This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump, the billionaire whose love before he moved into the White House was business in America, notes that Russian President Vladimir Putin is bringing a contingent of business people with him to the summit in Alaska.
And he likes that.
But he also says there will be no business connections between the U.S. and Russia until the killing in its war with Ukraine ends.
Trump told reporters in advance of the summit that Putin wants in on the U.S. economy, but that is dependent on the peace progress the two powers make.
The Washington Examiner cited Trump's comments: "I noticed he's bringing a lot of business people from Russia, and that's good. I like that because they want to do business, but they're not doing business until we get the war settled."
The report said the Kremlin's summit team includes Kirill Dmitriev, the CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, Andrei Belousov, the former economic development minister, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, and presidential aide and former Ambassador to the United States Yuri Ushakov.
Trump explained he would discuss business options "if things go well," the report said.
"If we make progress, I'd like to discuss it because that's one of the things that they would like. They'd like to get a piece of what I've built in terms of the economy."
Joining Trump in representing the United States are Secretary of State Marco Rubio; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent; Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick; CIA Director John Ratcliffe; special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff; White House chief of staff Susie Wiles; deputy chiefs of staff James Blair, Beau Harrison, Nick Luna, and Dan Scavino; White House communications director Steven Cheung; deputy national security adviser Robert Gabriel; White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt; White House staff secretary Will Scharf; White House director of speechwriting Ross Worthington; and chief of protocol Monica Crowley, the report listed.
Trump also noted the downside: that if there's not progress, the "very severe" economic consequences for Russia.
As of Friday afternoon, the two leaders and their staffs are meeting face-to-face in Anchorage.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump, after a roughly three-hour summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, confirmed that there was significant progress made on the agenda of getting the killing in the Ukraine war halted, but it's not completed. Yet.
"There's no deal until there's a deal," Trump confirmed.
And he said his next work is to "call up NATO," call other people, call Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to talk with him about the issues at hand.
Trump called it a "productive" meeting and said there were "many, many" points of agreement.
"We haven't quite got there yet," on others.
"We made some headway," he said. "We made some great headway today. It was an extremely productive meeting with many points agreed to. Very few left."
He noted the Russiagate collusion conspiracy theory, created and pushed by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and others in the Obama administration, was a distraction and created headwinds for the work now a hand.
Trump, who repeatedly has charged that had he been president back in 2022 when the Russian-Ukraine war started, it likely would not have happened.
Putin, whose comments were interpreted from Russian, said that was so.
Through the interpreter, he noted Trump's claims, and said, "I am quite sure it would indeed be so." He said he and Trump have "built a very trustworthy contact."
Trump said, "We didn't get there but we have a very good chance of getting there."
And "there" would be the end of the deaths of thousands of people a week in the war.
Putin cited the long history of America-Russian cooperation, such as during World War II, when pilots from both countries risked their lives "for the common good," he said.
He noted the "terrible wound" the war has created for both Russia and Ukraine, which some from "the same roots," he said.
The points of agreement on Friday "bring us closer to that goal," he said.
No details were discussed.
Trump had said before the summit that if things went poorly, he might very well walk away, as he is so tired of the death tolls from the war.
Instead, the two held a joint news conference, and when Trump promised another meeting soon, Putin responded with, next time, in Moscow.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Rep. Jim McGovern, a Democrat from Massachusetts, has been in Congress for nearly three decades.
One would think this idea wouldn't have popped up immediately, but it did for him: Arresting the leader of a major world power that in many ways is in opposition to the United States – and see what happens.
But that's his idea.
McGovern, just as Russian President Vladimir Putin was arriving in Alaska for a summit with President Donald Trump, whose goal it is to end the killing in the Russia-Ukraine war, said on social media, "Trump rolls out the red carpet for a war criminal. On American soil. The U.S. government should be arresting Putin, not hosting him. Shameful and embarrassing."
The president has high hopes for the summit, explaining that the war, which he's worked to bring to halt since he took office, finally would begin winding down as a result of discussions this week.
However, he's not counting on anything, as he's promised consequences if Putin isn't willing to work on the plan.
A comment from the Blaze, about McGovern's rant, was short: "UNHINGED: Democrat Rep. Jim McGovern says the U.S. government should have arrested Putin in Alaska instead of trying to pursue peace talks."
McGovern has been in Congress since 1997, and his biography includes that he "played a central role in devising procedures the House adopted for the first impeachment of Donald Trump."
That, of course, failed, like the second did later, when the Senate refused to convict.
Social media commenters responded with, "Not familiar with that Democrat Representative, Jim McGovern, but I'm very happy he's insignificant."
Another said, "Put your partisan TDS aside long enough to pray for peace."
And, "Good thing this muppet isn't in charge of our foreign policy then. Nothing says 'diplomacy' like inviting a foreign leader to negotiate and arresting him on arrival. I'm sure that wouldn't ever start a war. At all."
And, "The most ignorant response to diplomacy in the history of thte entire world."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The federal government has begun an investigation into four school districts in Kansas for letting "gender ideology run amok," in violation of the law.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon said, "The Kansas districts' alleged behavior of allowing gender ideology to run amok in their schools is an affront not only to the law, but to the sound judgment we expect from our educational leaders. School personnel should not confuse and unsettle young girls by forcing them to share sex-separated sports and intimate facilities with boys; nor should school personnel abuse their position of authority by hiding sensitive information pertaining to a child's health and wellbeing from that child's parents."
She continued, "From day one, the Trump administration promised to protect students and parents by restoring Title IX and parental rights laws to the fullest extent of the law. My offices will vigorously investigate these matters to ensure these practices come to an end."
Praising the plan was Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, who said, "Title IX was enacted to protect the rights of girls to equal educational opportunity and safety. Kansas had to sue and defeat the Biden administration in federal court to stop them from dismantling Title IX. I am grateful that we now have a federal government that takes Title IX seriously and will ensure that school districts follow the law."
Being investigated by the department's Office for Civil Rights and Student Privacy Policy Office are school officials in Topeka, Shawnee, Olathe and Kansas City.
The work was begun after a complaint was registered with the federal department by the Defense of Freedom Institute, which alleged the schools' policies and practices let students participate in sports and access intimate facilities based on so-called "gender identity," that is the person's thoughts about what gender they feel.
Not only is access to intimate facilities a focal point, but those schools' practices actually prevent officials from letting parents know about a student's "transgender status."
That could be a violation of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
The Washington Examiner noted Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools and educational programs receiving federal funding, while FERPA allows parents to access or request changes to their children's education records.
The report also said the Education Department is leading "a number of investigations into other states and school districts, as well as colleges and universities, over alleged Title IX violations. The inquiries are part of President Donald Trump's broader crackdown on gender ideology across the nation."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Christian Institute has confirmed it intends to seek judicial review of endorsement by the civil service of the United Kingdom of LGBT Pride events, contending that the politicized agenda breaches the rules that require government officials to be impartial.
The institute confirmed it has notified Cabinet Secretary Sir Chris Wormald of its intention to seek judicial review of Civil Service participation in Pride events, and it also is seeking an end to the use of rainbow lanyards and "preferred pronouns" in public-facing email signatures.
"The law is clear that civil servants must maintain impartiality on controversial political issues," explained Deputy Director of The Christian Institute Simon Calvert. "Whether one agrees with it or not, no one can deny that the LGBTQ Pride movement and its hard-line gender ideology are profoundly political."
He noted, "Pride London, for example, attended by Whitehall-based civil servants, has even banned political parties because they don't support its political demands, which include puberty blockers and gender self-ID."
The action follows the recent court ruling by the High Court against Northumbria Police, a ruling that concluded participation in Pride marches breached the police operation's impartiality requirements.
The institute has instructed Conrathe Gardner Solicitor to begin work. That organization was the same one that brought Linzi Smith's successful battle against Northumbria.
Calvert said, "Involvement in Pride signals support for a highly contentious set of political demands. It is inappropriate for civil servants to be officially endorsing Pride."
The nation's Civil Service Code states that all employees are expected to carry out their roles with "integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality."
Further, "Staff must act 'in a way that is fair, just and equitable' and that does not 'unjustifiably favor or discriminate against particular individuals or interests,'" the institute reported.
"I have been working in public policy for decades. I've been shocked by how many civil servants wear Pride lanyards in our meetings with them, even when those meetings are specifically about the clashes between LGBTQ politics and the Christian faith," explained Calvert.
"Sitting in front of a phalanx of civil servants in rainbow lanyards gives the impression that their minds are closed on the issues we are discussing. It certainly does not communicate the kind of neutrality that taxpayers expect of civil servants."
The earlier High Court ruling involved endorsement of the arguments brought by Newcastle United fan Linzi Smith.
The result is that the court found "Northumbria Chief Constable Vanessa Jardine and other officers' participation in 'Newcastle Pride in the City 2024' was likely to be seen as an expression of support 'for the views and the cause which the March sought to promote.'"
The court ruling found "institutional support for gender ideology and transgender rights" was further expressed by uniformed police officers marching with the "Police Pride" flag and by a static display which "included the Northumbria Police badge and the blue, pink and white of the transgender flag."
The ruling said that could hurt the public's trust in the police ability to "fairly" handle clashes involving the political issue.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A newly declassified government document has revealed the active efforts on the part of the FBI and the Department of Justice to shut down an investigation into the alleged pay-to-play scheme assembled by the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state for Barack Obama.
It is Just the News that revealed the actions at the time, heading into the 2016 election, when the family foundation run by the Clintons solicited "contributions" and "donations" – totaling hundreds of millions of dollars – from various groups that had business pending before the federal bureaucracy, which Hillary Clinton ran.
The report explained Kash Patel, now FBI director, found a "bombshell" memo from 2017 that chronicled the "extensive political obstruction that career agents in three cities faced from their own bosses and the Obama Justice Department during the 2016 election as they probed whether Hillary Clinton engaged in a pay-to-play corruption scheme."
The government documents show Sally Yates, then deputy attorney general, ordered, "Shut it down!"
It was federal agents in New York City, Little Rock, Arkansas, and Washington, D.C., who "tried to get the help of federal prosecutors to determine whether or what crimes occurred while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state, most notably, because at that time, her family foundation solicited hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign and U.S. interests with business before her department," Just the News documented.
The timeline is from a Department of Justice lawyer assigned to the FBI by then FBI chief James Comey, who now is under congressional investigation himself for pushing the scandalous, and false, Russiagate conspiracy theory to hurt Trump.
The document was secured by top aides to Patel, along with corroborating internal emails, and was accessed by Just the News.
"Together, they make clear that both the DOJ and former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe placed significant impediments in front of agents who believed they had evidence to justify a public integrity criminal case," the report said.
In fact, the report noted, early in 2016 the DOJ said it would "not be supportive of an FBI investigation."
McCabe's own order, the report said, was that "no overt investigative steps" were allowed, and other roadblocks soon surfaced into the issue that the foundation did, in fact, get massive donations during that time period, donations that promptly plunged when Hillary Clinton's attempt to gain control of the Oval Office failed.
"Patel's discovery of the memo and related emails comes at a sensitive time as Attorney General Pam Bondi has approved the use of a strike force and a grand jury to investigate whether law enforcement and intelligence abuses over the last decade amounted to a criminal conspiracy to protect Democrats like Clinton and Joe Biden while inflicting harm on Trump and his followers," the report explained.
The report said there was no explanation over Yates' order to close it down, or the statement from New York federal prosecutors they would not "support" such an investigation.
The documents show that agents "were thwarted" from their investigation into the Clinton Foundation's antics, "no matter where" they turned, the report said.
The report noted there was a meeting of multiple FBI and DOJ officials, not identified, and the talk was about opening an investigation. One official authorized three offices to begin looking but "to not take any investigative steps until the matter was discussed with DOJ."
A report from special counsel John Durham later said one part of that investigation started because of the likelihood an industry was engaged with "a federal public official in a flow of benefits scheme, namely, large monetary contributions were made to a non-profit, under both direct and indirect control of the federal public official, in exchange for favorable government action and/or influence."
Durham's conclusion eventually was that all three of the branches were considering investigations on that basis, that foreign governments made, or offered, contributions to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for favors from Clinton.
However, McCabe's instructions were that nothing happened without his approval, and the orders sent to agents that they were not allowed to look for confidential sources on the issue. The investigations eventually were killed.
Comey also later stepped in to help Hillary Clinton in another dangerous scandal, that of putting government secrets on an unsecure and private computer server in her home, when he called her "careless" but claimed "no reasonable prosecutor" would pursue the charges.
Another special prosecutor later found Comey's actions supporting Clinton were "insubordinate."
The report charged, "The differences in how the Justice Department and FBI handled cases related to Clinton and Trump were stark — publicly exonerating Clinton for her mishandling of classified information when using a private email server as secretary of state and not even allowing the Clinton Foundation investigation to get off the ground, while launching a sprawling and baseless Russia collusion inquiry into the Trump campaign and the candidate (and then the president) himself."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In the aftermath of the COVID-19 mandate era, tens of thousands of service members who were forced to leave the U.S. military, or who left on their own over the issue, are now being invited back. However, relatively few have expressed a desire to return to a military that, not long ago, trampled on their freedoms.
On July 26, Stuart Scheller, senior adviser to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, turned his focus to the reinstatement process. While many commended him for his effort, he also made a statement that heightened the concerns of those who were negatively impacted by the 2021 mandate and who continue to demand that some senior military leaders be held accountable for illegally enforcing the experimental shot.
"… [M]any who exited the service because of poor treatment over the shot refusal want retribution. I get tagged every day with posts questioning when commanders at every level of the military will be thrown in jail for 'illegally enforcing the COVID vaccine.' That's not going to happen. Time to move forward."
Two days after Scheller's statement, this reporter emailed him requesting clarification of what could be interpreted as saying military leadership will not be held accountable for enforcing the "unlawful as implemented" mandate. To date, no response has been received from Scheller.
WorldNetDaily spoke to retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Darin Gaub, a former UH-60 Black Hawk pilot and battalion commander.
"Quite disappointed" by Scheller's lack of response, Gaub said, "Those who have risked a lot and lost a lot in the fight for liberty are begging and asking for transparency from every agency." Service members and veterans, as well as the American people, want "absolute truth and honesty from everybody involved," he added.
Failure to demand accountability on behalf of the tens of thousands of service members adversely affected by the COVID-19 mandate is "a break in trust with the very people who make the military what it is," said Gaub. "It doesn't matter what else you do, because if you break trust and refuse to restore it to the people who make up the military, your military will never be as strong and as sound as you want it to be."
"You have to have accountability to restore trust," he added, "and those who willingly and knowingly violated laws and ethical standards to push the jabs need to be held accountable regardless of rank or position." Whatever "the smoke and mirrors or the cover story" military leaders who enforced the mandate try to create, he said, "they need to be held 100 percent accountable."
"If that doesn't happen, especially in the four years of this [Trump] administration, you will never see trust restored," Gaub stressed, because without real accountability, "they'll miss any chance of rebuilding the backbone of what makes the military strong and what makes it lethal."
What would accountability look like? For Gaub, it would mean some senior military leaders considered for courts-martial. He would even advocate that such proceedings be televised, to show the American people that law breakers, even in the military, will not be tolerated. In addition, he said, "their retirement grade should be based on their last known honorable conduct," which would have occurred before the now-rescinded 2021 vax mandate.
Bottom line, said the former Army chopper pilot and battalion commander: "If you can't promise the people sitting at home that their children will not be put in the same position and not have to suffer the consequences" of upholding their moral and religious convictions to object to an unproven and experimental shot, "you'll never have the best and brightest of America go into a system that's going to chew them up and spit them out."
On the other hand, WND also spoke to an Air Force officer who agreed with Scheller. A fighter pilot affected by the mandates, and who asked to have his name withheld for this story, he considers it "impractical to fire people or anything else of the sort, [arguing that] just because they violated 10 U.S.C. § 1107a does not mean they have criminal liability." The U.S. Code should have required informed consent for the "emergency use" of the COVID-19 shot. However, this was not provided to service members.
Despite the law, he suggested, "the Defense Department's best policy for righting wrongs is in a large-scale policy change for vaccines."
According to the Air Force officer, "We are not in a place to fire tons of people, nor do we need to." He agreed that investigations need to be done, but said, "our [military] community is asking way too much, taking a major win [with the Trump administration only to] squander it with a lot of unreasonable requests that will only alienate the administration."
Having survived the COVID era with the ability to continue serving his country, the Air Force officer said, "It can't always be perfect, and if I've learned anything from this fight, you have to take small wins by baby steps and make influential friends in the process, even if they don't agree on your end state."
The Air Force officer stressed his views do not represent those of the Department of Defense or Department of the Air Force.
Regarding the series of questions submitted to Scheller by this reporter, the Air Force officer said he is particularly interested in knowing how service members can be assured that a similar illegal and harmful mandate will not happen again, as it did in both the anthrax and COVID-19 eras.
"While I share the Department of Defense's desire to move forward," he acknowledged, "I would like to see some significant increases in medical freedom in the DoD." For example, he noted, "There's no reason to lose service members over a flu shot or a Japanese encephalitis vaccine."
Finally, Gen. Mike Flynn, former national security adviser at the start of Donald Trump's first term as president, just posted on X about an open letter, titled "Declaration of Military Accountability," having been officially entered into the Congressional Record. Signed by 231 active service members and veterans, the letter demands accountability over the Defense Department's highly controversial enforcement of the now-rescinded COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
The signatories state, "In the coming years, thousands within our network will run for Congress and seek appointments to executive branch offices, while those of us still serving on active duty will continue to put fulfilling our oaths ahead of striving for rank or position.
"For those who achieve the lawful authority to do so, we pledge to recall from retirement the military leaders who broke the law and will convene courts-martial for the crimes they committed."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge in Alabama has shot down demands by extremists in academia for the "right" to continue to push their DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion, ideologies on students.
Those agendas often include lessons that are racist or sexist, or both.
It is U.S. District Judge David Proctor that concluded the plaintiffs failed to prove enough of their case to qualify for a preliminary injunction while the arguments develop in court, a decision that allows the state legislature's new limits on specifically teaching students to be divisive to stand.
The law bars publicly funded schools from hosting or funding DEI programs that promote radical agendas. It also condemns "divisive concepts," like forcing kids to feel guilty or complicit in historical wrongs based on their race or ethnicity.
An example would be the ideology that blames all white people for slavery. Such agendas frequently have moved to extremes, in some cases demanding that whites who never were slave owners to pay billions of dollars in "reparations" to blacks who never were slaves.
Such programs are purely based on race.
The judge concluded the law doesn't cause a problem for speech or academic freedoms, and teachers still are allowed to discuss, and students are allowed to hear, about such issues as long as the teaching is "in an objective manner without endorsement."
If a teacher teaches "that there is empirical evidence that racism may be a cause for health disparities, or if she frames such teaching as merely a theory, she would not violate SB 129," the judge said.
The law provides a list of common-sense guidelines so that teaching focuses on facts, not the individual beliefs of a teacher, or his or her political agenda.
It defines "divisive concepts" to include teaching that any "race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior," or that "individuals should be discriminated against or adversely treated because of their race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin."
Teachers, under the law, cannot force students to agree that "the moral character of an individual is determined by his or her race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin" or "by virtue of an individual's race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin, the individual is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously."
Further, students cannot be ordered to adhere to the faith that individuals, because of their race or color "are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin."
Nor can students be ordered to "assent to a sense of guilt, complicity, or a need to apologize on the basis of his or her race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin."
State money cannot be used to sponsor "any diversity, equity, and inclusion program or maintain any office, physical location, or department that promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion programs," or "direct or compel a student, employee, or contractor to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to a divisive concept."
Other free speech points include that state-funded schools cannot require students or employees to participate in "any diversity, equity, and inclusion program or any training, orientation, or course work that advocates for or requires assent to a divisive concept"
Significantly, students cannot be required to "participate, as part of any required curriculum or mandatory professional training, in an activity that involves lobbying at the state or local level for legislation related to a divisive concept."
Punishments for disagreeing with a teacher's ideology also is barred.
Teachers were recommended to implement a disclaimer in their courses, explaining classes "may present difficult, objectionable, or controversial topics for consideration, but will do so through an objective scholarly lens designed to encourage critical thinking."
One professor, a plaintiff, however, insisted that she be allowed to indoctrinate students with her beliefs about "[w]hite privilege, implicit bias, structural racism, mental health disparities, homophobia, racism, sexism, and systemic oppression of minority communities."
She apparently believes "racism and sexism are deeply embedded in American society" and she wants to train students about the "impact of systemic racism."
The judge's ruling triggered a flood of outrage from leftists, who have supported the plaintiffs claims that the law protecting students is unconstitutional under the First Amendment, Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause.
The case, Simon v. Ivey, challenges the law implemented in the state just months ago.
They claim "harms" from the ruling will include "censorship of teachings and discussions involving race-based and sex-based inequalities."
Plaintiff Cassanda Simon said the law already "has upended the lives of Alabama students and educators, who should have the right to receive and provide the high-quality of education that all Alabamian learners deserve."
She demanded an "inclusive curriculum."
Another like-minded plaintiff, Sydney Testman, said, "I've seen firsthand how SB 129 has transformed my college campus for the worst (sic). Voices have been silenced, opportunities have been revoked, and meaningful community engagement has faded. This decision undermines the need for students to properly feel a sense of belonging and inclusion on campus."
Yet another plaintiff, Ja'Kobe Bibbs, said the "detrimental effects" of the law are obvious.
Bibbs wants a campus "where people across identities and walks of life can come to learn, build community, and grow together."
Dana Patton, a teacher and another in the long list of plaintiffs, added that the decision is "yet another step backwards for the University of Alabama system and fails to address the harms that Alabama students and professors have faced on account of this law."
Patton complains that professors now much live in a "culture of fear."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Devarjay "DJ" Daniel, 13, is the young boy with a dream of being a police officer who stole hearts across America when, during President Donald Trump's joint address to Congress months ago, was made an honorary member of the U.S. Secret Service.
Now his father has announced his candidacy to be the U.S. representative for the 18th congressional district in Texas.
The brief time Daniel was the focal point during Trump's address highlighted the scorn with which Democrats view patriotic Americans, as the party members refused to stand in honor of the young boy, fighting to live with a terminal cancer diagnosis.
A report from the Gateway Pundit explained he was diagnosed with a rare and aggressive form of cancer.
"Democrats stood stone-faced, while the ghouls refused to stand and honor a child who is fighting for his life," the report said.
Now is father, Theodis Daniel, has confirmed his campaign for Congress.
Fox Digital noted that he joins a crowded field for the seat.
"I'm a regular guy. I am not a politician. I don't have six-figure deals. I'm just a regular dude trying to make it. Single dad. I got three kids to myself. I'm a disabled veteran just trying to make a difference regardless of what I'm going through," he said.
At the time, Trump announced, "Joining us in the gallery tonight is a young man who truly loves our police. His name is DJ Daniel, he is 13 years old, and he has always dreamed of becoming a police officer. Tonight, DJ, we're going to do you the biggest honor of them all. I am asking our new Secret Service director, Sean Curran, to officially make you an agent of the United States Secret Service."
He now has been sworn in as an officer, honorary, at more than 1,300 law enforcement agencies.
Daniel said he'd go to Washington, if elected, take care of business and then go home.
"Sometimes, when you marinate meat, you kind of ruin it. Some people just wear out their welcome. It's like somebody coming to your house, wanting to stay for a little bit, and they stay there for two or three days," he said.
"Well, these folks got comfortable. When people get comfortable, they get lazy. When they get lazy, they get forgetful and disrespectful," Daniel added.
The district was represented in Congress for nearly three decades by Democrat radical Sheila Jackson Lee, who passed away in 2024.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Another "Russia collusion hoaxer" has had her security clearance canceled by the federal government.
Those involved in the "Russia collusion" lies ran to the dozens of officials under the Barack Obama administration, and were responsible for creating the conspiracy the theory, apparently launched by Hillary Clinton, that tried to link then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia.
It failed to prevent him from being elected to his first term, and eventually was debunked completely.
However, when Trump took office for his second term, he immediately revoked the security clearances, traditionally kept alive for former government officials, of dozens.
They included ex-FBI Andrew McCabe, ex-DNI Andrew Liepman, ex-Obama adviser David Axelrod, ex-COVID adviser Anthony Fauci, ex-FBI James Baker, ex-DNI James Clapper, ex-FBI James Comey, ex-Defense Secretary James Mattis, ex-DHS Secretary John Kelly, ex-CIA John Brennan, ex-CIA Leon Panetta, ex-FBI Lisa Page, ex-FBI Peter Strzok, ex-DOJ Sally Yates, and dozens more.
Many of them also knowingly signed a letter from the intelligence community wildly claiming that information detailing Biden family scandals found in a laptop computer abandoned by Hunter Biden at a repair shop likely was "Russian" disinformation, when authorities knew it was all factual.
The FBI even moved to interfere in the 2020 election on that basis, telling media corporations to suppress the information it knew was accurate, and a subsequent polling showed that move alone might have cost Trump re-election in that year.
The White House said, at the time of the cancellations earlier this year, "By abusing their previous positions in government, these individuals helped sell a public relations fraud to the American people. They greatly damaged the credibility of the Intelligence Community by using their privileges to interfere in a presidential election."
Now another name has been added to those who have lost their clearances.
Under the headline, "Pentagon terminates security clearance of Russia collusion hoaxer Susan Miller," the Federalist explains Miller is the "retired CIA spook who lied about her leadership role in the intelligence report that lit the fuse on the Russia collusion hoax bomb."
The report cites administration officials familiar with the matter.
Miller long boasted of her "full clearance" while she was attacking President Donald Trump.
"This woman totally shouldn't hold a high level security clearance after pushing the Russia Hoax. All she did was lie to the American people to hurt Trump," a senior Defense official said of Miller.
She's been making the rounds of the legacy media corporations who oppose Trump recently in an attempt to "undercut" the reams of declassified documents that now have exposed the Obama White House and others for making up the 2017 report that falsely claimed Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump.
"Internal communications at the time show career agents warning then-CIA Director John Brennan and then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that the 'intelligence' used to go after Trump was bad and failed to measure up to CIA intelligence-gathering standards," the report said.
But they used it anyway.
In fact, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has released records that she describes as showing "President Obama and his national security cabinet members manufactured and politicized intelligence to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President Trump."
Congressional and other investigations now are under way.
Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Ark., of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, explained what now is known to have happened, "They went forward with their own narrative that was done simply to discredit President Trump and to spin a narrative that was false, and that was that he was involved with [Russian President] Vladimir Putin in helping to change the outcome of the election."
Despite the claims of Russia collusion being debunked completely, Miller said as recently as a few weeks ago that Trump has acted like a "Kremlin asset."