ANALYSIS – As we end yet another crazy year, we have a new report on how Democrats continue to be the crazy party.
Despite substantial scientific evidence to the contrary, a majority of Democrats still favor masking toddlers to battle the spread of COVID.
A recent I&I/TIPP Poll showed this mass insanity when 56% of Democrats said they believed masking children under the age of 5 is still a good idea.
In contrast, only 24% of Republicans and 31% of independents believed that masking toddlers is a good idea.
When asked if masking toddlers was a bad idea, as much of the scientific evidence now shows, 58% of Republicans and 38% of independents said they think it is a bad idea.
And only 24% of Democrats thought the same way.
But the divide goes deeper, with ideology, race, and ethnicity playing big roles as well.
When respondents were grouped by ideology rather than party, there was a similar divide: 56% of conservatives thought it was a bad idea; 31% of alleged conservatives supported the initiative. Liberals again majoritively (54%) supported covering children’s faces.
Ideology and party were not the only differentiators.
Only 33% of white Americans said it was a good idea, whereas 48% of black and Hispanic respondents supported masking kids. On the other hand, 44% of white respondents and 28% of black and Hispanic respondents were opposed.
When it came to opposing the idea, 39% of women were opposed — two points higher than their male counterparts.
The Blaze continued:
I&I intimated that what might partially account for the significant ideological split between the right and the left on the matter of masking kids is media and activist suppression of legitimate medical studies putting the efficacy of masking children in doubt.
Numerous studies questioned the effectiveness of masking in protecting from serious COVID effects.
As The Blaze explains, these studies highlight the adverse impact masks have on toddlers’ communication skills and the relative unlikelihood of children becoming severely sick from COVID.
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.
Things are heating up in President Biden’s Department of Justice. The bombshell discovery of classified documents from Biden’s time as vice president at numerous locations months after the FBI raided former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home has ruffled some feathers, to say the least…
Watch Amanda break down the ongoing scandal below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
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 Cruzsaid 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.
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)
Stating that judges must take all testimony into account before deciding to accept a plea deal, one congressional leader is calling on U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to release testimony from two Internal Revenue Service whistleblowers alleging President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden was given preferential treatment by the agency and is being protected from the true consequences of his crimes.
Biden has pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges, as well as federal firearms charges, as part of a deal with federal prosecutors. He awaits a July 26 plea hearing.
But U.S. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO) is now calling on U Garland and U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware David Weiss to submit to court allegations from Gary Shapley, previously the supervisor of the investigation at the IRS, and a second anonymous whistleblower alleging that investigators were pressured to go easy on Biden, ignore some crimes.
“Over the course of a single week in June, the existence of a plea agreement in this matter became public, a plea hearing was scheduled, and the Committee submitted whistleblower testimony to the full House,” said Smith in a letter to Garland and Weiss.
“Given the abruptness of the plea agreement announcement shortly after it became public that whistleblowers made disclosures to Congress, the seriousness of the whistleblower allegations, and the fact that multiple congressional investigations into the matter are ongoing, we ask that you file this letter and the attached information in the docket…,” said Smith.
“Placing the attached materials into the record is critical because the testimony provided by the two IRS whistleblowers brings new and compelling facts to light, and because it is essential for the Judge in this matter to have relevant information before her when evaluating the plea agreement,” wrote Smith.
“In his letter, Smith also highlights precedent where judges have rejected plea agreements for a variety of reasons, including situations where the judge finds that such deals were inadequate or deficient given the crimes committed or the motivation of the accused, or the plea deal was not in the best interest of the country,” a statement from the Committee reads.
Smith points out that plea agreements can be thrown out if it can be shown the plea agreement was reached improperly.
“In one state court proceeding, a judge rejected a plea agreement because ‘[i]t is contrary to justice. Justice in this society cannot be seen as being able to buy oneself out of a felony conviction.’ The Judge also went on to say, ‘[m]any in our community steal much less and go to prison or to jail…They steal much less and they don’t get a deferred judgment because they don’t have any money,’” wrote Smith.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Conservatives are finally fighting back against the trans agenda being imposed on our children at public libraries and bookstores via ‘Drag Queen Story Times.’
This bizarre and offensive program sends outrageously outfitted cross-dressing men into public libraries to read stories to small impressionable children.
The goal? To indoctrinate, if not groom, these children into accepting and exploring the trans lifestyle.
The secondary effect, exposing children to sexual themes, including mock stripping, they have no right to be exposing them to.
In some cases, these grown men dressed as women have been caught fondling children or acting inappropriately.
And yet, our taxpayer-funded public libraries across the country allow these bizarre events.
And too many ignorant, brainwashed, horrible parents allow their children to attend.
They are also increasingly occurring at other venues as well. But the goals are always the same.
Thankfully, conservatives are finally fighting back.
One way has been by loudly and publicly calling out examples of sexual abuse, and inappropriate touching or sexual behavior by these drag queens, and by protesting their presence in front of small children.
In early December one Trans-friendly venue, The Starlighter, in Texas was forced to cancel a slew of drag queen story hours after a public outcry over the outrageous antics of some of these cross-dressing men.
Most of it was due to video and images taken at an event and widely shared by conservative critics.
The Christian Post reported that this event featured a showing of the 1960s TV classic “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” while a rainbow flag with the number “666” hung on the walls.
What was worse, a video taken at this event showed a young girl no older than 7, who appeared unattended, with these men in drag dancing suggestively and singing lyrics such as, “Under the mistletoe/ Yes, everybody knows/ We will take off our clothes.”
One of the cross-dressing men was also recorded touching and stroking the young girl’s hair. The little girl is also seen handing money to one of the drag performers, as if at a strip club.
Another video clip, reports the Christian Post, “showed the young child visibly shrink back as a drag queen in all black leather, devil horns and face makeup as the man in drag sings, ‘Get your tickets to the freak show, baby / Step right up to watch the freak go crazy.’”
Another way conservatives are fighting back is protesting loudly and aggressively like the Left does, constantly, and at the drop of a hat.
The hosts of a “Drag Queen Story Hour”-style event for children in Columbus, Ohio, on Saturday pulled the plug because of what they described as the intimidating presence of right-wing demonstrators.
The scheduled holiday themed “Holi-Drag Storytime” at the First Unitarian Church of Columbus, which runs the K-5 institution behind the event, Red Oak Community School, was canceled at the last-minute Saturday morning following internal discussions, organizers said.
Members of Ohio’s Proud Boys organization and other right-wing groups made good on promises to make waves outside the venue Saturday. More than 50 demonstrators, including members of the Proud Boys, gathered near the church Saturday morning and shouted, chanted and held up signs. Some were armed with long guns.
This appears to be a very effective technique, learned from the Left. Speak loudly, and carry a big stick.
But then there is another way to counter this insidiously harmful movement’s efforts targeting our children.
That way is to promote a wholesome, Christian, family-focused counter-narrative and events at these same venues. And threaten legal action if they discriminate against you, or refuse to allow it.
As Newsmax reported, actor and author Kirk Cameron said recently: “Conservatives need to stop being on defense against the culture and start going on offense to take it back.
He added:
Just complaining about the culture doesn’t change the culture. We’ve got to get off the defense, to get on the offense. And I think for decades, we as concerned citizens, as people who understand the importance of faith and morality, have been asleep. And when we’re asleep, we’re unaware and we’re unengaged.
Cameron added that now that we’ve woken up, if we remain unengaged, “that’s on us.”
Cameron then called on every parent and grandparent to take their favorite children’s book that has wholesome values, good and godly morals, and call their library if it has hosted a Drag Story Hour and ask if they can read their book during story hour.
“If they say ‘no,'” Cameron said, “they’re likely breaking the law; and you can contact us at Bravebooks.com. We’ll show you how to host your own story hour, will donate to you a free book with all the instructions and guidance.
“And I personally put some of these libraries on notice with a public letter that says, ‘I hope you’ll reconsider; here’s a free book. But if you double down, I’m prepared to assert my constitutional rights in court,'” Cameron stated.
So, the peaceful fight against depravity continues. Pick your fighting style, and get engaged. GAND
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
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.
