Opinion

Home Opinion Page 39

Is One of America’s Most Powerful Liberal Groups Illicitly Lobbying for this Foreign Billionaire?

2
Image via Pixabay free images

Members of Congress want to know if one of America’s most powerful liberal political groups is evading federal laws requiring them to report lobbying on behalf of foreign billionaires.

U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman Paul Gosar (R-AZ) want League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski to answer questions about LCV’s fundraising, lobbying, and political activities, and whether it is complying with the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

The League of Conservation Voters, a radical environmentalist group, is one of the nation’s most powerful political organizations.

OpenSecrets reports the LCV donated $15,129,989 to federal political candidates in 2020.  They also spent $42,272,125 on ads supporting or opposing federal candidates in 2020, making them the nation’s 15th-biggest political spending.

But members of Congress want to know if the LCV is lobbying lawmakers at the behest of Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss, a radical leftist who opposes American energy independence.

The members write:

“Following ‘intense lobbying’ from LCV and related groups that led to passage of the [Inflation Reduction Act,] you met then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi who told you Democrats ‘passed what you wanted’ and asked whether LCV would ‘have our backs’ in the 2022 election. Following the election, in an end-of-year memo on December 19, 2022, LCV detailed how the ‘LCV Victory Fund and affiliated entities invested more than $100 million’ to elect Democrat candidates that align with LCV’s eco-agenda agenda in the 2022 elections. Previously, in the 2018 cycle, LCV spent $80 million on candidates that support its eco-agenda.  

“LCV has registered to lobby on several activities within the jurisdiction of the Committee, including issues like opposing offshore drilling plans, supporting a ‘pause and review of the federal oil and gas program,’ and supporting the restoration and expansion of a number of national monuments. The Committee is concerned that LCV’s relationship with foreign donors, such as Swiss national Mr. Wyss, who are prohibited from contributing, either directly or indirectly, to domestic political campaigns may impact LCV’s political and lobbying activities relating to America’s ability to achieve energy independence. As you are aware, such political and lobbying activities may require compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act.   

“The central purpose of FARA is to ‘promote transparency with respect to foreign influence within the United States by ensuring that the United States government and the public know the source of certain information from foreign agents intended to influence American public opinion, policy, and laws.’ Hence, FARA requires any person or entity, including non-profits, to register with the Department of Justice (DOJ) if they act as an agent or at the request ‘of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly, supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal.’ Registration under FARA is also required for any entity that attempts, on behalf of a foreign principal, to influence any section of the U.S. public or a U.S. government official in ‘formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States.'”

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

Time Magazine Denies Nazi-Era Echo In Trump Cover Image

4
Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

Photographer’s nod to controversial 1963 portrait fuels speculation.

WASHINGTON — Time magazine is facing backlash over its latest cover photo of President Donald Trump, after online critics and media outlets pointed out a visual similarity to a portrait the magazine used 60 years ago featuring convicted Nazi industrialist Alfried Krupp.

The image, shot by photographer Stephen Voss, shows Trump looming over the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, dramatically lit from below. According to a report by The Daily Beast, the composition bears a striking resemblance to a 1963 photo of Krupp taken by the Jewish photographer Arnold Newman — a photograph widely studied for its chilling and deliberate framing of a man convicted of facilitating some of history’s most heinous crimes.

The Historical Background

Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach inherited control of the Krupp industrial empire from his father, Gustav Krupp, who had supported Adolf Hitler and helped finance the Nazis’ rise to power. Under Alfried’s leadership during World War II, Krupp factories supplied the Third Reich with armaments and heavy machinery vital to its war efforts, including tanks, submarines, and artillery.

National Museum of the U.S. Navy, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

After Germany’s defeat, Krupp was tried by the U.S. Military Tribunal in the Nuremberg Krupp Trial (officially The United States of America vs. Alfried Krupp, et al.), which took place from 1947 to 1948.

He was convicted primarily for:

  • Exploitation of Forced Labor: Krupp industries used 100,000 slave laborers and prisoners of war under brutal conditions. Many of these laborers were taken from occupied countries and concentration camps, forced to work long hours in unsafe factories.
Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-138-1083-20 / Kessler, Rudolf / CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 DE , via Wikimedia Commons
  • Plundering Occupied Territories: Krupp was found guilty of seizing industrial plants and raw materials from conquered nations to boost Nazi Germany’s armament production.
Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-2005-1017-521 / Gehrmann, Friedrich / CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 DE , via Wikimedia Commons
  • Participation in Crimes Against Humanity: The tribunal held that Krupp’s active role in maintaining and expanding his war production empire made him complicit in Nazi crimes.
Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1985-100-33 / Unknown authorUnknown author / CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 DE , via Wikimedia Commons

He was sentenced to 12 years in prison and had his property confiscated.

Newman’s portrait of Krupp is iconic in photographic circles. In the image, Krupp is seated at a desk under harsh lighting, his posture and setting portraying him as both powerful and ominous, reminiscent of a devil or a fiendish creature. Critics argue that Time’s Trump cover bears such a resemblance to Newman’s portrait that it cannot be a coincidence.

Photographer Reacts on Social Media

Voss, the photographer behind the Trump image, has not publicly commented on the comparison. However, he reportedly “liked” social media posts highlighting the resemblance — a move many interpret as a subtle acknowledgment of influence.

A spokesperson for Time magazine rejected the claims outright, telling The Daily Beast that “any suggestion of an intentional reference is completely untrue.”

Why This Matters

The controversy cuts across political and cultural lines:

  • Visual symbolism: Referencing imagery linked to Nazi figures — even inadvertently — risks crossing ethical and historical boundaries.
  • Editorial credibility: Time, known for its iconic covers, faces questions about whether such visual choices are neutral, intentional, or ideologically driven.
  • Trump’s image control: As a media-savvy political figure, Trump is acutely aware of how visuals shape perception. Whether intentional or not, the cover’s tone could affect public interpretation.

What’s Still Unknown

  • Was the similarity intentional? No direct evidence confirms that Voss or Time deliberately modeled the image after Newman’s Krupp portrait.
  • Does intent matter? Critics argue that even unintentional parallels can carry meaning, especially given the historical weight of the reference.
  • Will this have a lasting impact? It’s unclear, though likely, that the controversy will become another political flashpoint in media criticism.

A Larger Media Question

This episode adds fuel to a long-running debate over how the media portrays political leaders — especially those it opposes editorially. It also highlights the power images have in shaping public perception.

In an era when symbolism is parsed as carefully as language, even a magazine cover can carry profound consequences.

Ex-Porn Star, Now ‘Only Fans’ Performer Celebrates Hamas Terror Attacks 

0

ANALYSIS – While most of us don’t care much about what a deranged former porn star turned ‘Only Fans’ webcam model (‘cam girl’) says, it’s a sign of our times that this is news. 

Mia Khalifa is a 30-year-old Lebanese American born in Beirut and raised Catholic. But her previous life choices and current words and actions are far from Christian.

Once PornHub’s highest-ranked adult star, Khalifa left the hard-core porn business to focus on ‘Only Fans.’

Khalifa, who has long called Israel an apartheid state, provoked outrage with her enthusiastic support for Hamas terrorists following their horrific surprise attack on Israel which has taken over 800 Israeli lives, mostly civilians.

Her support for the terrorists was shameless calling them ‘freedom fighters’ — even urging the brutal murderers to “flip their phones and film” their murderous rampage on Israel in the “horizontal.”

When criticized for her horizontal comment, she responded, “I just wanna make sure there’s 4k footage of my people breaking down the walls of the open air prison they’ve been forced out of their homes and into so we have good options for the history books that write about how how they freed themselves from apartheid.”

Fox News reported:

She also reposted a message that said, “Babe wake up Palestine is getting liberated,” and mocked video of Israelis fleeing from attackers. Khalifa reposted anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian messages throughout the multipronged terrorist attack that left hundreds dead. Khalifa celebrated as terrifying videos, which included footage of Hamas kidnapping women and children while groups of young partygoers were tied up and taken into Gaza, shocked most onlookers.

In a separate, apparently now-deleted post on X, Khalifa reportedly called a photo of Hamas terrorists in a pickup truck a “Renaissance painting.”

Her support for Islamists terrorists is ironic considering that the pornographic performer also made headlines for claiming she received ISIS death threats as recently as 2018 over a sex scene she filmed wearing a hijab.

Her current online rantings seem to also be hurting her pocketbook.

Earlier, Khalifa doubled down amidst the backlash: “I’d say supporting Palestine has lost me business opportunities, but I’m more angry at myself for not checking whether or not I was entering into business with Zionists. My bad,” she wrote.

But maybe the online backlash has finally caused her to backtrack, with the disgraced porn actress apparently shifting from being pro-Hamas, to simply being pro-Palestinian.

Monday morning Khalifa posted on X:

Hamas is not Palestine’s army, their actions do not reflect the Palestinian people. Hamas formed in 1987, 20 years AFTER the occupation, as a means of resistance to ethnic cleansing and apartheid. They are an extremist group calling on other extremist groups that also do not represent the masses of people.

While no one should really care what Khalifa says, she can be seen as a bellwether of certain online opinions. And it is important to read them and counter outrageous opinions like hers wherever we find them.

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

Amanda Head: Biden Admin Leaves Americans In The Dark As Usual

4

Joe Biden prefers to keep Americans in the dark…especially when it comes to his administration’s many many mistakes.

Watch Amanda break down the latest scandal below:

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

Amanda Head: Big Culture War Victory!

1

Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

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

Investigate the ‘Other Insurrection’ – BLM’s 2020 ‘Battle for Lafayette Park’ and White House

2
A protester holds up a Black Lives Matter sign outside the Hennepin County Government Center.

ANALYSIS – The incessant drumbeat of the left’s campaign to keep the Capitol Riot in the news every day for nearly two years had some of its intended effects. 

It probably helped persuade some voters not to pull the lever for those ‘dangerous’ MAGA Republicans during the midterm elections.

It also may dissuade others not to vote for Trump or the GOP in 2024.

And some of that concern may be justified.

But the GOP and the right also failed miserably by not forcefully pushing the truth about the ‘other insurrection’ – the one against Trump and the White House by violent leftists under the BLM flag in May/June 2020.

I was a risk advisor to foreign TV news crews during both violent riots. 

I also strongly condemned both, writing of the Capitol rioters at the time: “…many were goons and criminals, and yes, ‘terrorists.’ No better than Antifa or BLM, or the #NotMyPresident rioters who disrupted Trump’s Inaugural four years ago.”

I added of the violent Capitol rioters: “Whoever they were, they should be seen and treated as criminals. Arrested and prosecuted.”

This sentiment didn’t apply to the hundreds who simply entered the Capitol non-violently, but that’s another issue altogether.

Unfortunately, the left, colluding with the establishment media and Democrats in Congress and the White House, only ‘remembers’ one riot and erased that other one from history.

If they mention the violent BLM riot at the White House at all, they focus on Trump’s Bible photo op the next morning at St John’s Episcopal Church, the site across from the White House of an attempted arson the night before.

They also forget how they aggressively attacked any attempt by Trump, and federal and local authorities, to bring order to the violence.

I even had a Canadian TV news reporter claim to me months after the protests at the White House that they were totally peaceful. 

She said this nonsense despite the fact that the violence was reported, albeit briefly.

And I had to forcibly intervene to protect one of her colleagues, a cameraman who was savagely beaten by two ‘BLM’ assailants without justification, while the crew was simply changing batteries and reorganizing away from the main battle lines.

The cameraman fortunately was wearing a helmet at my suggestion, and ‘only’ suffered a mild concussion.

I personally witnessed hundreds of rioters almost break through the thin improvised line of U.S. Park Police and Uniformed Secret Service in the park, while DC Metropolitan Police, for political reasons, assembled on the sidelines.

As a security expert, I was concerned that there weren’t enough police to stop the large violent mob from crashing the fence at the White House; a concern apparently shared by the Secret Service who at one point that night rushed Trump to the protected underground bunker.

A claim Trump sadly denied.

I also witnessed everything described by CNN below, and more.

 As CNN reported at the time on May 31, 2020:

More than 60 US Secret Service Uniformed Division officers and special agents were injured starting Friday night through Sunday morning near the White House as protests rocked Washington, DC, following the death of George Floyd last week, according to a statement from the Secret Service.

The officers and agents were injured when protesters threw “projectiles such as bricks, rocks, bottles, fireworks and other items,” according to the statement. “Personnel were also directly physically assaulted as they were kicked, punched and exposed to bodily fluids.”

CNN teams were on hand for much of the protests and witnessed protesters throwing objects at officers and pulling temporary fencing away from them. 

Eleven Secret Service employees were transported to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries. A secret service officer suffered a head injury after being assaulted by BLM & far-left rioters trying to storm the White House. Dozens of other Secret Service agents were injured as well.

This was also a violent riot, or call it an insurrection, but in this case against President Trump, the Executive Branch, and the politically sacred space of the ‘People’s House.’ 

Perhaps with GOP control of the House, we can see a real congressional investigation of this ‘other insurrection.’

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.

Heartwarming: Commie Biz Owner Forced To Close Cafe

1

You can’t help but smile when you see this…

Watch Amanda explain the controversy below:

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

FBI Sued for Documents on Cover-up of Hunter Biden Gun Sale

4
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)

While law-abiding gun owners and sellers nationwide are targeted by the FBI and Justice Department over paperwork errors, at least one politically powerful gun owner may have gotten special treatment from the agency after his firearm was illegally left in a public trash can.

The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for FBI records about a gun owned by President Joe Biden’s 53-year-old son Hunter Biden, that reportedly was tossed in trash can behind a Delaware grocery store.

“The FBI and Secret Service have both been implicated in a corrupt clean-up operation to protect Hunter Biden from the criminal consequences of his gun scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Multiple media outlets reported in October 2020, weeks before the presidential election between Joe Biden and President Donald Trump, that in October 2018, Hunter Biden’s handgun was taken by his girlfriend Hallie Biden, also the widow of his brother Beau. 

Hallie Biden, fearing what Hunter may do with the gun, threw it in a trash can across the street from a high school.  Realizing what she did, she later returned to retrieve the weapon, but found it missing.

Delaware police began investigating, fearing the illegally-disposed weapon may have been taken by a high school student, or could be later used in a crime.

But the case took a different turn when the Secret Service showed up.

Rather than investigate the Bidens for illegally disposing of a weapon, or helping track it down, Secret Service agents showed up at the store where it was purchased and seized all paperwork connecting Hunter Biden to the gun, according to two people, one of whom has firsthand knowledge of the episode and the other was briefed by a Secret Service agent after the fact.

Judicial Watch filed suit after FBI did not comply with a January 30, 2023, FOIA request for “all records, including investigative reports, telephone logs, witness statements, memoranda, and firearms purchase documentation, related to the reported purchase, possession, and disposal of a firearm owned by Hunter Biden discarded in a Delaware trash receptacle circa October 2018.”

In a separate FOIA lawsuit, Judicial Watch received records from the United States Secret Service implicating FBI in the unusual action to help Hunter Biden.

In response, Judicial Watch also asked for “all records of communications of FBI officials regarding the reported purchase, possession, and disposal of the firearm,” which may detail an effort to cover up any potential Biden family crime.

Included in those Secret Service records is a response to a February 2021 email from Politico reporter Ben Schreckinger regarding the Secret Service’s involvement in the investigation of the Hunter Biden gun incident, the Communications Department asks for “more information or documentation.” 

“Sure thing. Agents visited StarQuest Shooters & Survival Supply and asked to take possession of the paperwork Hunter had filled out to purchase a gun there. The FBI also had some involvement in the investigation,” Schreckinger wrote.

Judicial Watch also uncovered a March 2021 email from New York Post reporter Lorena Mongelli, who reached out to the Secret Service Communications Office, asking for comment on text messages on Hunter Biden’s lost laptop.

“It appears the text messages were sent from Hunter Biden in which he indicates that the Secret Service did in fact respond to the Oct. 23, 2018 [gun] incident. This information contradicts your previous statement relating to the incident and we would like to know whether the Secret Service would like to respond to these new findings,” Mongelli wrote.

“We have received your inquiry, would you be able to provide copies of these alleged text messages for reference?,” replied a person from the Communications Office, whose name is redacted.

Mongelli responds, noting the involvement of the FBI and Secret Service:

The Daily Mail actually posted copies of the same text messages the NY Post is referencing. This is what one text message says:

“She stole the gun out of my trunk lock box and threw it in a garbage can full to the top at Jansens [sic]. Then told me it was my problem to deal with,” Hunter wrote.

“Then when the police the FBI the secret service came on the scene she said she took it from me because she was scared I would harm myself due to o my drug and alcohol problem and our volatile relationship and that she was afraid for the kids.”

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

GOP Leaders Fund Anti-Freedom Caucus Primary Candidates

2
Ted Eytan from Washington, DC, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

In the quiet corridors of Republican power, something unprecedented is happening. For decades, party leadership maintained a mostly unspoken, but deeply respected ethic: do not intervene in open-seat primaries, especially in safely Republican districts. Let the voters decide. Let the grassroots rise. Let the contest unfold without the heavy thumb of Washington tipping the scale. This was not merely tradition. It was a matter of trust, a recognition that voters, not donors, not operatives, not Majority Whips, should choose the next Republican standard-bearer. Today, that ethic is being cast aside.

The stage is Arizona’s 5th Congressional District, a deep-red seat held by House Freedom Caucus (HFC) stalwart Andy Biggs, who is stepping down to pursue the governorship. Historically, this would be the moment for conservative insurgents to rise, for HFC allies to present their case to voters without interference from party brass. Instead, what we are witnessing is an unmistakable effort by House Republican leadership to erase one of the Freedom Caucus’s most reliable seats.

Three separate leadership PACs have now contributed directly to Jay Feely, a former NFL kicker and establishment-favored Republican who is not aligned with the Freedom Caucus. Majority Whip Tom Emmer’s “Electing Majority Making Effective Republicans” PAC gave $5,000. NRCC Chair Richard Hudson’s “First in Freedom PAC” gave $2,500. And Rep. Juan Ciscomani, of neighboring AZ-6, added $1,000 from his own “Defending the American Dream PAC.” These are not idle contributions. They are targeted, strategic, and meant to shape the outcome of a race that should have been left to the people.

Only one candidate in the race, Daniel Keenan, a local home builder, has pledged to join the Freedom Caucus. His candidacy represents continuity with Biggs’s conservative legacy. Feely’s candidacy, by contrast, is backed by leadership precisely because it promises rupture. That is the point. The goal here is not merely to elect a Republican, but to deny the seat to the Freedom Caucus entirely.

To grasp the seriousness of this act, one must understand just how rare it is. Leadership PACs, particularly those operated by high-ranking figures like the Majority Whip and NRCC Chair, have historically stayed neutral in Republican primaries unless protecting incumbents. This was not a legal requirement, but a moral one. Rick Scott, as NRSC chair, was emphatic on this point during his tenure: “We should remain neutral in primaries, except in the cases of GOP incumbents. The voters will decide.”

In fact, neutrality in safe-seat primaries was such a bedrock value that during the contentious 2023 Speaker’s race, conservative holdouts demanded that Kevin McCarthy enshrine it in writing. The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), the House GOP’s main super PAC aligned with McCarthy, publicly promised not to interfere in open safe Republican primaries. CLF president Dan Conston declared, “CLF will not spend in any open-seat primaries in safe Republican districts, and CLF will not grant resources to other super PACs to do so.” That promise secured enough support for McCarthy to win the gavel. It was a recognition that such meddling would constitute a betrayal.

And yet, here we are, watching as Emmer, Hudson, and Ciscomani appear to do precisely what CLF promised not to do. They are not spending millions, but the act is significant because of who they are and what it signals. A whisper from the Majority Whip carries weight. A nod from the NRCC chair is not an idle gesture. Their PAC money announces a clear intention: the Republican Party must no longer accommodate the Freedom Caucus.

To call this behavior unethical is not hyperbole. The entire point of leadership PACs is to strengthen the party against Democrats, not to wage civil war within it. Donors to these PACs do not expect their money to be used to sandbag fellow Republicans who happen to believe in a stricter reading of the Constitution, in tighter budgets, in actually following the rules. They expect their money to be used to expand the majority, not to hollow it out ideologically.

This is why even modest interventions like these cause such a stir. They are not just financial acts, but symbolic declarations. They say to the conservative base, “You are not welcome here.” They say to the House Freedom Caucus, “You will be replaced.” They signal that what was once an uneasy coalition is now an open conflict.

There is precedent, to be sure, but not encouraging one. In 2016, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Tim Huelskamp was defeated in his Kansas primary after outside money flooded the race. It was widely seen as retaliation for his opposition to then-Speaker John Boehner. The establishment, furious at Huelskamp’s independence, funded a challenger, Roger Marshall, who went on to win. At the time, that maneuver was shocking. Paul Gosar, another HFC member, remarked, “The Freedom Caucus hasn’t challenged sitting members. We’ve only played in open seats. But isn’t it interesting that K Street and Wall Street are playing against our members?”

Now, that behavior is becoming institutional. The NRCC chair and the Majority Whip are no longer merely allowing such intervention, they are directing it. The shift is profound. It marks a move from tolerating intra-party dissent to crushing it.

What changed? The rise of the Freedom Caucus has been a source of anxiety for establishment Republicans ever since its inception. But with the return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2025 and the growing alignment between the Freedom Caucus and the MAGA base, that anxiety has morphed into fear. The Freedom Caucus has shown it can shape leadership elections, influence appropriations bills, and demand accountability. It is no longer a fringe. It is a force. And that makes it a target.

Trump himself has called Tom Emmer a “RINO” and opposed his speakership bid. Hudson and Ciscomani have similarly earned the ire of MAGA-aligned voters for their votes on spending bills and procedural maneuvers seen as too accommodating to Democrats. The leadership PAC donations in Arizona’s 5th are not just about that race. They are part of a larger strategy to neutralize the most vocal advocates of the America First agenda.

None of this is illegal. But neither is it wise. When party leadership abandons neutrality, it sends a message to grassroots conservatives: your vote does not count unless we approve of your candidate. That message corrodes trust. It demoralizes volunteers. It severs the organic connection between representative and represented. It replaces the republican with the oligarchic.

The party should not fear its conservative wing. It should listen to it. If leadership believes Freedom Caucus members are too extreme, they should make that argument on the merits, in public, and with courage. They should not attempt to buy the outcome behind closed doors with PAC money. That is not persuasion. That is manipulation.

What is unfolding in Arizona’s 5th is not just a local race. It is a test case. If leadership succeeds in deleting a Freedom Caucus seat here, others will follow. More PAC money will flow. More loyal conservatives will be boxed out before the voters even speak. The House Freedom Caucus will be diminished, not by debate or democracy, but by design.

This is not the path to unity. It is the road to irrelevance. The Republican Party must decide whether it wishes to be a big tent or a closed club. If the answer is the latter, it should at least have the honesty to admit it.

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

Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

.