Random

    Opinion

    Home Opinion

    Growing Number of Americans Support War on Woke

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    5
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    ANALYSIS – The war against woke is raging across the nation. From school districts to corporations and even the Pentagon, conservative Republicans are on the front lines to get America to wake up to what woke really is. 

    And it’s not the dictionary definition of the term.

    As Florida Governor Ron DeSantis battles Disney over its woke policies, and both he and the Texas legislature dismantle neo-Marxist Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives statewide, liberals still try to focus on the textbook description of woke, as being ‘socially conscious’ rather than the radical concept it is.

    This, as a growing majority of Americans are supporting the war against woke, and saying that if you “go woke, you go broke.” Budweiser is certainly learning this lesson right now.

    Bud Light is facing a massive boycott over its partnership with transgender influencer (aka man who is trying to look like a woman) Dylan Mulvaney. And thankfully, it’s hurting the company.

    But it isn’t the only one – Target, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Miller Lite are also being hit by outrage over their woke advertising.

    Still, in a Newsweek piece, the writer, Aleks Phillips, makes every effort to focus on the dictionary definition of woke, even in a report about how their recent poll shows that Millennials favor the expression “go woke, go broke.” 

    Phillips writes:

    The term ‘woke’ is a colloquialism that has emerged in recent years. Its definition is to be “aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice),” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

    That’s the thoroughly watered-down dictionary definition. More specifically woke is an adjective derived from African American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning being “alert to racial prejudice and discrimination.”

    But that too is less than meets the eye.

    It’s a call to social justice activism. And social justice is a code for socialism.

    Even so, the Newsweek poll contradicts the popular narrative that millennials are the most socially conscious group who care most about so-called ‘social justice’ issues.

    The poll found that of those who were aware of the phrase “go woke, go broke,” an average of 71% of 25-44-year-olds agreed with the idea.

    That’s a big chunk of adult folks who don’t seem to like woke.

    Phillips later adds an earlier Newsweek reference where a clueless (and lefty) Kelly O’Keefe, founding partner of Brand Federation, said it was “really a minority on the right” that was “concerned about even the term ‘woke’.”

    “They’ve essentially weaponized the term ‘woke’—which has a dictionary definition that almost no one could disagree with: standing up for those who have been misrepresented, poorly represented etc.,” he added.

    But neither the leftist politicians and activists forcing the new wokeness, nor those suffering under the policies, see the term in such an innocuous manner.

    Being woke isn’t about simply being socially aware. Not by a long shot.

    It is a simple code word for a slew of policies based on a neo-Marxist ideology.

    These policies include pushing a radical transgender agenda on our children, racial preferences, and discrimination in favor of minorities, and against whites (in schools, government and businesses), and outright socialism under the guise of ‘equity.’ 

    To be clear – equity is the opposite of equality. It means the forceful creation of equal results rather than equality under the law, or equal opportunity. That is the textbook definition of socialism.

    And more Americans, including Millennials, are seeing through the ‘textbook definition” of woke charade, and calling it what it is – a dangerous ideology – especially damaging to your corporate bottom line.

    The outrage at woke brands like Bud Light has been sold by liberals as a reaction by a small minority of conservatives. But as noted earlier, the dramatic decline in Bud Light sales suggests that the boycott has widespread support.

    Newsweek‘s poll also suggests that the opposition to everything woke isn’t just a preserve of conservatives anymore, it’s an increasingly American thing.

    Phillips notes that:

    A majority of both those who voted for Donald Trump in 2020 and those who voted for Joe Biden agreed with the sentiment of “go woke, go broke,” it found, with 71 percent of Trump supporters agreeing and 62 percent of Biden supporters.

    So even a majority of liberal Biden supporters are coming around to see woke for the extremist ideology it is. And that’s not good for Democrats leaders who still seem hell-bent on pushing that radical agenda.

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

    Amanda Head: Tim Allen Masterfully Strong-Arms Disney Into Christian Content

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0

    Tim Allen is reprising his beloved role as Santa Claus in Disney’s latest Christmas series. The original 1994 “The Santa Clause” movie saw massive success and Allen went on to play the role for two more movies. However, Allen says that he had some big conditions for Disney before returning to the iconic role for the new series- one of them being Disney must incorporate Christianity into the show.

    Watch Amanda break down the situation below:

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

    Christianity is Dying in the West, and Islam May Be Taking Over the Rest

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    1
    Photo via Pixabay free images

    ANALYSIS – While many of us recently celebrated the birth of Jesus Christ, also known as the ‘Prince of Peace,’ 2023 brings a year of danger and turmoil, with multiple regional flash points that could lead to a major war.

    But longer term, another global danger is brewing, more slowly, but inexorably.

    This danger is mostly political, ideological, and religious.

    And while it may take a couple of more decades to come to pass, this steady shift will have profound historic repercussions and will change the world mostly for the worse.

    I am talking about the steady death of Christianity in the U.S. and Europe, and the global growth and potential dominance of Islam in large parts of the world. 

    And this future looks bleak.

    Symbolically, as we just celebrated Christmas, let’s begin with the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. It is built above the site where Jesus was reportedly born on the West Bank of the Palestinian territories.

    It still broadcasts beautiful Christmas Eve services worldwide on TV.

    However, most who watched the service on TV aren’t aware that the Christian population of Bethlehem, the birthplace of Christianity, has been decimated under Muslim rule.

    It has plummeted from 85% in 1947 to 15% today.

    Christians worldwide aren’t faring too much better.

    There are now 2.2 billion Christians in the world, at least nominally. But Islam has 1.97 billion followers, and rising. 

    And Islam is growing in two ways – it is advancing by the sword and the cradle. 

    Islamist extremist violence, terrorism, insurgency, and war, which in a major victory just recaptured Afghanistan, is spreading extremist Islam from the Middle East to Africa at a rapid pace.

    Meanwhile, combined with the militant spread, a higher global Muslim fertility rate (2.9 children per woman, versus 2.6 for the rest of the world), means that by 2075, Islam will be the world’s dominant religion.

    And where Islam is dominant as a religion it is also dominant politically and legally, as the Prophet Mohammed prescribed.

    Of course, Islamist apologists, and Christian-hating leftists, will immediately denounce any criticism of Islam as racist or ‘Islamophobic.’ 

    So let me quickly note that hundreds of thousands of Christian American soldiers have fought, and died, on multiple battlefields to defend Muslims, everywhere from Bosnia to Iraq and Syria to Afghanistan, and even Africa.

    I personally served as a Marine Corps officer and military attache’ in Arab Muslim countries as well as in Bosnia where we were protecting Muslims.

    I also spent many long days and nights during several months last year, remotely from Washington, DC trying to save hundreds, if not thousands of our Muslim brothers and sisters abandoned in Afghanistan by Joe Biden.

    I also did what I could to help these worthy allies come and relocate to the U.S. when possible.

    I did this due to my Christian values, my family’s experience being abandoned by another Democratic administration in another previously allied country (JFK and Cuba), as much as my sense of patriotic duty.

    Sadly, we likely will never see the actions on a similar scale in reverse.

    But the issue is far beyond whether individual Muslims are good, Christians are bad, or vice versa. The issue is what a world dominated by Muslim values, politics, and law – versus one which has been dominated by Christianity – will look like.

    And based on what we see in too many Islamic-led countries today, that future will be far worse than what we have now.

    Most, if not all, of our western liberal values the left hold so dear, and so do many conservatives, originate directly from Christianity, and indirectly from Judaism. 

    Yes, Christianity, when wrongly wedded to the state during the Middle Ages, was often used by ruthless monarchs to justify war and intolerance.

    But that history is long gone, along with the politically powerful royal families of Europe.

    Since at least the reformation, Christianity, including my own Catholic Church, has been free of the state and has been (even if imperfectly) a bulwark of tolerance, peace, and positive social change.

    Sadly, the same cannot be said of Islam.

    Though many call Islam a religion of peace, Islam literally means submission, and bloody jihad has been integral to its core since Mohammed. 

    And except when it has been effectively contained by the West, Islam has been an aggressive militant force.

    And while Christianity during the past few centuries has firmly returned to its peaceful, almost pacifist, roots of Christ, its founder, Islam struggles with the fact that at its core and founding, Islam is violent and intolerant.

    As was Mohammed – Islam’s founder – the warrior prophet.

    And whereas in the West we have the separation of church and state, based in part on Jesus’ teaching of ‘give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s,’ in Islam it’s the opposite.

    There is no similar separation in Islamic tradition. Islam is as much a political ideology and legal structure as it is a religion. 

    And though the vast majority of individual Muslims are good, peaceful, tolerant, and loving people, Islam itself allows for officially sanctioned violence and intolerance. 

    It all too often even rewards it.

    And this is why to this day, a small but significant minority of Muslims openly support violence.

    As Boston Herald columnist Don Feder writes in the Washington Times:

    …worldwide, 8% of Muslims say suicide bombings are “sometimes” or “often” justified in the name of Islam. That 8% may not seem like much, but it means more than 100 million condone coldblooded murder to defend perceived attacks on Islam.

    Feder adds: “Even in the West, many Muslims want to live under Islamic law (Sharia), where adulterers are stoned to death and converts to other faiths are murdered.”

    To be more precise he notes: “In Russia, where Islam is expected to be the largest religion by 2050, 42% of Muslims support Sharia, as do 71% in Nigeria, 46% in France and 40% in the United Kingdom.”

    Feder continues:

    While Muslims in the West demand tolerance, Christians rarely get it under Islam. In Egypt, Coptic churches are bombed, congregants shot, and girls kidnapped and forced to convert. All over the Middle East, ancient communities have been uprooted.

    Meanwhile, half the population growth worldwide between now and 2050 will be concentrated in Africa, including Congo, Nigeria, and Tanzania. 

    The growth there is much more by the sword than the cradle, as all these countries have active violent Islamist insurgencies.

    In Europe it is the opposite. Europeans are simply dying off by choice, and being replaced, often by Muslims.

    Feder explains:

    …the European fertility rate is 1.49, well below the replacement level of 2.1. Europe lost 1.1 million people last year. That’s the first rumbling of a coming earthquake. The fertility rate for European Muslims is 2.54. You don’t need to be a statistician to see which way the demographic winds are blowing.

    It’s estimated that by 2085, 13 European countries will have Muslim majorities — this in a continent once known as Christendom. Christians are writing their own obituary by failing to heed the commandment to be fruitful and multiply.

    And while in the United States, Islam has not yet become big enough to endanger our liberal western culture and legal system, there have been rumblings and testing of our resolve. 

    This usually occurs at the local level where Muslims may dominate, and opportunistic ‘civic’ leaders may use that as leverage to try to force change in their favor.

    However, the bigger threat in America is simply the loss of Christianity. And the moral and spiritual vacuum that this is creating. 

    Christianity, the former bedrock of American society and the system it was built on, has rapidly declined in the U.S. from 91% as recently as 1976 to 73.7% in 2016, to 64% in 2022.

    A third of the clueless Generation Z (or ‘Zoomers’) say they are unaffiliated with any religion or denomination.

    According to a recent Pew Research study, Christians will be a minority of 47% in this country by 2050.

    So, a belated Merry Christmas to all. We won’t be celebrating it as much in the not-too-distant future.

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

    Pope Francis Appoints Vocal Trump Critic As DC Archbishop In Provocative Leadership Move

    By
    Patrick Houck
    -
    3

    Pope Francis has named Cardinal Robert McElroy, a known advocate for migrants and outspoken critic of President-elect Donald Trump, as the new Archbishop of Washington, D.C. The decision underscores the pontiff’s preference for church leaders who align with his progressive vision, even as it risks further deepening ideological divisions within the millennia-old Catholic Church.

    Cardinal McElroy, recognized as a strong supporter of LGBTQ inclusion and other liberal causes, has consistently aligned with Pope Francis on key social and theological issues. His appointment was announced two weeks before Inauguration Day, conspicuous timing that drew widespread attention given the cardinal’s history of publicly criticizing Trump’s policies on immigration and social justice. This is particularly notable in light of McElroy’s emphasis on synodality (dialogue with one another in the presence of the Spirit of God) and church reform, which have drawn both praise and criticism from Catholic observers.

    The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    As Forbes’ Conor Murray reports, the move to elevate McElroy comes as a stark contrast to Trump’s nomination of Brian Burch as ambassador to Vatican City. Burch, a conservative Catholic activist and president of the right-leaning advocacy group CatholicVote, was instrumental in rallying Catholic support for Trump during the 2024 campaign. His organization has frequently clashed with the more progressive stances of Pope Francis and his allies:

    McElroy has largely slammed Trump because of his views on immigration, including his promise to conduct mass deportations. McElroy was one of 12 Catholic bishops from California who co-authored a statement last month voicing support for “our migrant brothers and sisters,” acknowledging the “calls for mass deportations and raids on undocumented individuals” have created fear in migrant communities. After Trump’s first election victory in 2016, McElroy called it “unthinkable” that Catholics would “stand by while more than ten percent of our flock is ripped from our midst and deported.” He called Trump’s mass deportation plan an “act of injustice which would stain our national honor” and compared it to Japanese interment and Native American dispossession. McElroy criticized Trump’s plan to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy in 2017 for lacking any “shred of humanity,” stating Jesus Christ was “both a refugee and an immigrant during his journey.”

    In a 2023 column for America magazine, McElroy urged greater welcoming of divorced and LGBTQ Catholics into the church, stating the church’s “disproportionate” focus on sexual activity as sin “does not lie at the heart” of a Christian’s relationship with God and “should change.” McElroy called it a “demonic mystery of the human soul why so many men and women have a profound and visceral animus toward members of the L.G.B.T. communities.” In a February 2024 speech, McElroy considered the lack of support among Catholics for blessing same-sex marriages to be the result of “enduring animus among far too many toward LGBT persons.” McElroy has also criticized abortion being considered a “de facto litmus test for determining whether a Catholic public official is a faithful Catholic.” McElroy, however, called Biden’s lack of support for anti-abortion legislation an “immense sadness” in a 2021 America magazine column, and called the overturning of Roe v. Wade a “day to give thanks and celebrate.”

    Burch, founder and co-president of CatholicVote, was once a Trump skeptic but praised him in 2020 for making a “concerted effort to reach out to Catholics in a way that we haven’t seen in the past.” That year, he authored the pro-Trump book, “A New Catholic Moment: Donald Trump and the Politics of the Common Good.” Burch has slammed Francis for “progressive Catholic cheerleading” and accused him of creating “massive confusion” over his approval of blessing same-sex marriages in 2023.

    Also on Monday, Francis appointed Sister Simona Brambilla, an Italian nun, to lead a Vatican office, making her the first woman to lead a major Vatican department. The department, the Dicastery for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, is responsible for religious orders. Francis has long voiced support for greater roles for women in the church, though he has ruled out ordaining women as deacons or priests.

    McElroy’s appointment also highlights Pope Francis’ broader engagement with U.S. politics. In 2024, the pontiff made headlines when he urged voters to carefully consider their choices, describing the act of voting as a moral responsibility. During a press conference aboard the papal plane, Francis remarked on the complexities of American politics, advising voters to choose “the lesser evil” when faced with challenging decisions.

    While the pope has criticized Trump’s hardline immigration policies, he has also expressed concern over Vice President Kamala Harris‘ unwavering support for abortion rights. Both stances, Francis noted, conflict with the Church’s teachings on the sanctity of life. “One must choose the lesser of two evils,” the pope reiterated. “Who is the lesser of two evils? That lady or that gentleman? I don’t know. Everyone with a conscience should think on this and do it.”

    Despite the pontiff’s cultural influence, his impact on American politics was negligible. In the 2024 presidential election, former President Donald Trump secured a notable share of the Catholic vote, surpassing his performance in previous campaigns. According to exit polls conducted by The Washington Post, Trump won the national Catholic vote by a 15-point margin, with 56% supporting him compared to 41% for Vice President Kamala Harris.

    This represents a notable shift compared to the 2020 election, where the Catholic electorate was nearly evenly split, with 50% supporting Trump and 49% favoring Joe Biden, a lifelong Catholic.

    In the 2016 election, Trump secured 52% of the Catholic vote, while Hillary Clinton received 45%.

    The 2024 election also saw variations within the Catholic demographic. Trump’s support among white Catholics increased, with 59% backing him compared to Harris’s 39%, a 20-point margin. This was an improvement over his 15-point lead in 2020.

    Marburg79, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    Among Latino Catholics, there was a significant shift toward Trump. In 2020, Biden led this group by a substantial margin, but in 2024, Trump’s support increased notably, contributing to his overall gains among Catholic voters.

    The appointment of McElroy is likely to spark further debate within the Church, where a widening schism between liberal and conservative leaders continue to grow. However, it also reflects Francis’ commitment to shaping the Church’s leadership in a way that emphasizes his vision for pastoral care and inclusivity, even at the expense of unity.

    Yet, in the United States, voting trends strongly suggest that Trump’s campaign strategies—including selecting Senator JD Vance, a Catholic, as his running mate, and making explicit appeals to Catholic voters—resonated with this demographic, contributing to increased GOP support in the 2024 election and possibly beyond.

    Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News.

    The Legal Hit Squad Targeting Trump Lawyers

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

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

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

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

    Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Amanda Head: Another Indictment- Why Are They So Scared Of Him?

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0

    Trump is facing a third indictment…

    Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

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

    Army Special Ops Command Proudly Flies ‘Pride’ Flag

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    1
    Marcha del orgullo en Paraná, Entre Ríos, Argentina. Noviembre de 2021 via Wikimedia commons

    ANALYSIS – Please just stop! – Even as the U.S. armed services toned down their politically driven, identity and sexual politics pandering for Pride Month this year, it seems the commanding general of U.S. Army Special Operations Command (also known as ARSOC) didn’t get the memo.

    Please note that ARSOC (or USASOC) includes some of our finest warriors, including the 75th Ranger Regiment, Army Special Forces (Green Berets) and 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (or Delta Force – the Army’s equivalent of the Navy SEALs).

    In what I consider an obscene post across multiple social media accounts, including Twitter, Instagram and Facebook, the commander of ARSOC, Lt. Gen. Jonathan P. Braga, either knowingly, or unknowingly, allowed his public affairs peons to celebrate Pride Month with the most bizarre leftist flag there is – as of now.

    It’s the “intersex-inclusive Pride Progress” flag.

    I say “as of now” because we have come a long way from a simple rainbow flag to represent gays. As I wrote earlier, the latest Pride flag, along with the leftist ideology that it’s based on, is constantly morphing.

    It first added black and brown stripes to represent the Black Lives Matter (BLM) racial agenda. Then it added pink and baby blue for transgenderism, only to add purple and yellow for those who call themselves nonbinary.

    And it is daily adding more elements and colors as the movement expands to include everything the left now advocates, even if it makes less sense each time.

    The intersex symbol on this flag is the left’s latest add. It is a purple circle on a yellow background in the chevron on the left of the flag.

    And it seems totally redundant.

    Brietbart explains:

    According to an article from Boston University, “intersex” is defined as “those whose bodies do not align with the gender binaries of males or females. This includes those with both genitals or other differences.” The colors yellow and purple are meant to be seen as “nonbinary colors,” the article stated.

    The flag also included light blue, pink, and white, which, according to the article, represent, respectively, boys, girls, and “those who are transitioning, have no gender, or are gender neutral.”

    This latest ‘intersex-inclusive Pride Progress’ flag is not only bizarre and visually hideous, but it also represents an extreme left-wing political and sexual ideology that divides us instead of uniting us.

    The ARSOC post also made the oft-repeated claim that: “Throughout American history, LGBTQ+ members have not only fought for the right to serve openly, but have also fought in every major war and conflict.”

    I tweeted my own reply to that, asking for the names of just a couple of specific LGBT individuals from every conflict and noted that I was especially interested in those that were T.

    I doubt too many intersex transgenders fought at Yorktown or Gettysburg. Or even WWII or Korea.

    Breitbart also posted some comments to the ARSOC post that pointed out we already have one all-inclusive flag:

    A former Green Beret posted in response: “And you jackasses wonder why the military as a whole can’t even meet its recruiting goals? There’s only one flag you should be proud of, the one we fought under and many of our brothers and sisters died under.”

    It continued:

    Sara Carter, Fox News Contributor and host of the Sara Carter Show, blasted the command’s posts, tweeting:

    .@USASOCNews
    My husband was in Special Operations Command for more than 16 years and continued to serve beyond – but he fought for the American flag not the LGBTQ flag

    See, here’s the problem – The American flag represents all Americans and the rights we cherish – we don’t need the bizarre multi-colored flag to appreciate freedom my husband and so many others (gay or not) risked their lives for or lost their lives for – your priorities are so F’ked up

    Indeed, we should only fly one flag – the American flag. It’s the one we fight for, and it includes all of us.

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

    Amanda Head: Sources Reveal When to Expect DeSantis’ 2024 Announcement

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    1

    America is waiting…

    When will Florida Governor Ron DeSantis officially throw his hat into the ring for the 2024 Republican nomination? Sources close to the governor are spilling the beans…

    Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

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

    Black Mom Charged With Same Crime As Hunter Biden Cites His Case In Asking For Leniency

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    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)

    A Virginia mother charged with lying about her drug use when purchasing a handgun, which her six-year-old son took to school and used to wound a teacher, is asking a federal court for leniency – citing the light sentence given to President Joe Biden’s adult son Hunter for the same crime.

    “Deja Taylor, 25…has pleaded guilty to lying about her marijuana use when she applied for a gun purchase. Her 6-year-old son used the 9 mm semi-automatic pistol on Jan. 6 to shoot his elementary school teacher in Newport News, Virginia, in a case that has received massive media coverage,” The Washington Times reports.

    Taylor faces as much as two years in federal prison for not reporting her drug use on her gun purchase application, but her sentencing will come weeks after Biden, the wealthy white son of the President, got a sweetheart plea deal to his offense of not reporting his drug use.

    While Taylor’s marijuana use is legal under Virginia law, Biden’s crack cocaine was illegal under both Delaware and federal law.

    Biden received no jail time for his offense, and will likely have his guilty plea erased from his criminal record after participating in a pretrial diversion program.

    Taylor may not be as lucky.

    “In our sentencing memo, we will surely raise the inconsistency in the government’s approach to a vulnerable and scared very young mother, who does not have a privileged background and connections,” defense attorney Eugene Rossi told The Washington Times.

    “Why does the prodigal son of a president get diversion on the same gun charge — along with the sweetheart deal on the tax crimes?” Rossi told the Times. “The disparity is a bit hard to comprehend — let alone swallow.”

    While Taylor’s gun was left unsecured, and used in a school shooting, observers note Biden’s handgun was left discarded in a public trash can near a Delaware school.

    Others are noticing the double standard, too.

    “Biden’s DOJ is giving Hunter a sweetheart deal for lying on a firearm background check,” tweeted U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN.) “Meanwhile, the same DOJ is sending Deja Taylor to prison for 18-24 months for the exact same offense.”

    “What happened to equal justice under the law?,” Blackburn asked

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

    Amanda Head: Torrential Rain In CA That Will Be Completely Wasted

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    3
    Casa Rosada (Argentina Presidency of the Nation), CC BY 2.5 AR via Wikimedia Commons

    California is in the midst of a historic rainstorm, but will it be a waste?

    Watch Amanda break down the latest controversy below:

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

    123...41Page 1 of 41
    © Great America News Desk 2022