Brad Read

Father, Grandfather. Retired from this and that. Vietnam Veteran.

[Brad Read @Brad2428]

@deniseshrivell Bigly!

[Brad Read @Brad2428]

@GCBulletin @GCS_Pottsy Why? You have just increased your digital subscription by 100%.

[Brad Read @Brad2428]

@AmyRemeikis Totally agree.

[Brad Read @Brad2428]

@PhillipAdams_1 If you do not have law and order then you have anarchy. If you have anarchy you have a failed state. It cannot happen here - can it? 🤷

[Brad Read @Brad2428]

@barriecassidy It just required a bit of good old fashioned nouse to see it was a fake.

[Protect Kamala Harris ✊ @DisavowTrump20]

RETWEET if you stand with President Zelenskyy against Trump and Vance!

[Protect Kamala Harris ✊ @DisavowTrump20]

🚨NEW: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is planning to fire Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff C.Q. Brown, a 4-Star General and 41-year veteran of the Air Force who flew over 130 hours in combat as a fighter pilot.

RETWEET if you stand with General C.Q. Brown against Hegseth!

[Brad Read @Brad2428]

@AlanD99848757 @6NewsAU It seems a little too “ham fisted” for Mossad.

[Brad Read @Brad2428]

@W7VOA I thought Con Air is the new name for AF1 😏

[Brad Read @Brad2428]

@SatPaper I have not heard what Dutton said, but I am not in favour of changing place names.

[Brad Read @Brad2428]

@DavidSavage63 @hughriminton It will play well domestically with his supporters, but it is a dumb move.

[Brad Read @Brad2428]

@SatPaper @QuentinDempster NO, it’s not.

[Brad Read @Brad2428]

@6NewsAU What is the “gone dark” rubbish? Been turned off!

[Brad Read @Brad2428]

@stephaniedowric @KleinRevd Actually, if you are going to have a military, then this is quite sane. I agree AUKUS is a dud and should be disposed of ASAP.

[Brad Read @Brad2428]

Anyone else finding the new @abcnews website layout an omnishambles? Hard to read and slow to be updated. BBC News is more up to date 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

[Brad Read @Brad2428]

@deniseshrivell Using super for anything but super is stupid. It only shifts the problem into the future.

[Brad Read @Brad2428]

@EVERALDATLARGE Yes.

[Alex Vindman 🇺🇸 @AVindman]

Statement on National Security Staff Firings

Yesterday, President Trump’s National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz @michaelgwaltz , announced a sweeping directive to terminate all national security staffers loaned from other departments and agencies who serve in apolitical, non-partisan senior staff roles. Waltz framed this decision as a means to eliminate Biden-era appointees and enforce absolute alignment with Trump’s policy agenda. Notably, Waltz justified this move by referencing my role in exposing Trump’s abuse of power, which led to his first impeachment. Using my actions as a rationale, Waltz aims to purge scores of professionals from the Department of Defense, Department of State, CIA, and other agencies—not because of their conduct, but due to a demand for blind allegiance to Trump. This approach sends a stark and troubling message: in a second Trump administration, only political loyalists will be permitted to serve on the NSC.

To set the record straight, I served as an apolitical detailee and a faithful Army officer implementing President Trump’s national security agenda, as outlined in the National Security Strategy he approved. My actions did not conflict with Trump’s stated national security policy. My reporting of corruption—my refusal to remain silent as Trump engaged in criminal activity, undermined free and fair elections by pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden, to steal the 2020 election—and my refusal to betray my oath to the U.S. Constitution are why I was fired. These are the same reasons professional staff are about to be purged, and apolitical staff will be barred from the NSC.

On the surface, it is reasonable for a president to seek a loyal and trusted teams faithful to their agenda. However, absolute loyalty should not be the exclusive qualification, overriding competence, experience, and fidelity to a constitutional oath. An NSC staffed with “team members who are 100% aligned with the president’s agenda” will not only diminish the NSC’s capabilities but also erode continuity in policy. Worse, it will create an environment where dissenting views, even those grounded in experience and ethical responsibility, are stifled.

The so-called “Vindman Rule” sets a dangerous precedent by ensuring that only political loyalists can serve on the NSC, advise the president, and interact with the president and top decision-makers. Such an approach will have a chilling effect on senior policy staff across the government. Talented professionals, wary of being dismissed for principled stances or offering objective advice, will either self-censor or forgo service altogether. This undermines the very purpose of the NSC: to provide the president with the best possible advice as well as the coordinating team to advance U.S. national security interests.

The implications of this loyalty-above-competence model are dire. By purging the NSC of apolitical, experienced professionals, Trump and Waltz are hollowing out the institutional expertise required to navigate complex global challenges. This will create a policy apparatus incapable of discerning sound policies from reckless impulses—or worse, one that actively disregards legal and ethical obligations to implement Trump’s personal whims. Consider the implications: Would Department of Defense detailees still counsel against invading Greenland or Canada or feed those foolhardy thoughts to curry favor? Would FBI detailees agree to engage in political reprisals against Trump’s enemies to serve in the NSC? These are not far-fetched concerns but real dangers inherent in the precedent Waltz establishes.

This announcement also presages broader plans by the Trump administration to fire tens of thousands of senior apolitical government officials and replace them with Trump loyalists. By prioritizing loyalty above all else, the Trump administration will significantly undermine the foundations of good governance, jeopardize U.S. national security, and weaken U.S. democracy.

[Caroline Di Russo @CaroDiRusso]

Actually, Australians are more pragmatic than they are ideological. Thankfully.

The cause of these fires could be any number of things including arson or an electrical fault. And while weather conditions impact severity, those conditions can be due to a mixture of things including changing climatic conditions.

But ultimately, when a fire starts, howsoever caused, the consequences of that fire will always be much greater where there are poor fire prevention strategies and poor fire management. That's the practical rub of it.

And if you want to talk about problematic ideology, it is - ironically - Green left ideology which opposes prescribed burns, encourages DEI hiring, promotes spending govt budgets on the fluff rather than the fundamentals, and seeks to divert water for niche environmental purposes rather than community wellbeing and safety. And that ideology has contributed to the scale of this fire and the needless additional emissions now belching into the atmosphere.

So leave conservatives, Dutton and Trump etc out of it. Because while China increases emissions exponentially and unabated, nothing we do in the West and particularly Australia - no amount of adherence to net-zero, paper straw sucking, EV driving, deindustrialising our economy or tanking our living standards - is going to change the temperature of the planet. Now, we should do our bit but we cannot be the sacrificial lamb. Something which pragmatic Australians appear to be working out.

[Brad Read @Brad2428]

@GrayConnolly Yes. I learnt all that in school lo those many years ago! It appears that nowadays history only includes stuff you have a living memory of. No wonder the world is in such a state. Forget history, doomed to repeat it.