A troubling pattern of systemic failures emerges at Cannon Air Force Base, as a recent account from a service member reveals neglect and harassment within the ranks, raising serious questions about the treatment of service members during critical times.
The post Systemic Failures Resurface at Cannon Air Force Base, Leading One Service Member to Contemplate Suicide appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
According to satellite imagery and video analysis, Iran has attacked at least 20 American military facilities across the Middle East, with some experts estimating as many as 28 bases targeted. The report by BBC Verify significantly exceeds public U.S. acknowledgment of the attacks. Strikes have hit key installations across eight countries: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Bahrain, and Oman, causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. Notable losses include three THAAD anti-missile batteries, each costing approximately $1 billion, and forming a complex regional defense network that cannot be quickly replaced. At Prince Sultan Airbase in Saudi Arabia alone, 42 aircraft have been destroyed or damaged since February, including F-15s, F-35s, Reaper drones, and an A-10 attack plane worth up to $700 million. Iran's tactics evolved from mass missile barrages to precise strikes targeting high-value assets. The Pentagon declined to dispute the BBC's findings, while the U.S. requested satellite imagery restrictions on the region.Watch the video below. Your browser does not support the video tag.
The Trump Justice Department's criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey got a worrisome sign on Monday — and it wasn't a development in that case itself, but one in an unrelated case involving the National Park Service.According to Politico, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss has issued a two-week restraining order prohibiting the park service from doing anything to interfere with a protest by the liberal group Accountability Now USA, which has for months been protesting President Donald Trump outside a federal courthouse near the National Mall — by flying a huge banner that says "86-47," with "47" being a reference to Trump and "86" a common slang term for getting rid of something.The group has been harassed by the Secret Service, and more recently, a National Park Service official issued an email ordering the group to remove it as it is "obscenity" not protected by the First Amendment. This is in line with a number of Trump officials and allies who have claimed "86-47" is a call for violence against the president."Moss, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, disagreed in his ruling.“The Court does not doubt that political violence is on the rise and that it poses a grave threat not just to the targets of the threats but to the country as a whole," wrote Moss. "But the enormity of that problem does not change the meaning of Plaintiff’s speech, which by any reasonable measure merely advocated for the President’s impeachment and removal from office — that is, ‘to throw [him] out.’”This could have grave implications for the administration's separate efforts to prosecute Comey, who was charged with violent threats for a social media post from last year depicting seashells arranged to spell out "8647." Comey deleted the post and apologized, but has made clear he was never advocating violence.All of this comes as the DOJ quietly reassigned a prosecutor in charge of the Comey case.
FBI Director Kash Patel's girlfriend and country singer Alexis Wilkins has filed a lawsuit against MS NOW, claiming that the outlet's reporting about her use of FBI agents is "hogwash," according to reports on Monday.Wilkins had filed the defamation lawsuit on Friday, citing that "MS NOW had knowingly and recklessly published lies about her," The New Republic reported. The lawsuit involved a December story that included anonymous sources claiming that Patel told FBI agents to take Wilkins's drunk friend home after a night of partying in Nashville. “This was hogwash and they knew it,” Wilkins's attorneys wrote in the 16-page suit, which also claimed that the security detail had not yet been created for the FBI director's significant other, who is 27 and "does not drink." "She does concretely have one now—the first time in U.S. history the bureau’s director has extended such protection," The New Republic reported.However, the story never reported that Wilkins was inebriated, yet the singer's legal team has appeared to be confused over the details of her claims. "In their filing, her team contradicted themselves, later writing that Wilkins 'very rarely drinks,'" according to The New Republic."As a country singer, author, and political advocate, known for her Christian, patriotic, America-First, and pro-law enforcement values, her brand and ability to work in her profession would be significantly damaged if her employers, her publishers, her listeners, or her readers, believed that she was abusing the public trust and using her relationship with Director Patel to misappropriate FBI resources," according to the suit.The suit has accused MS NOW of writing a story "in George Costanza fashion" in order "to self-promotingly advance their own agenda and notoriety" at the expense of Wilkins.Rebecca Kutler, MS NOW president, shared a statement with Raw Story regarding the lawsuit."We stand firmly behind MS NOW’s reporting. As a general matter of practice, we don’t comment on ongoing legal matters," Kutler said.Patel has been accused of excessive drinking in a report from The Atlantic and faced grilling from lawmakers over the allegations, which he has denied.
A divided federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration's policy banning transgender individuals from serving in the military is likely unconstitutional.
A federal appeals court ruled on Monday against the Trump administration’s policy of barring transgender troops from the military, finding the policy was arbitrary and implemented with animus. A three judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found 2-1 that the Department of War’s January 2025 policy, which held that […]
As the war with Iran has eased into something of a hot ceasefire, with the two sides exchanging occasional blows as a peace deal is negotiated, the American Conservative has a dismal assessment of President Donald Trump’s performance: the outcome he’s arriving at appears to be “beyond parody.”Citing recent reports from Axios on the state of Trump’s peace deal negotiations, the American Conservative contributor Anik Joshi notes that “the deal will have the same core ingredients as the one negotiated by President Barack Obama and signed in 2015 that the U.S. later left — some kind of financial/sanctions relief in exchange for verification of promises not to pursue a weapons program.” These two aspects are vital, but ignore many other considerations that are essential to the war, like the activities of regional proxies. But to bring these other elements into the debate risks sidelining the core nuclear issue, which could tank efforts for a deal altogether. “This was exactly what helped nearly sink the original JCPOA in Congress,” writes Joshi. “There was significant opposition to all the things the deal didn’t do. There was also much opposition to what it actually did — contempt for sunset clauses, for the fact that the deal would require some level of trust in addition to verification, and for arguments against any kind of financial relief for a regime some saw as illegitimate.”His conclusion is not optimistic: “Nearly a decade later, with oil prices sky-high, it is beyond parody that we are back to where this all began, except this time with a massive war as a kickoff rather than negotiations.”Joshi is quick to note that negotiations are still worth pursuing as “the goal remains a quick end to the war before it has a chance to become another quagmire and cause sustained economic damage.” He does warn, however, that “that window closes more with each passing day.” With that in mind, he argues that the administration should focus on the most pressing issues and be willing to leave “nice-to-haves” on the table for a later date while addressing the “must-haves” now. While Joshi does think that the US is arguing from a position of power — an assessment that many analysts do not share — he does warn that “the country is still not in a position to impose its will on the Iranian government, and any kind of agreement will need to be give-and-take. As a function of that, it will contain the same key ingredients as the JCPOA with differences of degree far more than differences of type. There has been no unconditional surrender, and as such it is effectively impossible to impose unilateral terms, especially when the Iranians have shown what they’re capable of doing to maritime passage through the Strait of Hormuz.”At the moment, Trump is walking a tightrope between Iran hawks who demand maximal concessions and Republicans who just want the war to end. To bring about the latter, says Joshi, the president will likely have to anger the former. “If the government is serious about a deal,” notes Joshi, “it will require disappointing hawkish supporters, and the administration should steel itself for that sooner rather than later.”
