Opinion

Home Opinion

Democrat House Intel Committee Chief Pressured Twitter to Ban Journalists and Critics

0

ANALYSIS – In the ‘yes, we were right all’ along category, it is crystal clear that leading Democrats politicos held enormous sway over the woke peons at Twitter, and still do at other Big Tech social media companies. 

And, in clear violation of the First Amendment, and press freedom, these top Democrats use that power to pressure these companies to suspend and ban journalists and critics alike.

In the latest bombshell drop from Musk’s Twitter Files we learn that by 2020, Twitter was inundated with requests and demands from elements of the government to censor various personalities and narratives.

The most egregious example is that of Adam Schiff, his position as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee gave him credibility to push false narratives, and then push Big Tech to censor any contrary views.

Significantly, Schiff’s office wanted Twitter to shut down one of the most effective journalists pushing back on his phony Russia collusion narrative.

Fox News reports:

Published Tuesday, the latest round of the Twitter Files – internal documents revealing how Twitter engaged in censorship and promoted disinformation in tandem with government agencies for the past few years – revealed that Schiff’s office asked Twitter to remove journalist Paul Sperry and others from the site. 

Taibbi, who published the Twitter Files post-by-post to Twitter at the behest of Musk, provided documentation showing that “the office for Democrat and House Intel Committee chief Adam Schiff” asked “Twitter to ban journalist Paul Sperry.”

The document Taibbi shared featured correspondence between the “House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee” – Schiff’s office – and Twitter, which included a request to “Suspend the many accounts, including @GregRubini and @paulsperry, which repeatedly promoted false QAnon conspiracies and harassed [REDACTED].”

In the article [Schiff wanted banned], Sperry said then-CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella was overheard talking in the White House with Sean Misko, a holdover staffer from former President Barack Obama’s administration.

A former official who reportedly heard the conversation told Sperry, “Just days after [Trump] was sworn in they were already trying to get rid of him.”

Paul Sperry is a senior staff writer for RealClearInvestigations and has also penned pieces for the New York Post, the Federalist, and other publications.

RealClearInvestigations senior writer Mark Hemingway tweeted, “Of course, Sperry’s real crime was doing vital reporting exposing the mistruths about Russia collusion, a subject Schiff lied about for years.”

The New York Post explained:

Sperry’s reporting clearly showed the partisan motives behind the leaks, and how they were partly manufactured partisan CIA hacks to bring down the former president.

Schiff’s outrageous demands and pressures were solely intended to crush that news from ever being seen.

Thankfully, not all the Twits at Twitter were as easy to manipulate as others. 

In response to the last Schiff request, another unidentified Twitter employee wrote, “no, this isn’t feasible/we don’t do that.”

But the fact that Schiff and other partisan Democrats succeeded many other times is the real issue. 

It’s also a good reason to have Schiff not only removed from the intelligence committee as the new GOP leadership intends, but to also remove him from Congress entirely for gross abuse of power and other ethical breaches.

The Legal Hit Squad Targeting Trump Lawyers

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: Poll Shows Patriotism, Faith In Sharp Decline

1

Have you seen the results of this poll? Are you concerned?

Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

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

‘Barbie’ Movie Banned in Vietnam as Hollywood Again Kowtows to China

1

ANALYSIS – China’s outrageous claim to almost the entire South China Sea – everything within a “nine-dash line” drawn on Chinese maps – has taken its most recent victim – the movie-viewing public in Vietnam. The Vietnamese government has banned the movie due to a scene with that Chinese-made line on a map.

China takes its illegal claim very seriously and strives to impose its visual representation on maps everywhere, including those appearing in Hollywood movies.

While it’s unclear why the soon-to-be-released film ‘Barbie’ about the iconic doll and her boyfriend Ken would get embroiled in international politics, it has. 

This south China Sea has been a flashpoint between Vietnam and China for years. The artificial line is shown on Chinese maps to mark their claims over the area despite Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia, and Taiwan claiming parts of the same vast expanse of sea.

Chinese warships and fishing vessels routinely operate in these waters to establish de-facto presence, often provoking clashes with neighboring countries.

The Daily Wire (DW) reported:

“We do not grant license for the American movie ‘Barbie’ to release in Vietnam because it contains the offending image of the nine-dash line,” Vi Kien Thanh, head of the Department of Cinema, a government body in charge of licensing and censoring foreign films, was quoted as saying in the state-run Tuoi Tre newspaper.

The movie’s trailer shows Barbie leaving her perfect doll world and to explore the “real world” after becoming disillusioned with her life.

So why did a big Hollywood studio decide to include this ridiculous claim in their otherwise non-political movies?

All I can think of is – in order to please the communists in Beijing. China is obviously a far bigger market than Vietnam. And who knows if Chinese investors were involved in the movie’s production.

DW notes:

“Barbie” isn’t the first film banned for including the nine-dash line. The Vietnamese government also blocked the DreamWorks animated film “Abominable” (2019) and the action-adventure film “Unchartered” (2022) for the same reason. Netflix removed the Australian spy drama “Pine Gap” in 2021 for their inclusion of the line.

Hollywood blockbusters including the Marvel films “Eternals” and “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings” have also been in China after directors or actors involved in the films made comments critical of China.

Another big controversy exploded in 2019 over the Tom Cruise movie ‘Top Gun: Maverick.’ Initially the movie appeared to remove the flags of Taiwan and Japan from Maverick’s flight jacket. The flags were part of historical patches representing prior U.S. naval deployments to the region.

As NBC News reported:

In 2019, the trailer for “Top Gun: Maverick” showed Cruise’s character, U.S. Navy pilot Pete Mitchell, in the same bomber jacket he wore in the original film. But two of its flag patches — representing Japan and the Republic of China, the official name for Taiwan — appeared to have been replaced by other emblems.

The move was criticized at the time as an act of self-censorship to please China’s censors. Beijing sees Taiwan, a self-ruling democracy of 24 million people, as an inalienable part of its territory and lashes out at any reference to it as a sovereign nation.  

In this case Hollywood, or Cruise, had a change of heart and reversed their apparent kowtowing to China. CHinese investors also pulled out of the movie.

NBC News continued:

On the film’s release last month after a two-year pandemic delay, both flags had been restored. At an advance screening in Taipei, the audience broke out in cheers and applause at the sight of the Taiwanese flag on the big screen, local news outlet SETN reported.

Sometimes in Hollywood the good guys do win. Sadly, not in the case of Barbie.

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

Forget China, You Can Now Take a Balloon to Edge of Space

0
Image via Pixabay free images

ANALYSIS – Until now, only billionaires could afford to enter sub-orbital space. And it needed to be by high-powered rocket (think Jeff Bezos in his Blue Origin, or Richard Branson in his Virgin Galactic). 

Star Trek actor William Shatner also did a flight on a Blue Origin’s rocket.

But now you too can see the earth from 20 miles high. It will cost you just over $120,000 and it’s by a high-altitude balloon.

And, no, it’s not aboard a Chinese spy balloon. These will be private companies running the trips.

The billionaires in rockets still have one treat we can’t get – they can briefly experience weightlessness. They also go twice as high.

Space officially starts at the Karman line, 62 miles above the earth’s surface. But for most people there won’t be that much of a difference.

And at half the price, no training required, and a much softer, smoother ride, these edge-of-space balloons will be far more accessible and may become popular among the slightly less rich.

And unlike the rockets, these balloons will give you a much longer ride, with luxury amenities, food, and drink.

There now appears at least two companies on the verge of launching these space balloon trips. One is American and the other is French.

Both seem to avoid mention of the 1937 Hindenburg hydrogen-filled dirigible disaster.

The French company Zephalto with its Celeste balloon will provide Michelin-starred fine dining. It is partnered with France’s national space agency.

These balloons filled with helium or hydrogen will depart from France with two pilots on board and six passengers and rise 15.5 miles into the stratosphere.

Once at peak altitude, the balloon, carrying a pressurized capsule, will stay aloft for three hours, giving guests a chance to take in views previously seen only by astronauts. While in the air, passengers will be served high-end French food and wines.

These near-space rides will start at €120,000 ($132,000) per person in 2025, Bloomberg reports.

The other option will be Florida-based Space Perspective, which is testing its own passenger balloon, designed to reach the edge of space.

Eight civilians and a pilot will be able to comfortably travel up 100,000 feet (19 miles) to near space in a reusable pressurized capsule carried by a gigantic hydrogen-filled balloon called Spacecraft Neptune – because Neptune’s atmosphere is predominantly hydrogen.

The company operates out of leased facilities at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, but plans to expand to Alaska and Hawaii, and then possibly to other countries around the world.

Flight will cost about $125,000 per person. And it plans to launch a year earlier than the Celeste.

Neptune’s ride will be similar to the Zephalto balloons, ascending at a sedate 12.5 miles per hour. It will give passengers two full hours to observe 360° views of Earth rotating beneath them and space above.

The overall ride will last six hours – two hours to ascend, two hours to float along the stratosphere, and two hours to descend into the Atlantic Ocean, where a recovery ship will be waiting.

The capsule comes complete with luxury seating, refreshments, a restroom, and Wi-Fi (so you can post to Instagram or live stream on Facebook as you fly – because – of course). The company plans to offer flights for weddings, corporate events, and scientific excursions.

Its flights are scheduled to begin in 2024, but the first batch of 600 tickets is already sold out.

Bon voyage. No smoking aboard.

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

Should Trump Bring Back His Winning ’16 Campaign Chief?

2

ANALYSIS – Will Kellyanne Conway return to Team Trump? As Kamala Harris, who recently stole the campaign from her boss, Joe Biden, basks in her current sugar high glory, some in the Trump campaign are wondering if his team needs a reboot. 

Or maybe an injection of a 2016 winner.

And who better to revitalize Trump’s campaign, than his winning campaign manager from 2016, Kellyanne Conway.

At least Donald Trump’s wife, Melania, reportedly thinks so.

And a recent post on X showing pics of Conway and Trump together in New Jersey has fueled the speculation that a return to the campaign is in the works.

In 2016 the brash flaxen haired pollster-turned campaign chief swooped in after the campaign’s failing start with its B Team and is rightly credited as helping to get Trump across the finish line to victory against Hillary Clinton.

According to the Daily Beast:

Donald Trump is looking to bring in Kellyanne Conway to shake up his faltering campaign, according to a new report.

The outspoken adviser is seen as a trusted confidante by both the former president and, importantly, by Melania Trump who is “pushing” for Conway to return because she sees her as “a familiar face amid a sea of relative newcomers,” says Tara Palmeri in the online magazine, Puck.

Lara Trump, co-chair of the Republican National Committee and wife of Trump’s son, Ericis also said to be pushing for Conway to be brought on board to reignite campaign stalwarts taken by surprise by Kamala Harris’ fast start after Joe Biden’s sudden departure.

One adviser told Puck that Trump listens to powerful women, more than men. “He listens to Hope Hicks. He listens to Brooke Rollins,” they tell Puck. “Ironically, he likes powerful women. If you’re a sharp woman, he will listen to you. Hope and these people could tell him the hardest shit. He may not have done anything, but at least he listens.”

While she was a key player in Trump’s 2016 win, eight years ago, she could still be the spark that relights the fire of a campaign still unsteady after Harris’ surprising Democrat Party coup and subsequent rise.

Puck notes:

…it may also be fair to question whether his brain trust is living in the past. Chris LaCivita, who famously ran the Swift Boat Veterans campaign against John Kerry, has spearheaded an attack on Walz’s military record, but it’s yet to have the same impact as it did in 2004, when the U.S. had recently invaded Iraq. Other Trump allies are wondering if pollster Tony Fabrizio is likewise frozen in carbonite, as he considers a race-baiting strategy against Harris akin to the Willie Horton ads against Dukakis back in 1988. 

Team Harris has raised $310 million in July, and another $36 million in the 24 hours after announcing her stolen Valor radical VP choice, Tim Walz.

So far Team Trump hasn’t been able to land any significant blows on his younger female political opponent.

According to Puck, Trump’s campaign team is split in half over whether she should return in a similar role to the one she had in 2016.

Meanwhile, Conway is smoothing over any ruffled feather with JD Vance after openly suggesting Marco Rubio as Trump’s VP.

As part of her mending relations effort, Conway recently tweeted “Brilliant” to Vance’s stunt when he landed at the same airport as Harris and Walz and challenged her to debate.

One big potential drawback to Team Trump is the fact that Conway recently registered as a $50,000- a month foreign agent for a Ukrainian oligarch.

This is already provoking accusations among her critics that it would be a conflict of interest. However, a campaign manager or advisor is not the same as a member of the administration. So, that issue may not matter much in these final three months of the campaign.

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

Amanda Head: DeSantis Flailing; Ramaswamy Surging!

0
Vivek Ramaswamy speaking with attendees at the 2022 AmericaFest at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Arizona.

Did you expect this?

Popular Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is flatlining in the polls while another Republican candidate for president is surging ahead.

Watch Amanda explain 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

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.

Liberal City Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over Reparations Scheme

2

A left-wing city council faces a class action lawsuit from concerned citizens over a scheme to give an average $25,000 in financial assistance to citizens based on their skin color.

The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced in a statement a hearing in its “class action civil rights lawsuit filed against Evanston, Illinois, on behalf of six individuals over the city’s reparations program.”

“To date, Evanston has awarded over $6,350,000 to 254 individuals based on their race. The city must be stopped before it spends even more money on this clearly discriminatory and unconstitutional reparations program,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

“The court ordered the in-person hearing for oral argument on Evanston’s pending motion to dismiss the lawsuit,” Judicial Watch reports.

Judicial Watch reports it “filed the lawsuit over the city’s use of race as an eligibility requirement for a reparations program, which makes $25,000 direct cash payments to black residents and descendants of black residents who lived in Evanston between the years 1919 and 1969.”

According to The New Republic, program will also reportedly give financial assistance to their descendants, who never experienced racism in Evanston.

Judicial Watch alleges “that the program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

In its response to the city’s motion to dismiss, Judicial Watch states:

[T]he program’s use of a race-based eligibility requirement is presumptively unconstitutional, and remedying societal discrimination is not a compelling government interest. Nor has remedying discrimination from as many as 105 years ago or remedying intergenerational discrimination ever been recognized as a compelling government interest. Among the program’s other fatal flaws is that it uses race as a proxy for discrimination without requiring proof of discrimination. 

Chicago Teens Kill Baby with Stolen Car Last Week, Still No Serious Charges

6
Image via Pixabay images

ANALYSIS – Is your city next? Democrat-run Chicago isn’t just a murder capital; it also has a car theft epidemic. It had more than 21,500 vehicle thefts last year, which includes violent carjackings. 

That is 55% more car thefts than last year.

Most of these crimes are committed by teens and gang members.

A recent “Teen Takeover” created violence and chaos as hundreds of teens mobbed Chicago streets and clashed with the police.

Meanwhile, Chicago’s far-left politicians and prosecutors continue to enable the young criminals.

And now it seems the Chicago Police Department is gun shy about charging juvenile delinquents with murder.

Last week, two teenage boys stole a Hyundai car and crashed it into another vehicle, a Ford pickup truck, killing a 6-month-old baby and seriously injuring his 34-year-old mother and her seven and fifteen-year-old daughters.

Both vehicles were demolished. The baby, Cristian Uvidia died in the hospital from damage to his skull.

“He suffered from an impact that fractured his skull, causing his brain to swell and eventually killing him,” Annelisse Rivera wrote on a GoFundMe page created for the family.. “We are devastated, and we are broken. We will miss his sweet smile, as he was a joy to everyone that he met.”

The New York Post reports that the juvenile criminals, ages 17 and 14, were each charged with just one misdemeanor count of “criminal trespassing” in the deadly April 16 crash in the city’s West Garfield Park neighborhood.

That’s an outrage.

Chicago police are saying that additional charges could be upgraded when the investigation is complete. But why haven’t they already charged the driver with murder, or at least vehicular manslaughter?

Everyone involved in this horrible crime where a baby was killed was immediately placed at the scene of the crash. How much investigation is needed?

As Hot Air notes:

Criminal Trespass to a Vehicle is a Class A Misdemeanor in Chicago. That carries a penalty of a fine of no more than $2,500 and less than a year in jail. Of course, since the gangbangers in this incident are all under 18, the charges will probably be kicked to the juvenile court, where they likely won’t even be sent to a day behind bars.

Jazz Shaw in Hot Air adds:

Also, what about the other two boys in the car? There are not yet any charges filed against them. I doubt they somehow wound up in the stolen car “accidentally.” It’s a safe bet that if those four haven’t already been indoctrinated into one of Chicago’s gangs, they had a gang contact waiting to buy the car from them if they managed to get away. And you can bet that the city’s gangbangers are watching this case closely and with approval.

Rivera, the injured mother who just lost her baby to these criminal punks, reportedly said the lack of serious charges was “disheartening.”

Chicagoans should be demanding that Kim Foxx, the Soros-funded State’s Attorney get involved, or at least say something. What about incoming Mayor Brandon Johnson?

Have Chicago’s residents become so inured to their city’s crime and the government’s response that they don’t care anymore?

Hopefully not. But without public outrage and political accountability, these soft-on-crime Democrat politicians will only ensure criminals will continue their murderous rampage across Chicago.

And your city may be next.

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