Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
ANALYSIS – Your federal tax dollars, hard at work – The far-left l*nacy has taken control of so many formerly respected American institutions, it’s tough for some of them to outdo themselves.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) though wasn’t content just m*sinforming Americans about C*VID-19’s o*igins, risks, m*sking, and l*ckd*wns, it is now promoting l*ftist ins*nity and likely endangering the health of babies.
And it is time for Congress to investigate.
The CDC, with a $12 billion budget and more than 12,000 employees, is an Atlanta-based federal agency tasked with protecting Americans from disease outbreaks and other public health threats. Dr. Rochelle Walensky, ex-head of the CDC under Joe Biden resigned effective June 30, without explanation.
Previously an infectious-diseases specialist at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Walensky had no experience running a government agency prior to being picked for the job by Biden.
The agency recently published advice for ‘tr*ns-id*ntified’ and ‘n*n-bi*ary’ individuals (aka m*n) on how to bre*stfeed their infants, which the health agency called “ch*stfe*ding.”
CDC gives guidance for trans people 'chestfeeding' kids, accused of failing to consider possible health risks https://t.co/FgmE3txKV9
Biological men who tr*nsition to women can produce a form of br*astmilk by taking a cocktail of h*rmone drugs that mimic the changes a woman’s body undergoes during the late stages of pregnancy and shortly after the birth of a child.
Initially developed for biological women who adopted or had a child via surrogacy and wanted to bre*stfeed, it’s called the N*wman-G*ldfarb pr*tocol, and it tricks the body into l*ctating.
The CDC’s Health Equity Considerations page explains that these bi*logical men don’t need to physically have a child to feed a child from the ch*st: “An individual does not need to have given birth to br*astfeed or ch*stfeed,” the CDC website reads.
The now thoroughly discredited agency also notes that br*astfeeding can be referred to as ‘b*dyfeeding’ which sounds like it’s describing something gr*tesque out of a ho*ror movie.
It notes: “Some families may have other preferred terminology for how they feed their babies, such as nursing, ch*stfeeding, or bo*yf*eding.”
Jay W. Richards, a senior research fellow in religious liberty and civil society at the Heritage Foundation, called for greater review of the health agency from congressional leaders.
He told The Christian Post that the CDC showed a willingness to put politics ahead of public health during C*VID, adding that the “latest debacle” over “ch*stf*eding is even worse.”
Encouraging bi*logical men on off-label g*nder ch*nge drugs to ‘ch*stfeed’ babies is crazy, and risky.
“The agency seems to be tacitly endorsing males’ chestfeeding’ infants with the help of experimental drug cocktail now proves that the CDC has been captured by an ideology that puts the fetishes of disturbed men over the wellbeing of infants,” Richards stated. “It doesn’t even pretend that these experiments have been carefully tested. Its commitment to so-called ‘health equity’ seems to override any old-timey concerns about the effects of drugs, and weird discharges from male bodies, on defenseless infants.”
The CDC’s endorsement of biological men feeding infants directly from the breast has also received pushback from several health experts, who warn that the long-term impact of the practice is not well-known.
U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kansas, who served as an Obstetrician for 25 years and delivered over 5,000 babies, said in a statement that the CDC statement is “irresponsible” “defies science and safety.”
“In my opinion, the CDC has lost all credibility and is in direct conflict with the FDA for marketing a non-FDA approved drug,” Marshall said. “A biological male filled with hormones and a concoction of other drugs that have not been studied that could harm a baby should NEVER be encouraged. When will the Woke Left wake up and realize what they are doing to our country?”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
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.”
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.
ANALYSIS – LONG OVERDUE – Thenew Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government will soon be investigating federal agencies that have abused their power and violated Americans’ rights.
The spotlight should be especially focused on those federal agencies in the law enforcement and intelligence arenas.
As I have repeatedly argued, this subcommittee is long overdue and badly needed, as the always growing behemoth that is our federal government has in recent years been fully weaponized for partisan gain and abused citizens of all stripes.
The active partisan involvement by the FBI in helping cover up Hunter Biden’s laptop, along with current and retired senior officials in the intelligence community working to discredit the laptop, should be front and center of these investigations.
As should the entire Hillary Clinton campaign contrived Trump-Russia-collusion hoax.
More recently, new bombshells of this vast federal overreach and abuse have been dropped by Elon Musk’s ‘Twitter Files’ expose’.
These files show a deep unconstitutional collusion between the FBI and a multitude of federal agencies and Big Tech, especially Twitter to censor and block online content posted and read by millions of Americans.
This illegal activity violating Americans’ first amendment rights is also a huge concern.
For now, the subcommittee will specifically look at abuses by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI, the legality of vaccine mandates, disinformation about conservative-sponsored election security laws, and censorship by big tech firms under government pressure, according to subcommittee members.
While created by Republicans the new select subcommittee has a broad mandate. It will be chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).
Since its creation, some Democrats have called the panel a Republican ploy to deflect from ongoing investigations into the Jan. 6 Capitol breach and former President Donald Trump.
On January 10, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) using every leftist talking point and incendiary partisan term he could muster, called it “nothing more than a deranged ploy by the MAGA extremists who have hijacked the party and want to use taxpayer money to push their far-right conspiracy nonsense.”
Republican subcommittee members dismissed these allegations, with one congressman saying that this vast federal overreach which they will be investigating represents “the signature abuse of power of our time,” in much the same way Watergate defined another era.
The new panel will examine how these abuses happened, how to correct them, and how to make sure the abuses won’t happen again, subcommittee member Rep. Mike Johnson told The Epoch Times.
“Since the beginning of the Biden administration, some federal agencies designed to serve and keep Americans safe have instead been turned against them,” he said.
“This fact is beyond dispute. The Biden Administration has used counterterrorism resources against the parents of school children, raided the homes of political opponents, targeted conservative states over their election integrity laws, inflated domestic extremism statistics, and instituted illegal vaccine mandates, just to name a handful of examples,” he added.
However, the members emphasized that the subcommittee won’t be limited to investigating specific abuses, like the Russian collusion hoax or specific agencies.
“We have a very broad charter. We’re not limited to [investigating the] DOJ and FBI,” said Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).
That is a good thing, because the abuse and corruption at our federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies extends far beyond the DOJ and the FBI.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
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.
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America,
ANALYSIS – Tucker Carlson strikes again. As a lifelong conservative, I often approved of Carlson’s message. He often took on the liberal media and skewered those on the Left.
But increasingly, his ‘populist’ stick is wearing thin.
Some of his conspiracy theories have proven to be farfetched, if not nutty. And his pro-Russia line has become predictable, even to the Kremlin.
But now he is showing some additional worrisome traits – isolationism to the point of pacifism and surrender, under the guise of ‘realism.’
Is he guilty of “moral stupidity”?
I know he likes his clicks and views and wants more attention since being dropped from Fox, but come on, Tucker – WTH?
On Monday, just two days after Hamas terrorists raped, slaughtered and pillaged their way across southern Israel, Carlson posted a video on X.
In it, he perfunctorily acknowledged that the murderous Hamas rampage was a “crime,” and Israel had a right to defend itself, before quickly moving on to his now preferred line of: ‘everything we, or our allies, may do to defend against aggression may lead to nuclear war.’
“The question for American policymakers, however, is what do we do next?” asked Carlson before suggesting that the events of last weekend could easily lead to war with Iran and even the use of nuclear weapons.
My questions for Tucker: Can you spend just a little longer showing sincere outrage at what happened in Israel?
And can you spend a little longer understanding the bigger threat posed to the U.S. by Iran?
Yes, a lot of things happening in the world today could lead to nuclear war: Russia invading Ukraine; Iran directing Hamas to slaughter Israelis; China invading Taiwan. All could lead to a potential nuclear conflict. Potentially.
And that fear is what our mortal enemies want to paralyze us with. In this way, Carlson is now the poster child for enemy propaganda. He could have been part of the leftist, Moscow-directed, ‘Nuclear Freeze’ movement during the Cold War.
Don’t do anything outside the United States or you might start WWIII. That’s not a sound policy.
Carlson is also getting increasingly vicious and petty in his attacks against anyone he disagrees with, now usually fellow conservatives. Even when he is totally wrong.
He savaged Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley for suggesting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu“finish” Hamas once and for all. Something Bibi should do.
“She’s a child and this is the tantrum of a child,” ranted Carlson, calling her comments “ignorant, cocksure,” and “bloodthirsty.”
Sadly, Carlson mistook Haley’s remarks for talking about Iran rather than Hamas, so he was totally off, and it wasn’t even relevant. Ooops.
Which is another thing I’ve been noticing about him. He is increasingly just plain sloppy. And at least two of these harsh names also apply more to his guest, Vivek Ramaswamy, and himself, than to Haley.
I also wish Carlson would have used the third term – ‘bloodthirsty’ – to refer to Hamas, rather than fellow conservative, Haley.
But to Carlson, his fellow Americans deserve more insults than our enemies. That is concerning.
Carlson simply fails to understand that Iran is behind the attack on Israel, and that this attack is part of a much bigger campaign by Iran against the West and the United States.
But Carlson’s attempt to equate fentanyl overdoses in the United States, which is a tragedy (that Joe Biden has abetted through his open border policy), and the deliberate massacres in Israel, was just obscene.
And that part of Carlson’s tirade provoked conservative commentator Ben Shapiro to launch into a blistering criticism of him.
It is a moral atrocity and a moral evil for people to kidnap women, rape them and drag them back to the Gaza border. Those are not the same thing and Tucker knows that. But this is a cheap way of telling you not to look. Don’t look. Stop caring. Because after all, what does it matter? What does it matter? Now again, I don’t know who thinks that that’s a sophisticated point of view, especially when nobody is calling for America to go to war with Iran [to be fair, Lindsey Graham IS calling for an attack against Iran, but ONLY IF it directly attacks Israel]. The entire purpose of having an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean is to avoid that. But here is Tucker playing — I don’t even know the game he’s playing. It’s just a dumb, it’s a dumb game.
Shapiro added:
That is not the same thing. I promise you, it is not the same thing as a terrorist breaking into your home and murdering your children in their beds in front of you and dragging your wife off to be raped in Gaza. That is not the same thing. Pretending that is a moral, it’s a moral blight. It’s idiocy. It’s just moral stupidity at the highest level.
Of course, we should care about what happens with fentanyl. Of course, we should care about — we should close our border. Have I been unclear about this? Of course, America should have closed borders when it comes to this sort of stuff. I’m on the same side as Tucker on that. I just don’t understand why he’s not on my side when it comes to ‘Hamas has to be wiped off the face of the earth.’
And to be clear myself — while I agree that we need to weigh the risks in any U.S. involvement in this escalating Mideast conflict, it’s not just Israel’s fight. Iran is gunning for us, and Israel is just in its way.
Carlson needs to get a reality check on his foreign policy ‘realism.’
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Twitter CEO Elon Musk has reinstated former President Donald Trump’s access to his infamous Twitter account which was notoriously blocked following the Jan. 6th Capitol riot.
While the former President has yet to make his re-entrance to the Twitter sphere, instead opting for his own TRUTH Social platform, the idea is enough to make liberals’ blood boil over.
A recent article claims that the notion of waking up early with the rising sun is rooted in white supremacy…It doesn’t get more unbelievable than this.
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
