Connect with us

Published

on

Dallas, TX — The political temperature in North Texas has reached a boiling point as Rep. Jasmine Crockett [D-TX-30], known as one of the most radical progressives in Texas, faces fierce criticism over her controversial stance on former President Donald Trump’s Secret Service protection. Crockett, second only to Rep. Gene Wu in terms of radicalism, has drawn significant backlash for her co-sponsorship of H.R.8081, a bill that sought to strip Trump of his Secret Service protection following his conviction on felony charges in New York.

The uproar comes on the heels of a second assassination attempt on Trump, which occurred on September 14, 2024. The attempt took place at Trump’s New Jersey golf course, where a suspect, Ryan Wesley Routh, breached security and fired multiple shots. The Secret Service neutralized Routh before he could inflict harm, but the attempt underscored the life-threatening risks Trump continues to face, even after leaving office.

Crockett’s push to remove Secret Service protection from Trump has been described as not only extreme but dangerous, given the former president’s ongoing security risks. This most recent assassination attempt follows an earlier attack on Trump during a rally in Pennsylvania, where he narrowly avoided a fatal injury when a bullet grazed his right ear.

Despite these violent threats, Crockett has doubled down on her position, drawing the ire of many Texans. Leading the call for her resignation are 16 prominent Texas Republicans, including State Rep. Brian Harrison and State Sen. Bob Hall, who released a letter on Monday condemning her legislative actions. “Presidents of the United States, both current and former, must be protected—this should not be a partisan issue,” their statement read.

Crockett’s Radical Agenda in the Spotlight

Jasmine Crockett’s radical legislative agenda has long been a topic of concern for Texas conservatives. Known for her unapologetically progressive stances, Crockett has earned a reputation as one of the most left-wing members of the Texas delegation. Following in the footsteps of Rep. Gene Wu, the most radical progressive in the state, Crockett has been a vocal supporter of extreme measures on issues ranging from criminal justice reform to economic redistribution.

Her co-sponsorship of the “Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable Former Protectees Act” (DISGRACED) is just the latest in a string of controversial moves. Had it passed, the bill would have left Trump without Secret Service protection—a move critics argue would have made the former president even more vulnerable to assassination attempts like the ones he has faced in the past year.

Even more inflammatory were Crockett’s recent remarks about the MAGA movement. In an interview, she referred to MAGA supporters as “threats to us,” a comment that further inflamed tensions between her and conservative Texans. State Rep. Harrison blasted her remarks as “divisive and dangerous,” while State Sen. Hall called them “a chilling insight into her extreme worldview.”

Political Violence and Crockett’s Hypocrisy

Crockett’s response to the assassination attempt on Trump has done little to quiet her critics. In a carefully crafted statement posted to her official X account, she stated, “My thoughts are with Mr. Trump as he recovers. My deepest appreciation is extended to law enforcement for their selfless & decisive action. Political violence in all forms must be condemned.”

However, Republicans were quick to highlight the hypocrisy of Crockett’s statement. Many pointed out that by supporting legislation that would have removed Trump’s Secret Service protection, she was effectively putting his life at greater risk. “Her words are hollow,” said one Republican strategist. “You can’t claim to condemn political violence while simultaneously voting to leave a former president defenseless against it.”

Ken Ashby, the Independent candidate challenging Crockett in the upcoming election, seized on this apparent contradiction. “Rep. Crockett’s actions speak louder than her words. The fact that she supports leaving a former president vulnerable to assassination attempts is not only reckless, but it shows just how extreme her views have become,” Ashby said in a recent interview.

Ashby, who is gaining traction among conservative voters in Texas’ 30th District, has positioned himself as a voice of reason in a race where no Republican candidate is running. With Election Day approaching, Crockett’s controversial positions could be a major liability as voters weigh the risks of re-electing a radical progressive against the more measured approach Ashby offers.

Crockett’s Radicalism and the Future of North Texas Politics

Jasmine Crockett’s political career has been defined by her radical views, which have earned her praise from the far-left and scorn from conservatives. Her tenure in Congress has been marked by her support for progressive policies that many in Texas see as far out of step with the state’s values. From her early days as a public defender to her time in the Texas House of Representatives, Crockett has pushed for policies that critics say go too far in dismantling traditional structures of law and order.

In addition to her support for the DISGRACED Act, Crockett has been a vocal advocate for police reform, economic redistribution, and expanded government healthcare—positions that have alienated many moderate voters in her district. Her stance on Trump’s security, combined with her inflammatory rhetoric about MAGA supporters, has only deepened the divide between her and Texas Republicans.

Ken Ashby has been quick to capitalize on Crockett’s vulnerabilities, framing himself as a defender of American values and a protector of the dignity of the presidency. “It’s not just about Trump,” Ashby said in a recent statement. “It’s about protecting the office of the presidency and ensuring that all our leaders, past and present, are safe from harm. That’s something every American, regardless of party, should support.”

As Election Day draws near, the future of North Texas politics hangs in the balance. The race between Crockett and Ashby has become a referendum on extremism, with voters in District 30 forced to decide whether they want to continue down the path of radical progressivism or chart a more moderate course.

A District Divided

The controversy surrounding Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s radical views and her dangerous legislative efforts has highlighted the deep political divide in North Texas. As the second most radical progressive in Texas, Crockett’s extreme positions have made her a polarizing figure, and her co-sponsorship of a bill that could have stripped Trump of vital security protection has only amplified the concerns of her critics.

With two assassination attempts on Trump in the past year, including the most recent on September 14, 2024, many voters are questioning the wisdom of Crockett’s judgment and the safety implications of her legislative priorities. Her opponent, Ken Ashby, has positioned himself as the alternative to radicalism, offering a more secure and balanced approach to governance.

Ultimately, the voters of District 30 will decide whether to endorse Crockett’s radical agenda or embrace Ashby’s more conservative vision for North Texas. The outcome of this election could have far-reaching implications for the political landscape of Texas, shaping the direction of the state for years to come.

Michael Pipkins focuses on public integrity, governance, constitutional issues, and political developments affecting Texans. His investigative reporting covers public-record disputes, city-government controversies, campaign finance matters, and the use of public authority. Pipkins is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). As an SPJ member, Pipkins adheres to established principles of ethical reporting, including accuracy, fairness, source protection, and independent journalism.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Election

Texas Conservatives Turn on Cornyn as Paxton Surges

Published

on

Cornyn vs Paxton

OPINION – For years, Texas conservatives have watched Republicans campaign as fighters back home, only to return to Washington and govern like cautious corporate managers. That frustration is now boiling over in the growing divide between Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and U.S. Senator John Cornyn, a battle that increasingly defines the Republican Party in Texas.

Paxton has become one of the most aggressive conservative legal figures in America. Cornyn, meanwhile, is increasingly viewed by grassroots Republicans as an establishment insider tied to the old Bush era wing of the GOP. The contrast could hardly be sharper.

Paxton built his reputation fighting the Biden administration on immigration, election disputes, COVID mandates, and federal overreach. Supporters say he has consistently used the Attorney General’s office to defend Texas sovereignty and conservative values. President Donald Trump praised Paxton during his 2022 reelection fight, calling him “a true warrior for conservative values” while endorsing him against challenger George P. Bush.

For many Texas Republicans, Trump’s support mattered because Paxton was already viewed as willing to confront Washington directly rather than negotiate with it.

Cornyn has found himself on the opposite side of many of those same debates. Conservatives sharply criticized his role in bipartisan gun negotiations after the Uvalde shooting, but immigration remains the biggest source of anger among the Republican base. Cornyn has long supported expansions of employment based immigration programs, including H1B visa policies favored by major corporations.

Critics argue those programs have displaced American workers in industries like engineering, healthcare, technology, and data services by allowing companies to import cheaper foreign labor. Over the years, outsourcing firms and tech companies have repeatedly faced backlash after replacing American employees with foreign visa workers, sometimes even requiring laid off staff to train their replacements before leaving.

Cornyn argues skilled immigration helps fill labor shortages and strengthens the economy. But many Texas conservatives increasingly see the system as benefiting multinational corporations while middle-class American workers fall behind.

Paxton has aligned himself almost entirely with border hawks and immigration enforcement advocates. He has repeatedly sued the Biden administration over border policies and backed Texas efforts to secure the southern border independently of federal action. Supporters argue those lawsuits helped slow federal policies they believed encouraged illegal immigration and weakened state sovereignty.

Some conservatives also frame the immigration debate in cultural and security terms, warning that unchecked migration and weak assimilation policies can destabilize communities and strain public resources. Paxton supporters often portray him as defending Texas from the kinds of social fragmentation seen in parts of Europe.

Cornyn’s critics increasingly label him a “RINO,” shorthand for Republican In Name Only, arguing that he represents donor class priorities rather than grassroots conservatives. Trump allies have also criticized Cornyn as part of the “old Republican guard” that voters rejected during Trump’s rise. Cornyn’s primary supporter is the Lone Star Freedom Project, a dark money 501c(4) operated by former Texas Governor Rick Perry.

Opinion sections are where political realities become unavoidable. The reality is this: many Texas Republicans no longer want cautious institutional Republicans who focus on compromise while Democrats aggressively push cultural and political change nationwide.

They want confrontation. They want resistance. They want politicians willing to fight publicly and relentlessly.

That explains why Paxton continues to maintain strong support despite years of legal and political attacks. Many conservatives interpret those attacks not as proof he should step aside, but as proof he threatens entrenched political interests.

Cornyn, meanwhile, increasingly represents a Republican era many grassroots voters believe failed to defend the border, protect American workers, or stand firmly against Washington’s expansion of power. In today’s Texas Republican politics, that perception may be impossible to overcome.

Continue Reading

Featured

“Judge Speedy” Hits the Wall: Bexar County Jurist Resigns, Accepts Lifetime Ban from Texas Bench

Published

on

Rosie Speedlin Gonzalez

SAN ANTONIO, Texas — The political and legal downfall of Bexar County Judge Rosie Speedlin-Gonzalez came to a dramatic conclusion after the embattled jurist resigned from office and accepted a permanent lifetime ban from serving on the Texas bench .

The resignation agreement, signed in April and confirmed by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, ends months of controversy surrounding Speedlin-Gonzalez, who faced criminal charges and multiple judicial misconduct complaints stemming from a heated courtroom confrontation involving a San Antonio defense attorney.

Speedlin-Gonzalez, an openly gay Democrat who had served on Bexar County Court-at-Law No. 13 since 2018, formally agreed she would be, “forever disqualified from judicial service in the State of Texas.” The agreement prohibits her from serving as a judge, accepting judicial appointments, or performing judicial duties in the future.

The scandal centered on a December 2024 courtroom incident involving defense attorney Elizabeth Russell. Prosecutors alleged Speedlin-Gonzalez ordered Russell handcuffed and detained in the jury box during a contentious exchange after accusing the attorney of coaching her client during a probation revocation hearing.

A Bexar County grand jury later indicted the judge on charges of unlawful restraint and official oppression. Court documents alleged that Speedlin-Gonzalez knowingly restrained Russell without consent while acting under the authority of her judicial office.

The incident generated national attention and quickly became one of the most talked about judicial controversies in Texas. Video clips and courtroom details circulated widely online, while critics questioned whether the judge had crossed a clear constitutional line by using courtroom authority against a practicing attorney during active proceedings.

KSAT reported last month that special prosecutor Brian Cromeens later moved to dismiss the criminal charges after Speedlin-Gonzalez agreed to resign and permanently leave the judiciary. According to reports, prosecutors concluded the resignation and lifetime ban sufficiently addressed the public interest concerns surrounding the case.

The resignation agreement also referenced several additional complaints against the now former judge. One complaint alleged she displayed an “unprofessional demeanor” toward a criminal defendant and failed to timely address motions involving bond modifications and habeas corpus requests. Three additional complaints accused her of abusing judicial authority by issuing “no contact” orders restricting communications among court personnel and former employees.

Speedlin-Gonzalez had already faced disciplinary scrutiny before the handcuffing controversy erupted. According to the San Antonio Express-News, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct previously issued a public warning after she congratulated winning attorneys on social media and posted their photographs on her official judicial Facebook page. The commission also reportedly ordered additional education after complaints involving a pride flag displayed inside her courtroom.

In January, shortly after the indictment became public, Speedlin-Gonzalez defended herself in comments to the New York Post.

I’m a proud public servant, I’m LGBTQ, I own a gun, I’m bilingual, I’m an American citizen, and I have every right to defend myself,” Gonzalez told the outlet. “As long as I walk in righteousness and have God at my side I will be fine.

The judge was suspended without pay earlier this year while disciplinary proceedings continued. During that suspension, visiting judges rotated through County Court-at-Law No. 13 to handle pending cases and specialty court matters.

Court-at-Law No. 13 is known in part for overseeing Reflejo Court, a specialty program focused on first time domestic violence offenders and treatment based intervention programs.

The controversy also arrived during a difficult reelection season for Speedlin-Gonzalez. In March, she lost her Democratic primary race to challenger Alicia Perez, effectively ending her political future even before the disciplinary case concluded.

The agreement signed by Speedlin-Gonzalez states that by accepting resignation and permanent disqualification, she does not admit fault or guilt regarding the allegations against her. Such provisions are common in negotiated judicial disciplinary settlements.

One narrow exception remains under the agreement. Speedlin-Gonzalez may still officiate wedding ceremonies, provided she does not wear judicial robes or imply she retains judicial authority while conducting them.

Speedlin-Gonzalez was widely described as the first openly LGBT judge elected in Bexar County. Supporters frequently highlighted that milestone during her tenure on the bench, while critics argued the attention surrounding identity politics often overshadowed concerns about courtroom conduct and professionalism.

Permanent judicial disqualifications remain relatively uncommon in Texas, particularly involving sitting elected county judges. The case now joins a growing list of disciplinary actions taken by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct against jurists accused of misconduct or abuse of authority.

Continue Reading

Featured

UFO Files Released

Published

on

UFO Files Released

Trump’s “UFO Files” Drop Lands With a Thud, Leaving Believers and Skeptics Equally Unsatisfied

Department of War – For years, UFO believers promised the truth was buried somewhere deep inside government vaults, hidden behind classified markings and decades of official denials. The long-awaited disclosure, they said, would prove humanity is not alone. So when the Trump administration released a major archive of UFO-related material this week, anticipation exploded across social media and conspiracy circles alike. The result, however, landed with all the excitement of opening a mystery safe only to discover it filled with newspaper clippings, hobby magazines, and blurry photos of distant lights in the sky.

The files were released through the federal archive portal at www.WAR.GOV/UFO Files and include videos, audio recordings, witness statements, correspondence, and archival documents connected to unidentified flying objects, now often called unidentified anomalous phenomena, or UAPs.

The website also prominently features a statement from Donald Trump posted from Truth Social:

“Based on the tremendous interest shown, I will be directing the Secretary of War, and other relevant Departments and Agencies, to begin the process of identifying and releasing Government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and any and all other information connected to these highly complex, but extremely interesting and important, matters. GOD BLESS AMERICA!”

The Department of War website also states that additional material will continue to be released on a weekly basis, suggesting the current archive represents only the first phase of a broader disclosure effort. That announcement has kept many UFO enthusiasts hopeful that more substantial evidence could still emerge in future document dumps.

For now, however, the initial release appears to contain little that fundamentally changes the public understanding of UFO phenomena.

Despite years of sensational claims about craft performing maneuvers that supposedly “defy physics,” none of the videos included in the archive appear to show anything close to that. The objects captured on camera are consistently small, far away, and moving in mostly straight lines at what appear to be ordinary, subsonic speeds. There are no impossible right-angle turns, no instantaneous acceleration, no sudden stops, and no visible flight characteristics beyond what could plausibly be explained by conventional objects or optical effects.

File: DOD_111688964 – Taken 2024-06-01 – The United States Northern Command submitted a report of an unidentified anomalous phenomenon (UAP) to the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) consisting of 21 seconds of video footage from an infrared sensor aboard a U.S. military platform in 2024. An accompanying mission report, DoW-UAP-D8, described the UAP as consisting of an object with a vertical pole or bar attached to the bottom of the object. The observer also reported that the UAP may instead be a reflection from an object in the water.

Most of the footage consists of little more than bright shiny objects against the sky, filmed from such extreme distances that meaningful identification becomes nearly impossible. A few clips appear consistent with balloons or commercial drones. Others show glowing or reflective orbs with no discernible structure or detail. None of the material independently verifies the extraordinary claims often promoted by UFO media personalities and internet commentators.

The release arrives after years of mounting public fascination with UFOs. Congressional hearings, Pentagon acknowledgements of unexplained aerial sightings, and endless online speculation helped create expectations that the government might eventually reveal evidence of non human intelligence. Those expectations likely contributed to the enormous interest surrounding this document dump.

But much of the archive reads less like disclosure and more like an oversized collection of unresolved anecdotes and cultural memorabilia. Witness statements describe strange lights, odd movements, and unusual sightings, but almost none are supported by physical evidence, radar tracking, or technical analysis capable of independent verification. Some are handwritten personal accounts submitted decades ago by ordinary citizens reporting mysterious experiences investigators apparently could neither confirm nor explain.

A surprisingly large portion of the collection focuses on civilian UFO enthusiast organizations that published magazines and newsletters dedicated to sightings and theories about alien life. Rather than classified military revelations, many files simply document the activities of hobbyist groups fascinated by UFO culture during the Cold War era and beyond.

The archive also includes letters from school children asking the government whether flying saucers and aliens are real. While historically interesting as a reflection of American pop culture and public curiosity, the letters offer no evidentiary value regarding extraterrestrial life. Some of the material feels more appropriate for a museum exhibit on twentieth century UFO fascination than for a headline generating government disclosure project.

NASA related recordings and footage included in the release similarly failed to produce dramatic revelations. Most involve routine aerospace operations, ambiguous observations, or discussions about unidentified objects without any conclusion that they originated from beyond Earth. NASA has consistently maintained there is no confirmed evidence of alien visitation, and nothing in this release appears to alter that position.

Reaction online quickly shifted from excitement to frustration. Some UFO believers claimed the truly important files are still hidden behind classification barriers and that the public release was carefully sanitized before publication. Skeptics argued the archive merely reinforces what critics have long maintained, that UFO mythology survives largely because blurry footage and incomplete information allow people to project extraordinary conclusions onto ordinary phenomena.

Notably absent from the release are the kinds of materials long promised in sensational documentaries and conspiracy forums. There are no recovered alien craft, no biological specimens, no authenticated extraterrestrial communications, and no government memos admitting contact with non human intelligence. More importantly, there is no footage of any object displaying flight characteristics that genuinely challenge known physics.

That disconnect between public expectation and documented reality may ultimately be the biggest story.

For decades, UFO culture has operated on the assumption that earth shattering proof exists just beyond public reach. Every blurry light becomes a possible spacecraft. Every vague government statement fuels another round of speculation. Entire media industries now thrive on the promise that disclosure is always right around the corner.

Yet when the files finally arrived, they mostly revealed what Americans have seen for generations, distant lights, uncertain observations, stories without proof, and a government willing to catalog mystery without necessarily solving it.

Perhaps future weekly releases from the Department of War will contain something more compelling. But if this first archive is any indication, Americans waiting for undeniable proof of alien visitation may need to lower their expectations considerably.

Continue Reading