    -
    3
    Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Former President Donald Trump is right: There’s no reason he should sign a GOP loyalty oath in order to participate in the candidates’ debates.

    Such oaths, which the Republican National Committee employed in the 2016 presidential primary – only to see the last remaining candidates, including Trump, abandon it – aren’t just signs of a party’s weakness; they are also profoundly silly and even un-American.

    Yes, we swear plenty of legally enforceable oaths – in court cases, for example, or declarations on tax forms and other legal documents. But oaths binding candidates to support someone who they’ve campaigned against, throwing elbows, mud and other rhetorical barbs at them for months to convince voters the guy was a bum?

    I’ll defer to what Sen. Ted Cruz said of such an oath back in the 2016 presidential primary:

    Cruz has dodged the question of whether the pledge still holds by insisting he will be the nominee. Though on Friday, in an apparent reference to Trump, Cruz said, “I don’t make a habit out of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my family.”

    We all know that Cruz eventually did support Trump’s candidacy and became one of his biggest defenders in the Senate (which was amusing).

    But the oath? Nah. The 2016 primary should have been instructive to party leaders that such commitments are transactional at best and unenforceable in fact. Which brings us to the state parties.

    They have been long-time players in loyalty oaths, often attempting to bind voters to the party’s eventual nominees. While such pledges are even sillier and utterly unenforceable, that hasn’t stopped new ones from cropping up this year. Consider the case of Florida‘s pledge:

    Christian Ziegler, the chairman of the Florida GOP, said in an email that the loyalty pledge is an effort to “ensure maximum unity” headed into the 2024 general election.

    “The days of outlier party grifters – such as Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger – using Republican Party resources to secure a title and then weaponize that title against our own team must end,” Ziegler said, referring to two former House members, who are among Trump’s most vocal GOP critics.

    “Contested primaries are part of the process,” he said, “but we must always remember that the Democrats are the true threat to the America we love and we must be unified to defeat every single one of them.”

    The true threat to America is noxious oaths that bind us to men rather than pledges or oaths that bind individuals to uphold the law or tell the truth.

    You know, like the only oath that should ever matter for a presidential candidate: the one the Constitution requires:

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    Every other partisan oath is legally dubious, intellectually suspect and, in the end, not worth the paper it’s printed on.

    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.

    1...38394041Page 39 of 41
    © Great America News Desk 2022