In a heated and dramatic House Judiciary Committee hearing, Republican Congressman Jim Jordan made explosive allegations against former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, claiming that Schiff leaked classified information to harm former President Donald Trump. This revelation came during a session focused on oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and highlighted the ongoing political tensions surrounding the agency and its leadership.
The hearing began with a moment of reflection as Chairman Jim Jordan acknowledged the tragic death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who was recently assassinated. Jordan praised Kirk for his commitment to defending the First Amendment and his fight for American values. He invoked the scripture from 2 Timothy 4:7, emphasizing Kirk’s dedication to “fight the good fight, finish the course, keep the faith.”
Jordan’s somber remarks set the tone for the hearing, which quickly shifted to the serious allegations against Schiff. Ranking member of the committee also expressed horror at Kirk’s assassination, highlighting the need for unity against political violence in America. The committee’s shared grief underscored the gravity of the discussions that would follow.
As the hearing progressed, Jim Jordan introduced a whistleblower with 23 years of experience in the intelligence community. This whistleblower, a Democrat staffer, alleged that Schiff pressured them to leak classified information. Jordan raised critical questions about why the head of the intelligence committee would encourage the leaking of such sensitive material.
According to the whistleblower, the leaked information was intended to be used to indict President Trump. This revelation prompted Jordan to draw parallels between Schiff’s actions and those of former FBI Director James Comey, who had also been accused of leaking classified information. Jordan cited an inspector general’s report that claimed Comey violated FBI policy by disclosing classified information, suggesting that both Schiff and Comey were motivated by a desire to undermine Trump’s presidency.
Jordan’s accusations did not stop there. He delved into the origins of the intelligence community’s assessment regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election, claiming that it was manipulated to fit a particular narrative. He pointed to a meeting at the White House on December 9, 2016, where officials decided to change the assessment from stating that Russia did not impact the election vote count to claiming that Russia was attempting to influence the election.
He presented emails from Admiral Mike Rogers, then head of the NSA, expressing concerns about the intelligence assessment. In response, Jordan highlighted an email from James Clapper, then Director of National Intelligence, urging his colleagues to “be on the same page” and emphasizing the need to support the report, even if it meant compromising their normal procedures.
Jordan asserted that the discredited Steele dossier, funded by the Clinton campaign, played a significant role in shaping the intelligence community’s narrative about Russian interference. He accused Schiff and others of using this dubious information to further their political agenda, thereby undermining the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency.
The hearing took a dramatic turn as Jordan recounted the events of January 6, 2017, when Comey and other intelligence officials briefed then-President-elect Trump about the discredited dossier. Jordan argued that this briefing was intended to give credibility to the false information and set the stage for further investigations into Trump’s ties to Russia.
He accused Comey of immediately leaking details of the briefing to the press, further perpetuating the narrative that Trump was compromised. According to Jordan, this was part of a broader scheme involving high-ranking officials within the FBI and intelligence community to sabotage Trump’s first term.
Amidst the accusations, Jordan praised the current FBI Director, Kash Patel, for his leadership and efforts to restore integrity to the bureau. He highlighted Patel’s achievements, including the removal of 21,000 violent criminals from the streets and the rescue of 4,000 children from predatory situations. Jordan claimed that Patel’s focus on law enforcement rather than political maneuvering marked a significant shift in the FBI’s priorities.
Jordan emphasized that under Patel’s leadership, the FBI had ceased its surveillance of concerned parents at school board meetings and ended the pre-dawn raids on pro-life activists. He argued that Patel was committed to transparency and accountability, contrasting his approach with that of former Director Christopher Wray.
Jordan’s remarks underscored the importance of accountability within the FBI and the need for transparency in government operations. He pointed out that Patel had provided information that Wray had previously withheld from Congress, including details about confidential human sources present at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Jordan accused Wray of failing to disclose that some of these sources had entered restricted areas without facing any consequences.
The congressman also referenced the Richmond field office memorandum, which targeted pro-life Catholics, asserting that Patel had revealed the extent of the FBI’s surveillance activities. Jordan claimed that this demonstrated a pattern of political bias within the agency, raising concerns about the FBI’s commitment to impartiality.
In addition to his critiques of the FBI’s past actions, Jordan praised Patel for saving taxpayer money by opting to keep the FBI’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., rather than pursuing a costly relocation. He argued that Patel’s decisions reflected a commitment to fiscal responsibility and effective governance.
Jordan concluded his opening statement by expressing his belief that the Democrats would continue to focus on undermining Trump rather than acknowledging the positive changes Patel had implemented within the FBI. He urged his colleagues to prioritize accountability and transparency over political agendas.
As the hearing progressed, it became evident that the political divide within Congress remains deeply entrenched. Jordan’s allegations against Schiff and the broader implications for the FBI’s integrity sparked intense debate among lawmakers. The session highlighted the ongoing struggle between accountability and political maneuvering, as both parties sought to shape the narrative surrounding the FBI and its role in American democracy.
With the hearing drawing national attention, it is clear that the fallout from these allegations will continue to reverberate throughout Washington. As the investigation into the alleged leaks and misconduct unfolds, the American public remains watchful, eager for transparency and accountability in their government. The stakes are high, and the implications of these revelations could have lasting effects on the political landscape in the years to come.
In a move that is already reverberating throughout the entertainment industry, three of Hollywood’s most recognizable figures—Kurt Russell, Roseanne Barr, and Tim Allen—have officially announced the formation of the Non-Woke Actors’ Alliance. This bold new initiative is designed to challenge what its founders call the “ideological monoculture” of Hollywood, and to create a space for artists, writers, and performers who feel their voices have been marginalized by the dominance of progressive values in the industry.
The Alliance, which champions traditional values, creative freedom, and ideological diversity, is being hailed by supporters as a necessary corrective to what they see as Hollywood’s increasing intolerance for dissenting viewpoints. Critics, meanwhile, worry that the movement could roll back hard-won gains for inclusivity and social justice. Regardless of which side of the debate one falls on, it’s clear that the Non-Woke Actors’ Alliance is poised to become a major flashpoint in the ongoing culture wars that have come to define American media and entertainment.
The seeds of the Alliance were planted during private conversations between Roseanne Barr and Tim Allen, two stars whose conservative views have often put them at odds with the prevailing sentiments in Hollywood.
Barr, who was famously fired from her own show in 2018 after a controversial tweet, has long argued that the industry is hostile to those who don’t toe the progressive line. Allen, whose sitcom Last Man Standing faced repeated cancellations despite solid ratings, shares similar frustrations about what he describes as a lack of ideological balance in the entertainment world.
Both actors felt that Hollywood had become an echo chamber, celebrating only one viewpoint while silencing or ostracizing others. Their shared vision was to create a platform for those who felt unseen or unheard—a place where creative freedom and respect for differing opinions would be the rule rather than the exception.
The addition of Kurt Russell, a respected veteran whose career spans more than five decades, has given the Alliance a significant boost in credibility and visibility. Known for roles in classics like Escape from New York, The Thing, and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, Russell has long been admired for his independent spirit and willingness to speak his mind.
His decision to join the Alliance signals that the discontent with Hollywood’s current climate is not limited to a fringe group, but is shared by some of its most established talents.
The founders of the Non-Woke Actors’ Alliance are quick to clarify that their mission is not to attack progressive ideologies or undermine the fight for social justice.
Instead, they say, their goal is to restore true diversity of thought to Hollywood, and to ensure that a wide range of stories and perspectives can find a home in mainstream entertainment.
“We’re not trying to fight against progressivism,” Tim Allen recently explained. “We’re just trying to create space for the other side of the conversation. Hollywood can’t truly be inclusive if it only listens to one perspective. There’s room for all voices.”
The Alliance’s core values include personal responsibility, traditional values, freedom of expression, and patriotism—principles its founders believe are underrepresented in today’s media landscape. By promoting these ideals, they hope to rebalance an industry they see as increasingly polarized and politically charged.
The Non-Woke Actors’ Alliance is wasting no time in turning its vision into reality. Several projects are already in development, each designed to showcase the kind of creative freedom and ideological diversity the founders want to see more of in Hollywood.
Among the most anticipated is a new sitcom led by Tim Allen, which promises to blend his trademark humor with social commentary rooted in conservative values. The show will tackle topics like family, personal responsibility, and individual freedoms—issues that Allen says are too often ignored or caricatured in mainstream media.
Roseanne Barr, known for her fearless comedic style, is preparing a stand-up special that will confront hot-button issues such as cancel culture, free speech, and the current political climate.
“I’m going to talk about the things people are too afraid to say,” Barr teased in a recent interview. “Comedy is supposed to challenge us, not just make us comfortable.”
Kurt Russell, meanwhile, is developing a feature film that will explore themes of liberty, integrity, and resilience in the face of political upheaval. The film aims to offer a nuanced look at American values and the challenges facing individuals in a divided society.
In addition to these high-profile projects, the Alliance is planning workshops and mentorship programs for emerging artists who feel alienated by Hollywood’s prevailing norms. These initiatives will provide resources and support for creators who want to tell stories outside the mainstream narrative.
Unsurprisingly, the launch of the Non-Woke Actors’ Alliance has sparked fierce debate within Hollywood and beyond. Supporters argue that the movement is a much-needed antidote to an industry that has become too ideologically homogeneous.
They believe that by making room for a broader range of perspectives, the Alliance will foster greater creativity and more authentic storytelling.
Critics, however, worry that the Alliance’s embrace of “traditional values” is simply a coded way of resisting progress on issues like race, gender, and inclusion. Some fear that the movement could embolden regressive attitudes and undermine efforts to make Hollywood more equitable and representative.
Despite the controversy, the involvement of such high-profile figures ensures that the Alliance cannot be easily dismissed. As one industry insider put it, “Whether you agree with them or not, Russell, Barr, and Allen have opened up a conversation that Hollywood can’t ignore.”
The Non-Woke Actors’ Alliance arrives at a moment when the entertainment industry—and American society as a whole—is grappling with questions of identity, inclusion, and free expression.
As the culture wars rage on, Hollywood has increasingly become a battleground for competing visions of what America should look like.
For the founders of the Alliance, the hope is that their movement will help bridge the growing divide by creating a space where all viewpoints can be heard and respected. “We’re not trying to create division,” Kurt Russell said.
“We’re trying to open a space for a wider range of opinions to be heard. Entertainment should reflect the diversity of thought, not just one side.”
It remains to be seen whether the Non-Woke Actors’ Alliance will succeed in reshaping the entertainment industry, or whether it will remain a niche movement. What is clear is that its formation marks a significant moment in Hollywood’s ongoing evolution—a reminder that the battle over who gets to tell America’s stories is far from over.
As new projects roll out and more artists join the conversation, the industry—and its audiences—will be watching closely. Whether the Alliance can fulfill its promise of restoring creative freedom and ideological diversity to Hollywood may ultimately depend on whether it can inspire not just controversy, but real change.
Campaign Associate of Rep. Ilhan Omar Pleads Guilty in Pandemic Food Fraud Scheme. A former campaign associate of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has pleaded guilty in federal court to his role in a multi-million-dollar food fraud conspiracy, widening the spotlight on Minnesota’s already sprawling Feeding Our Future scandal.
The Guilty Plea. Federal prosecutors announced that Guhaad Hashi Said, 49 — once described by Alpha News as an “enforcer” for Omar’s campaign — admitted guilt to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.
The charges stem from a scheme that exploited federally funded child nutrition programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson called the conviction of the 52nd defendant in the case “a reminder of the vast reach of this fraud … the scale of the fraud in Minnesota is staggering.” How the Scheme Worked
According to court filings:. Said’s nonprofit, Advance Youth Athletic Development, was incorporated in February 2021 at a Minneapolis apartment complex. Starting in March, he claimed to be serving 5,000 meals a day — more than 1 million meals by year’s end.
In reality, only a fraction were provided. Prosecutors say he falsified rosters, invoices, and meal counts. The operation drew in roughly $2.9 million in federal funds. Over $2.1 million was funneled through a catering business, while other proceeds went toward real estate, cars, and personal purchases.
Said now faces up to 25 years in federal prison. Political Ripples. While Omar herself has not been implicated in the Feeding Our Future scandal, the guilty plea draws renewed attention to controversies around her political orbit. Past episodes include: A 2019 ruling by the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board ordering Omar to reimburse improperly used campaign funds.
Calls this year by House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) for an ethics investigation after Omar’s Somali-language remarks about protecting Somalia’s sea access drew criticism as “anti-American.” Omar disputes that translation and maintains her comments were misrepresented. Omar’s critics argue the fraud case underscores questions about figures close to her. Supporters emphasize she has not been charged and warn against guilt by association. Broader Lessons
The Feeding Our Future scandal has exposed deep vulnerabilities in emergency relief programs — designed to feed children in need, but exploited through falsified paperwork and shell nonprofits. Each new conviction sharpens public pressure for stricter oversight and more transparent use of taxpayer funds. Beyond politics, the case is a sobering reminder: when programs meant to protect the vulnerable are abused, the harm extends far beyond dollars lost. Trust, once broken, is harder to restore.