A former SpaceX security official has taken legal action against the company, accusing it of fostering a workplace culture hostile to women and enabling critical lapses in national security procedures, Breitbart reported.
Jenna Shumway, once a senior contractor program security officer for SpaceX, filed a federal lawsuit alleging harassment, gender discrimination, retaliation, and severe security violations by a high-ranking employee and the company itself.
Shumway joined SpaceX in 2022 and was later promoted to a senior security role overseeing compliance for government contracts. The work environment, she says, changed dramatically in 2024 following the hire of Daniel Collins, a former Defense Department official brought in to lead security for sensitive programs. Shumway alleges that with Collins’ arrival in the spring of 2024, her responsibilities were slowly stripped away.
By October 2024, Shumway was terminated from her position. Her lawsuit, filed in late May 2025, claims that the mistreatment was both targeted and systemic, impacting not only her but other female colleagues as well. The court documents allege continued discrimination under Collins’ supervision, including actively preventing female staff from fulfilling their duties just to place them in technical non-compliance.
The lawsuit, initially brought before the Los Angeles County Superior Court, has since moved into federal jurisdiction. In its claims, Shumway details her repeated efforts to alert the SpaceX human resources department about Collins’ behavior, including what she describes as sexually inappropriate comments and unprofessional conduct. One incident cited in the filing involves Collins allegedly inviting a subordinate to “get s–tty together” over drinks.
Shumway also accuses Collins of staring at a colleague's chest during a meeting—a pattern that she says illustrates a broader culture of gender misconduct condoned at high levels within the company. Despite complaints made by Shumway and other employees, HR allegedly failed to take meaningful action, only suggesting staff avoid being alone with Collins.
Beyond allegations of discrimination, the lawsuit raises alarming national security concerns. It claims that Collins violated top-secret security protocols and hid these actions from relevant federal agencies. These reported breaches, according to the complaint, were not one-off occurrences but part of a broader pattern of neglect tied directly to executive decisions.
According to the lawsuit, Collins allowed individuals without the proper security clearances to attend meetings involving classified content. The court filing also alleges that he discouraged employees from reporting clearance violations, further exacerbating potential national security risks. These actions reportedly triggered three separate federal reviews of the company’s security operations by late 2024.
These issues became public in a December 2024 New York Times article, which noted SpaceX was under federal review for what was described as concerning lapses in security oversight. The article supported claims that Collins’ leadership style contributed to procedural failures across sensitive contracts involving the U.S. government.
Shumway’s case adds to existing legal pressures facing SpaceX. The California Civil Rights Department and the National Labor Relations Board are already investigating the company for similar claims of workplace hostility and gender-based discrimination. These probes suggest Shumway’s experience may reflect a larger systemic problem rather than an isolated complaint.
The legal filing argues that the company failed in its duty not only to provide a safe environment but also to protect national interests. Shumway maintains that her decision to come forward was based on a consistent pattern of retaliation and neglect at high levels within SpaceX. Her termination came soon after she began raising formal concerns about both conduct and compliance lapses.
The case could have far-reaching implications, particularly concerning how private aerospace contractors manage obligations under federal security agreements. With SpaceX playing a growing role in military and intelligence contracts, the claims may prompt increased oversight by federal agencies and defense partners.
As court proceedings unfold, attention will likely focus on whether the alleged behavior by Collins represents a breach of trust with national stakeholders. If substantiated, the consequences for SpaceX could extend well beyond employment law and into national defense partnerships. Any verified violations may affect its standing with U.S. government contractors and security agencies.
Neither SpaceX nor Collins has yet provided public comment in response to the lawsuit. It also remains unclear if the company will conduct its own internal probe separate from the ongoing federal reviews. Meanwhile, Shumway’s legal team is expected to push for depositions and document disclosures related to both HR actions and classified project management.
A report released Wednesday reveals intelligence agencies were aware that the Steele Dossier was not credible when they launched an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, the Daily Caller reported. This fact vindicates President Donald Trump's innocence in a scandal that should never have occurred.
Under then-President Barack Obama, the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment included the narrative about Russian collusion with Trump, even though analysts knew the information was not credible. The assessment conducted by the ICA in June revealed this information.
According to the review, many high-level CIA officials were aware that the Steele Dossier did not meet the standards typically used for such evidence. They "strongly opposed" its inclusion in the assessment, but they were overruled.
The Central Intelligence Agency’s Directorate of Analysis has determined that John Brennan, then the head of the CIA, was responsible for including the dossier in the review knowing the problems it had. "The decision by agency heads to include the Steele Dossier in the ICA ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment," the review found.
The 2017 ICA assessment asserted that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought "to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability." Putin also allegedly had a "clear preference for President-elect Trump," according to the erroneous evidence.
However, this narrative should never have gained traction, as it was clear that there were several issues with the Steele Dossier. What's worse is that Brennan didn't seem to care despite being aware of them.
"CIA’s Deputy Director for Analysis (DDA) warned in an email to Brennan on 29 December that including it in any form ‘risked the entire credibility of the paper.' Despite these objections, Brennan showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness," the review said.
Seasoned operatives shared their misgivings, but Brennan apparently was "more swayed by the Dossier’s general conformity with existing theories than by legitimate tradecraft concerns." The June review noted the problems were glaringly obvious.
"The DA Review identified multiple procedural anomalies in the preparation of the ICA. These included a highly compressed production timeline, stringent compartmentation, and excessive involvement of agency heads, all of which led to departures from standard practices in the drafting, coordination, and reviewing of the ICA," it concluded.
The review was a long time coming, and the Trump-appointed CIA Director John Ratcliffe commissioned it now that a Republican is back in office. The results showed that the intelligence agencies under Obama were targeting Trump.
“This was [President Barack] Obama, [FBI Director James] Comey, [Director of National Intelligence James] Clapper and Brennan deciding ‘We’re going to screw Trump.' It was, ‘We’re going to create this and put the imprimatur of an IC assessment in a way that nobody can question it,'" Ratcliffe said.
Despite these bombshell revelations, Republican Arkansas Rep. Rick Crawford complained that the review wasn't thorough enough. "The CIA’s self-review of its 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Election Interference falls FAR SHORT of the full truth," Crawford said on X, formerly Twitter, on Thursday.
"It is abysmal CIA would put out a memo with half-truths, inaccuracies, and blatant omissions about the full extent of the Russia hoax and the deep state’s role. Even worse, they released this report while holding the Intel Committee’s report on the same issue hostage for 7 years," Crawford added.
Trump claimed all along that his opposition unfairly targeted him in 2016 and beyond. Now that the president has been vindicated in a significant way, it still remains to be seen whether anything will change, given the apparent corruption in the intelligence community.
The U.S. Supreme Court has added to President Donald Trump's winning streak with another favorable decision on immigration.
The court's lopsided 7-2 ruling rebuked a Biden-appointed judge who tried to stop Trump from deporting a group of hardened, foreign criminals to South Sudan.
The case centers on Trump's efforts to rapidly deport illegal aliens to "third countries" where they have no ties. The controversy deals in particular with eight convicted criminals who were sent to Africa with minimal due process.
In April, a district court judge blocked the Trump administration from removing aliens to third countries without notice. The Supreme Court lifted the injunction in late June, but the district judge, Brian Murphy, claimed that the Supreme Court's ruling did not apply to a separate court order shielding eight men in Djibouti from being sent to South Sudan.
The Trump administration cried foul, accusing Murphy of defying the highest court in the land, and asked the justices to clarify their June ruling.
Now, the court has plainly spoken: Murphy is wrong. This means Trump can proceed with sending the eight men, who are being held at a U.S. base in Djibouti, to South Sudan.
"Our June 23 order stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction in full. The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable," the court wrote in a brief unsigned order.
The ruling is a significant win for Trump, as it empowers him to deport aliens whose home countries refuse to take them back. The eight aliens in this case have been convicted of graphic crimes like murder and rape.
"These sickos will be in South Sudan by Independence Day," DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told Newsweek.
The Supreme Court's liberals have focused on human rights concerns, warning that aliens could face torture once deported to unstable countries where they don't know anyone.
Two of the court's liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined in a dissent.
"What the Government wants to do, concretely, is send the eight noncitizens it illegally removed from the United States from Djibouti to South Sudan, where they will be turned over to the local authorities without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death," said Justice Sotomayor.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote a short concurring opinion in which she expressed disagreement with the justices' June ruling, but she said the district court was nevertheless out of line to continue enforcing an order that the Supreme Court voided.
"I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed," she wrote.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
At least partly because of the exhaustive promotions of transgenderism during Joe Biden's term in the White House, the fight over boys in girls sports and men in women's showers right now is white hot.
Lawsuit abound, confrontations happen regularly and fullscale battles are erupting over tax money being used for the unscientific ideology, as being male or female is embedded in the human body at the DNA level, and does not change.
Activists claim that boys who say they are girls have every right to be in competitions set up for girls because they believe they are girls, in apparent defiance of federal laws that require fairness for girls and women with their own events and President Donald Trump's order that the U.S. government recognizes two genders, male and female.
Some states, like Colorado, have gone so far into the agenda that officials discussed taking away the rights of parents who don't support children who may be coached by leftist teachers and counselors into the ideologies.
Now the Supreme Court is stepping in.
It has agreed to hear arguments in two cases in which extremists are seeking to overturn state laws that protect girls and women in their sports.
"Women and girls have overcome decades of discrimination to achieve a more equal playing field in many arenas of American life – including sports," explains a petition from the state of Idaho, which is in one of the cases.
"Yet in some competitions, female athletes have become bystanders in their own sports as male athletes who identify as female have taken the place of their female competitors – on the field and on the winners' podium."
In a stunning development that happened in just the past few days, the University of Pennsylvania signaled its own defeat in its transgender agenda.
The school has confirmed it is issuing apologies to women it forced to compete alongside a male swimmer, William "Lia" Thomas, and change with him in locker and shower rooms.
It further is removing the "wins" Thomas recorded in competition, and moving those who female swimmers who were in second place as a result.
The government also announced Tuesday that Penn is adopting strict definitions for male and female competitors under White House guidelines.
It happened after the Trump administration suspended $175 million in federal funding to the school, giving university officials an incentive to reach a resolution.
The Supreme Court will hear cases from West Virginia and Idaho.
West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey asked the court to hear a case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled against the state regarding its law protecting fairness in women's sports. And Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador is asking the high court to uphold his state's Fairness in Women's Sports Act after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit stopped the law from going into effect.
"McCluskey said, "It's a great day, as female athletes in West Virginia will have their voices heard. The people of West Virginia know that it's unfair to let male athletes compete against women; that's why we passed this commonsense law preserving women's sports for women. We are confident the Supreme Court will uphold the Save Women's Sports Act because it complies with the U.S. Constitution and complies with Title IX. And most importantly: It protects women and girls by ensuring the playing field is safe and fair."
Labrador said, "Idaho's women and girls deserve an equal playing field. I am thrilled the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear our case. For too long, activists have worked to sideline women and girls in their own sports. Men and women are biologically different, and we hope the court will allow states to end this injustice and ensure men no longer create a dangerous, unfair environment for women to showcase their incredible talent and pursue the equal opportunities they deserve."
Kristen Waggoner, of the ADF, which is working with the states, said, "Women and girls deserve to compete on a level playing field. But activists continue their quest to erase differences between men and women by forcing schools to allow men to compete in women's sports
"This contradicts biological reality and common sense. We should be seeking to protect women's sports and equal opportunities, and West Virginia's and Idaho's women's sports laws accomplish just that."
The laws simply say males are not allowed in sports for females.
Just weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Tennessee was allowed to ban minors from receiving "treatments," for transgenderism, including chemicals and body-mutilating surgeries.
In Idaho, two men sued to be allowed into women's sports. In West Virginia, a parent sued on behalf of a male child being allowed in girls sports.
An eventual ruling will have vast impact on dozens of states where transgender activists have demanded to have their way with the state laws regarding access to sports.
A federal judge has ruled that the family of Egyptian firebomber Mohamed Soliman may be deported, The Hill reported. The lawsuit was brought by his wife, Hayam El Gamal, who has now exhausted all legal challenges.
Soliman has been charged with murder after allegedly attacking pro-Israel protestors with Molotov cocktails. The incident occurred last month in Boulder, Colorado and injured several people.
Because of the nature of the crime and the fact that Soliman and his family were here on tourist visas, his wife and five children were taken into custody. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said this was done to ascertain whether his wife was an accomplice, but the agency was moving to deport them.
U.S. District Court Judge Orlando Garcia initially blocked their deportation while deliberating on the matter. However, the judge tossed the case Wednesday stating that he had no jurisdiction over immigration proceedings.
According to the New York Post, Soliman allegedly attacked a group of mostly elderly protesters on June 1. He used a makeshift flamethrower and hurled Molotov cocktails into the crowd.
The group was protesting the fact that Hamas still held 50 Israeli hostages that were captured during the terrorist organization's Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel. The group of protestors had been meeting weekly for the demonstrations, which Soliman used to his advantage.
When the marchers came upon the Boulder County Courthouse, Soliman slipped by them disguised as a landcaper. He then allegedly unleashed his attack on them, spraying the crowd with gasoline and lighting it on fire while shouting "free Palestine" during the attack.
Following his arrest, Soliman told investigators that he wanted to "kill all Zionist people" and that he wished they "all were dead." One of his alleged victims, 82-year-old Karen Diamond, succumbed to her injuries this week, which has brought fresh murder charges for Soliman.
JUST IN: 82-year-old Karen Diamond, who was reportedly firebombed by a pro-Palestine lunatic in Boulder, CO, has DIED after suffering from severe burns.
Mohamed Soliman, the suspect, is now facing two upgraded first-degree m*rder charges in connection with the attack. pic.twitter.com/FzMwYm5lwj
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 30, 2025
The fact that Soliman was here at all is an outrage. As the Associated Press reported, Soliman was in the U.S. on an expired visa when he allegedly carried out the attack. Although he was born in Egypt, Soliman and his family came to the U.S. from Kuwait in August 2022 on a tourist visa, which expired in February 2023.
Unfortunately, Soliman is not alone in this practice, as 565,155 people overstayed their visas between October 2022 and September 2023. This figure represents "more than the population of the metro areas of Reno, Nevada, or Chattanooga, Tennessee," the AP said.
It is also not unusual for people to overstay their visas and subsequently apply for asylum. Although it's unclear whether Soliman intended to do so, it's notable that Egyptian nationals had an outstanding success rate of 72% of requests granted from September 2023 to September 2024.
After Soliman's alleged crime and visa status came to light, his family's future in the U.S. is uncertain. The judge's decision this week means that regular deportation is a real possibility, although the expedited deportation initially explored would have been preferable.
While Soliman's alleged crime stands out for its savagery and hateful motivation, it also underscores the problem with unvetted illegal immigrants. Soliman should not have been in the U.S. when this happened, and perhaps an innocent woman would still be alive if he weren't.
President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to let him fire Democratic holdovers on the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The three regulators, Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr., were all appointed by Joe Biden and have shown "hostility" to Trump's agenda, his lawyers told the Supreme Court. A district court in June ordered the Trump administration to reinstate the three regulators, who now make up the majority on the commission, after Trump fired them.
The Trump administration calls this another example of the judicial assault that has undermined Trump's authority since January, and they're asking the Supreme Court to stop the "court-ordered takeover" of the commission.
The three commissioners claim they are protected by federal law from being fired without cause. But Trump's Solicitor General John D. Sauer pointed to the Supreme Court's emergency ruling in Trump v. Wilcox, in which the court found the president "may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf."
The Supreme Court's May ruling allowed Trump to fire Biden appointees on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). In Wilcox, the justices echoed the Trump administration's concerns about executive power being undermined by rogue officials. As they wrote at the time, there is a greater risk in "allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty."
The Trump administration argues Wilcox should have stopped U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox from ordering a hostile takeover of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Maddox's ruling to reinstate the three Biden appointees was later upheld by an appeals court.
The district court effectively transferred control of the commission to individuals appointed by Trump's predecessor, despite Trump's "mandate of the people to exercise [the] executive power," Trump's Solicitor General John D. Sauer wrote.
"That plain-as-day affront to the President’s fundamental Article II powers warrants intervention now just as much as in Wilcox," Sauer wrote.
Upon their reinstatement, the Biden commissioners, who now make up a majority, "immediately moved to undo actions that the Commission had taken since their removal," Sauer wrote, resulting in "untenable chaos."
The Biden commissioners issued new policies contrary to Trump's agenda and fired staff Trump hired to enact his own policies. Biden holdover Richard Trumka Jr. - who was behind the infamous Biden effort to ban gas stoves - sent an email threatening staff to comply with the new majority's wishes.
"To the staff of the agenda planning committee, let me be clear: you are instructed to attend the meeting as usual," he wrote. "If you chose to ignore the directive of the Commission, I suggest you read the Court order and decide whether you want to personally violate it."
The Supreme Court dealt a major blow to activist judges last week with its ruling limiting nationwide injunctions, but the threat of an activist judiciary remains.
"It's outrageous that we must once again seek Supreme Court intervention because rogue leftist judges in lower courts continue to defy the high court's clear rulings," said White House spokesperson Harrison Fields.
"The Supreme Court decisively upheld the president's constitutional authority to fire and remove executive officers exercising his power, yet this ongoing assault by activist judges undermines that victory," he continued.
"President Trump remains committed to fulfilling the American people's mandate by effectively leading the executive branch, despite these relentless obstructions."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Back in the runup to the 2012 presidential election, as Barack Obama was seeking to maintain an iron grip on the "fundamental changes" he wanted in the United States for another four years, his administration weaponized the IRS.
That was when a lot of those "tea party" organizations were being organized. Also there were a lot of Christian groups that, like the tea party groups, were seeking legal IRS status so they could advocate regarding the issues that exploded under Obama's regime.
The IRS was used to identify those organizations, then deny them permission to operate. This was done by repeatedly asking long lists of questions – one interrogatory demanded to know the subject of the prayers of the group's members – and more.
Also, when delays didn't seem to provide the answer, the IRS simply declined to make a decision, making groups wait months, even years.
The result was that the speech of those organizations, which likely would have been highly critical of Obama, was suppressed.
Eventually, after the election, the schemes were exposed, and the IRS was called to account for the injuries it inflicted.
But the provisions in the IRS code used by Obama for that agenda still exist.
Which is why, according to a report at the Federalist, there's a lawsuit to change them.
The action has been brought on behalf of Freedom Path, a "now nearly inactive conservative issue advocacy organization" that filed for tax-exempt status in 2011.
The IRS grilled the organization about its donors in 2012, but movement only began on the request when two years later the scandal created under the direction of then-IRS official Lois Lerner wound down.
Then finally, in 2020, nine years after application, the IRS denied the group's nonprofit status based on its "Facts and Circumstances" evaluation – the agenda that was used then, and still exists.
Lex Politica attorney Chris Gober has been fighting for changes, the report said.
The case is back in court before Judge Jia M. Cobb in Washington soon.
The vague factors in the list are used by the IRS, which then can decide whether the group advocates over "issues" or whether it is involved in "political campaign" work, which precludes tax-exempt status.
Vague factors considered by the IRS include things such as whether, "The position of the candidate on the public policy issue has been raised as distinguishing the candidate from others in the campaign, either in the communication itself or in other public communications," and "The communication is not part of an ongoing series of substantially similar advocacy communications by the organization on the same issue."
The factors are subjective, so there are no clear standards for IRS officials making those decisions.
The circumstances, the report explained, are similar to those in the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The FEC then had been using a similar 11-factor test to decide if a group's communication was used to express political advocacy, and the court said it was ambiguous and interfered with free speech.
Anthony Kennedy, then on the court, said in that decision, "The FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous tests. If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, they must either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question. Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11-factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech."
A federal judge has ruled against the Trump administration's plan to implement large-scale terminations at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), blocking efforts to lay off more than 100,000 employees, the Daily Caller reported.
The decision, delivered on Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose, follows a request by 19 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia for a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's actions.
President Biden's appointee, Judge DuBose, concluded that the executive branch doesn't hold the power to carry out significant changes to entities founded by Congress. Her decision halts the Trump administration's efforts to finalize current terminations and prevents any upcoming firings.
The initial proposal from the Trump administration, followed by acting HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., aimed to streamline the department by reducing the number of agencies from 28 to 15, impacting entities such as the CDC and the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products.
Kennedy's announcement in March led to the termination of over 100,000 jobs within HHS. During a hearing in May, Kennedy informed senators that the reduction sought to address what he described as "chaos and disorganization" within the department.
However, the attorneys general argued that these actions were beyond the department's legal scope and posed risks to public health and safety. The injunction filed in May, which has now been upheld, underscored these concerns.
Judge DuBose's conclusion reaffirmed the limitations on the executive branch's authority over Congress-created agencies. "The executive branch does not have the authority to order, organize, or implement wholesale changes to the structure and function of the agencies created by Congress," she said in her ruling.
The ruling brings to mind a similar case from March, where another judge appointed by President Clinton intervened to reverse employee layoffs across several departments.
In addition, this decision aligns with a broader pattern of federal rulings against the universal application of injunctions on executive orders, as shown in a recent Supreme Court decision.
This legal battle illuminates the ongoing tensions between different branches of government over the management of federal agencies. The Trump administration's restructuring initiatives, characterized by Attorney General Kennedy as necessary for managing "chaos," have been met with resistance from several quarters.
Legal experts point to the challenges of modifying deeply entrenched bureaucratic structures without legislative approval. Judge DuBose's ruling has set a precedent that could influence future disputes regarding the scope of executive authority.
The coming weeks may witness further legal scrutiny as the implications of this decision continue to unfold. For now, the administration's planned reforms at HHS remain in limbo, with the ruling providing critical reassurance to those concerned about the risks to public health infrastructure.
The Department of Health and Human Services remains at a crossroads, with its leadership grappling with how to proceed under the constraints set by the judiciary. While Kennedy and his team might seek alternative approaches to enact change, significant hurdles must be cleared before any restructuring can take place.
Stakeholders from various sectors remain vigilant, examining potential impacts on the agencies that play crucial roles in safeguarding public wellbeing. The debate over the appropriate balance of power between branches of government continues to echo through Washington.
As the current injunction stands, the state attorneys general and their allies view the ruling as a critical victory in preserving essential HHS functions. Future developments in this evolving situation will determine how well those functions maintain their operational integrity in the face of administrative challenges.
Television personality Dr. Phil is calling on voters to remove Ilhan Omar (D-Mn.) over her constant America-bashing rhetoric.
Like many Americans, Dr. Phil takes exception to Omar's hostility to her adopted country, which she regularly criticizes as oppressive and racist.
In a recent interview with the left-wing show "Democracy Now!," Omar said America is becoming "one of the worst countries" on earth under President Trump, whom she compared to a tinpot dictator.
She even presumed to speak for the Founding Fathers as she criticized Trump's parade for the Army's 250th anniversary, which coincided with his 79th birthday.
Omar fretted that "this is not the country we were born in," which in her case at least, is literally true.
“It is really shocking, and it should be a wake-up call for all Americans to say this is not the country we were born in,” she added. “This is not the country we believe in, this is not the country our Founding Fathers imagined, and this is not the country that is supported by our Constitution, our ideals, our values, and we should all collectively be out in the streets rejecting what is taking place this week.”
Dr. Phil, in a response to Omar's criticism, said her life as a refugee-turned-lawmaker embodies the "American dream," and she should be more grateful to the United States for taking her in from war-torn Somalia.
“If this is such a horrible country, wonder why she doesn’t return to Somalia,” Dr. Phil said. "Well, maybe because Somalia isn’t the most corrupt country in the world, it’s the second most corrupt country in the world.”
Omar's rhetoric has been a source of controversy from the start of her congressional tenure in 2019, when she downplayed the September 11, 2001, attacks, saying "some people did something."
“Really? ‘Some people did something’? Way to stand up for your country,” Dr. Phil said.
“In 2019 she said this is not going to be the country of white people,” he added. “In 2020 she said we must dismantle the whole system of oppression, so oppressive that she came here as a refugee, got all of these entitlements, and was elected to Congress."
Dr. Phil concluded that voters should "kick her a-- to the curb," although she has a right to share her vitriol.
“Here’s the thing: she has the right to say what she’s saying culturally, psychologically, I think it’s disgusting, but does she have the right to say it? Yeah, she does, just like I have the right to say, ‘It’s absolutely disgusting and whoever voted for her now knows who they voted for and should kick her a– to the curb,'” Dr. Phil said.
But voters have repeatedly declined to fire Omar, who survived a tight primary challenge in 2022. Outside of that, she has won re-election with little difficulty in her Minneapolis district, which has the largest population of Somali immigrants in the nation.
While incumbency sometimes has a way of moderating radical politicians, Omar clearly hasn't cooled off over the last seven years - and why would she, when she isn't being held accountable by her constituents?
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A review by the CIA of a scheme by John Brennan, James Comey and others in the Barack Obama administration found the anti-Trump activists tried to use lies in official government assessments to "get" then-candidate and now-President Donald Trump.
A newly released eight-page review, unleashed by CIA director John Ratcliffe, puts in the crosshairs the government's December 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment about Russia and the just-finished presidential election.
The new report, ordered by Ratcliffe and done by the CIA's Directorate of Analysis, found the "decision by agency heads to include the Steele Dossier in the ICA ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment."
The dossier, created by ex-British agent Christopher Steele, made wild and unsubstantiated allegations about Trump and his, or his campaign's links to Russia. It claimed that Vladimir Putin was interfering to help Trump win the election, and more.
Only the claims all were fabrications.
The review "pointed the finger at Brennan as well as at the leadership of the FBI at the time," James Comey.
Ratcliffe confirmed that government document was done "through an atypical & corrupt process under the politically charged environments" imposed by Brennan and Comey.
A report at Just the News pointed out that Steele's complaints about Trump were "baseless."
Even so ,CIA and FBI chiefs at the time expressed "high confidence" that Putin had "aspired" to help Trump win.
The dossier, in fact, was funded by payments made through a series of companies, legal teams and individuals by Hillary Clinton's failed campaign for president at the time. In fact, her campaign later was fined for incorrectly reporting the cash turned over for the work of assembling the dossier.
"The procedural anomalies that characterized the ICA's development had a direct impact on the tradecraft applied to its most contentious finding. With analysts operating under severe time constraints, limited information sharing, and heightened senior-level scrutiny, several aspects of tradecraft rigor were compromised—particularly in supporting the judgment that Putin 'aspired' to help Trump win," the new report affirms.
"The DA Review identified multiple specific concerns, including: a higher confidence level than was justified; insufficient exploration of alternative scenarios; lack of transparency on source uncertainty; uneven argumentation; and the inclusion of unsubstantiated Steele Dossier material," it said.
The review revealed that "ICA authors and multiple senior CIA managers – including the two senior leaders of the CIA mission center responsible for Russia— strongly opposed including the Dossier, asserting that it did not meet even the most basic tradecraft standards.":
Some CIA officials even had warned using the lies would risk "the credibility of the entire paper," Just the News reported.
"Despite these objections, Brennan showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness. When confronted with specific flaws in the Dossier by the two mission center leaders—one with extensive operational experience and the other with a strong analytic background – he appeared more swayed by the Dossier's general conformity with existing theories than by legitimate tradecraft concerns."
Their report at the time "implicitly elevated unsubstantiated claims to the status of credible supporting evidence, compromising the analytical integrity of the judgment," the new report said.
Just the News explained, "CIA Deputy Director Michael Ellis tweeted Tuesday that newly-declassified documents 'show how Brennan and Comey personally intervened to insert the Steele dossier's lies into intelligence analysis. We must have zero tolerance for the weaponization of intelligence.'"
The House Intelligence Committee concluded in 2018, "The majority of the Intelligence Community Assessment judgments on Russia's election activities employed proper analytic tradecraft" but the "judgments on Putin's strategic intentions did not."
In fact, that report found "significant intelligence tradecraft failings" that were evident in the claims.
"A two-year investigation by Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller 'did not establish' any criminal Trump-Russia collusion," Just the News said.
Later, DOJ special counsel John Durham concluded, "neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation."
In fact, some operatives had wanted a review of Clinton's actions, and claims she "approved a plan concerning Trump and Russia" in order to distract the public from her own scandals.