Washington, D.C. — A congressional hearing turned fiery when Texas Republican Rep. Pat Fallon clashed with acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe over the agency’s recent controversies and alleged politicization of its operations. The bipartisan task force, investigating assassination attempts on President-elect Donald Trump, convened to scrutinize security failures, but tensions escalated as Fallon accused Rowe of neglecting his duties during a high-profile 9/11 memorial event.

At the heart of the confrontation was a photo of Rowe at the memorial, standing in close proximity to Vice President Kamala Harris, President Joe Biden, and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance. Fallon pointedly questioned whether Rowe’s position compromised the protective detail for Trump, who was also present at the event in New York City.

“Who is usually, at an event like this, closest to the president of the United States, security-wise?” Fallon asked Rowe.

Rowe, deflecting from directly addressing his own role, stated that the special agent in charge (SAC) is typically positioned closest to the president. However, Fallon pressed further, asking if Rowe himself was acting as the SAC during the event. Rowe avoided a clear response, asserting that he attended to honor Secret Service members who perished on September 11, 2001.

Accusations of Politicization

Fallon, a staunch advocate for transparency and accountability within federal agencies, challenged Rowe’s motives for attending the event. He suggested Rowe’s presence near high-profile political figures might signal aspirations to secure a permanent appointment as Secret Service director under the Biden administration.

“This isn’t about showing respect for the fallen,” Fallon said. “You endangered lives—those of President Biden, Vice President Harris, and President-elect Trump—by misaligning your agents. This was a political audition, plain and simple.”

Rowe, visibly agitated, pushed back against Fallon’s assertions, calling them “out of line.” The acting director defended his record, emphasizing his service at Ground Zero after the 9/11 attacks and accusing Fallon of politicizing the tragedy.

“Do not invoke 9/11 for political purposes,” Rowe retorted, raising his voice.

Fallon fired back, refusing to back down. “Don’t try to bully me. I am an elected member of Congress, and I am asking serious questions. You’re playing politics and failing in your duties.”

Fallout from Security Failures

The confrontation comes on the heels of a major scandal for the Secret Service. On July 13, a gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks, managed to access a rooftop near a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, and opened fire. President-elect Trump was wounded in the attack, along with two attendees, one of whom later died. The incident highlighted glaring security lapses within the agency, prompting the resignation of former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle.

Rowe, who was appointed as acting director following Cheatle’s departure, admitted to failures during the hearing. “July 13 was a failure of the Secret Service to adequately secure the Butler Farm Show site and protect President-elect Trump,” Rowe stated in his opening remarks. “We did not meet the expectations of the American public, Congress, or our protectees.”

Despite acknowledging these shortcomings, Rowe’s testimony did little to assure lawmakers, particularly Fallon, that the agency had learned from its mistakes. The congressman lambasted Rowe for what he described as a pattern of political maneuvering and lack of accountability.

A Texas Voice for Accountability

For Fallon, a representative known for his commitment to constitutional principles and government transparency, the stakes of the hearing went beyond partisan politics. The Texas congressman argued that the Secret Service’s apparent politicization poses a direct threat to national security.

“This isn’t about partisan loyalty—it’s about whether the American people can trust their government to safeguard their leaders,” Fallon stated after the hearing. “When those in power prioritize personal ambitions over their sworn duties, we all lose.”

Rowe’s future as acting director appears uncertain, with the task force’s findings expected to heavily influence Trump’s eventual nomination of a permanent Secret Service director. As the investigation continues, Fallon has vowed to hold the agency accountable, underscoring the need for reforms that prioritize safety over politics.

The clash between Fallon and Rowe encapsulates broader concerns about trust and integrity within federal agencies, a pressing issue for many Americans—and a rallying cry for constitutional conservatives demanding accountability in Washington.

In recent years, the term “RINO” (Republican in Name Only) has taken on new meaning, particularly as a label for individuals within the GOP who have steadfastly opposed the populist movement led by former President Donald Trump. As the 2024 election cycle approaches, a notable group of these “Never Trump” Republicans—figures like Dick and Liz Cheney, George Bush, Mike Pence, John Bolton, Mitt Romney, Adam Kinzinger, Lisa Murkowski, and the disbanded yet outspoken Lincoln Project—have taken their defection to new heights, publicly declaring their intent to support Kamala Harris, the Democratic frontrunner, for president. By doing so, they have effectively cemented their irrelevance within the modern GOP, ensuring that their influence will continue to dwindle in a party that has transformed far beyond the neoconservative days of the Bush administration.

The Irreversible Break

The decision to endorse Harris over Trump is nothing short of an existential crisis for these figures. While many of them have long been estranged from the Trump wing of the party, this outright endorsement of the opposition signals their final break from the GOP’s base. Figures such as Dick and Liz Cheney, who once represented the hawkish, interventionist wing of the Republican Party, are now seen as relics of a bygone era. Their support for Harris, a staunch progressive, reveals just how disconnected they’ve become from the conservative grassroots.

Liz Cheney’s anti-Trump crusade reached its zenith with her prominent role on the January 6th Committee, where she sought to portray Trump as a danger to democracy. While this earned her accolades from the left, it led to her resounding defeat in Wyoming’s Republican primary, where her loyalty to the party’s base was called into question. Her father’s legacy as Vice President under George W. Bush may have carried weight during the War on Terror, but in today’s GOP, a party increasingly focused on America First policies, the Cheney name is synonymous with the establishment—a faction that has lost its grip on power.

George Bush: A Distant Memory

The Bush dynasty, once a dominant force in Republican politics, now finds itself in the political wilderness. George W. Bush’s silence during the Trump presidency spoke volumes, but his recent endorsement of Kamala Harris underscores how far he has drifted from the conservative movement that once championed his leadership. Many conservative voters see the Bush years as a period of misguided wars and unchecked spending, and the former president’s support for a Democratic candidate further alienates him from a party that has moved in a dramatically different direction.

Mike Pence and John Bolton: From Allies to Pariahs

Mike Pence, once Trump’s loyal vice president, finds himself in a political no man’s land. His refusal to challenge the 2020 election results earned him the ire of many Trump supporters, and his subsequent political moves, including his Harris endorsement, have isolated him even further. Pence’s traditional conservative stance on issues like abortion may resonate with some in the GOP, but his unwillingness to embrace the populist tide means his future within the party is bleak.

John Bolton, Trump’s former national security advisor, has long been a polarizing figure. His neoconservative worldview, shaped by a belief in American interventionism abroad, is a stark contrast to the America First approach that now defines the GOP. Bolton’s endorsement of Harris is unsurprising, given his public spats with Trump, but it only serves to highlight how out of touch he is with a Republican base that no longer prioritizes endless wars and nation-building.

Mitt Romney, Adam Kinzinger, and Lisa Murkowski: The Party’s Outcasts

Mitt Romney, the senator from Utah and 2012 Republican presidential nominee, has spent much of the Trump era positioning himself as the GOP’s moral conscience. His votes to impeach Trump and his consistent criticism of the former president have made him a pariah within the party. Romney’s decision to back Harris all but guarantees that he will have no future influence in shaping the GOP’s policy or direction.

Adam Kinzinger, another vocal critic of Trump, has followed a similar trajectory. Once a rising star in the GOP, Kinzinger’s tenure on the January 6th Committee and his constant bashing of Trump’s influence on the party led to his political demise. His exit from Congress was more of a resignation than a defeat, but his endorsement of Harris signals that he, too, has no intention of aligning with the future of the Republican Party.

Lisa Murkowski, the senator from Alaska, has long walked a fine line between maintaining her seat and placating a Republican base that has increasingly viewed her as too moderate. Her vote to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial alienated her from the GOP electorate, and her support for Harris solidifies her position as an outsider within the party.

The Lincoln Project: A Failed Experiment

Perhaps the most glaring example of political irrelevance is The Lincoln Project, the group of disaffected Republicans that formed in opposition to Trump. While initially heralded by the media as a principled stand against the populist takeover of the GOP, the organization quickly descended into scandal and disarray. Its members—George Conway, Steve Schmidt, John Weaver, Rick Wilson, Jennifer Horn, Ron Steslow, Reed Galen, and Mike Madrid—have not only failed to sway Republican voters but have also been engulfed by internal turmoil, sexual harassment scandals, and allegations of financial mismanagement.

The Lincoln Project’s endorsement of Harris is more of a desperate attempt to stay relevant than a meaningful political statement. Their influence has waned to the point that they are now more popular with MSNBC viewers than with actual Republican voters. Their vocal support for a Democratic candidate only serves to remind the GOP base that they no longer belong within the party’s tent.

The GOP’s Future: Unwavering Loyalty to the Base

The transformation of the Republican Party over the past decade has been nothing short of revolutionary. What was once a party led by establishment figures like the Bushes, Romneys, and Cheneys has now become a movement driven by a populist, nationalist base. The issues that animate the GOP today—securing the southern border, protecting American jobs, limiting government overreach, and standing up to the radical left—are completely at odds with the worldview of the RINO Republicans who are now backing Kamala Harris.

By choosing to support Harris, these figures have all but guaranteed their permanent exclusion from any future Republican administration. Their influence has been reduced to the occasional appearance on cable news, where they are paraded as “reasonable” Republicans willing to buck their party’s leadership. But within the actual GOP, their voices carry no weight. The Republican Party is no longer a party of compromise with the left—it is a party of conviction, driven by a desire to restore American greatness and reject the globalist, interventionist policies of the past.

A New Era for the GOP

As the 2024 election looms, the irrelevance of the Never Trump Republicans becomes increasingly apparent. Their endorsement of Kamala Harris is not a principled stand but a final act of desperation from a faction that has lost its influence and power. The future of the Republican Party belongs to those who are willing to fight for the interests of the American people, not those who seek the approval of the media or the Washington elite. In the end, the RINO Republicans have chosen their path, and it is one that leads far away from the heart of the GOP.

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.