On Wednesday, during a passionate speech before the committee, Sen. Jasmine Crockett, R-Texas, chided her Republican colleagues for the content of an anti-DEI bill that calls for eliminating all diversity, equity and inclusion programs and offices within the federal government.

Crockett, a 43-year-old congressional student who has change into a star within the Democratic Party because of her quite a few viral committee appearances, condemned the Dismantle DEI Act of 2024. The bill, H.R. 8706 – first introduced by Republican Vice President-elect J.D. Vance – essentially prohibit all DEI-related activities within the federal government, including all related positions, offices, training, and funding. Strikingly, the bill also prohibits federal employees working in DEI positions from transferring to a different federal position.

During a House Oversight Committee hearing wherein she responded to Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., who repeatedly called DEI policies “oppression” — seemingly aimed toward white people, as many Republicans suggested — Crockett used the committee’s speaking time to criticize the suggestion that white individuals are oppressed in consequence of efforts to shut racial disparities in sectors resembling business, education, and health.

“You don’t understand the definition of oppression… I would ask you to just Google it,” said Crockett, who moments later read the dictionary definition of the word, adding: “Oppression is long-term cruel or unfair treatment or control, that’s the definition of oppression.” The congresswoman emphasized: “There was no oppression of the white man in this country.”

Referring to the history of chattel slavery and racial segregation within the US, the Texas lawmaker said: “Tell me which white men were dragged from their homes. Tell me which one was dragged across the ocean and that you will go to work. We will steal your wives. We will rape your wives. It didn’t happen. This is oppression.”

Attempting to further explain the importance of DEI, Crockett noted that she is barely the fifty fifth Black woman elected to Congress in its 235-year history, unlike the 1000’s of white men who’ve served on Capitol Hill.

“So if you want to talk about history and pretend it was that long ago, it wasn’t,” Crockett said, citing data showing that corporations perform higher and are more profitable after they are more diversified.

The anti-DEI movement, championed exclusively by Republicans, has led to several lawsuits invalidating federal programs, including debt forgiveness for Black farmers and business loans to Black and other disadvantaged businesses. Many states led by Republican governors have indicated that DEI – especially teaching about slavery and racism – is harmful to students, namely white students. In response, they banned such topics from public classrooms.

Jamarr Brown, executive director of Color of Change PAC, the political arm of the civil rights organization, said Congresswoman Crockett’s statements on DEI were “poignant and necessary.”

While the Dismantling DEI Act actually won’t be passed while Democrats control the Senate and President Joe Biden stays in office, it signals what may very well be a priority for Republicans next yr, as outlined within the pro-Trump “Project 2025” political manifesto “.

“According to Project 2025, diversity, equity and inclusion is synonymous with ‘White lives don’t matter,’” Brown noted. “Now more than ever, we at Color Of Change PAC, as well as advocates and activists across the country, must work to protect Black people and other people of color from harm resulting from anti-DEI attacks.”

Brown continued, “Civil rights protections have helped reduce mortgage discrimination, increase the number of Black physicians to counter problems such as Black maternal mortality, and provide financing for Black-owned businesses.”

He added: “Our country thrives and everyone benefits when diversity, equality and inclusion are valued rather than stifled.”

The campaign’s legal department reports that President-elect Donald Trump is stalling the presidential transition process by refusing to sign an ethics pledge that is legally required of each sitting president

Under the Presidential Transition Act, Trump and his transition team must sign a document ensuring he avoids any conflicts of interest once he takes office. Only after the document is signed and sent to the General Services Administration (GSA) can the incoming administration gain access to federal agencies.

The transition, which President Joe Biden has promised will likely be “orderly and peaceful,” sets the tone for the Trump-Vance administration’s approach to transparency, accountability and earning the trust of Americans, all of that are seen as essential to making sure the administration fulfills its responsibilities to the U.S. people mean .

The reasons for withholding Trump’s documents are unknown, but some speculate it has to do along with his latest financial disclosure reports and for one reason particularly. Many of his holdings might be considered conflict of interest red flags, equivalent to his latest cryptocurrency business, a majority stake in his social media platform Truth Social, real estate, books and licensing deals.

It’s not only the GSA that the president-elect is avoiding. According to , Trump also refused to make use of the State Department’s secure phone lines and interpreters and kept away from using the FBI’s security clearance system. That’s why House Democrats issued latest laws on November 19 requiring Executive Office employees to have FBI security clearances. If not, Congress will likely be warned.

Democratic lawmakers and powerful Trump opponents like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) are baffled by his transition team’s refusal to sign an ethics agreement.

“Donald Trump and his transition team are already breaking the law. I would know because I wrote the law myself,” Warren wrote in X on November 11. “Future presidents are obliged to prevent conflicts of interest and sign an ethics agreement. This is what illegal corruption looks like.”

Skepticism towards the bill, presented by Representatives Don Beyer (D-VA) and Ted Lieu (D-CA)persists. The upcoming GOP-controlled Congress is seemingly leaning toward Trump. Once back in office, Trump will give you the chance to issue security clearances to anyone he wants, no matter the FBI’s objections or whether the person faces legal charges. This latest situation involves two of Trump’s Cabinet picks – Matt Gaetz as attorney general and Pete Hegseth as defense secretary, each of whom have faced allegations of sexual misconduct.

Parole was denied Wednesday for notorious South Carolina mother Susan Smith, who drowned her two young children after initially claiming a black man had kidnapped them.

“I wish I could take it back, I really do,” Smith, now 53, said. “I didn’t lie to get away with it. … I used to be just afraid. I didn’t know the way to tell the individuals who loved them that they might never see them again.

Smith said she found peace because of her Christian faith. God is a vital part of her life testified on Wednesday, “and I know he has forgiven me.”

It was her first appearance before the state parole board, which voted unanimously to keep her in prison for the remaining of her life. After serving 30 years, Smith is eligible for parole every two years.

“I know what I did was terrible,” she said in her testimony given via Zoom. “And I would give anything if I could go back and change it.”

“I love Michael and Alex with all my heart,” she said openly, crying and wiping away tears.

The disappearance of 3-year-old Michael and 14-month-old Alex made national headlines after their mother told the chilling story of how a black man stopped her automotive and took her children. She appeared incessantly on television, playing every bit the role of a distraught mother, and the search for her boys lasted nine grueling days.

Susan Smith, a South Carolina woman who pleaded guilty to killing her 3-year-old and 14-month-old sons in 1994, speaks at her parole hearing.

Smith initially lied to police, saying that a black man had kidnapped her and kidnapped her sons. pic.twitter.com/oppN49EvWj

— ABC News Live (@ABCNewsLive) November 20, 2024

It was then that Susan Smith, questioned by police who began to doubt her story, truthfully confessed what really happened on October 25, 1994.

Smith, then 23, strapped her sons into their automotive seats and drove the automotive into a lake near her home in Union, South Carolina.

Smith’s pleas fell on the ears of not only the parole board but in addition many on social media. As videos of her interrogation began circulating online, a whole bunch of comments condemned the mother for not seeming sufficiently remorseful about her actions.

“☠️MONSTERS should be kept in CAGES☠️”, one person wrote on Xformerly Twitter.

Another added: “I remember it when it happened. She claimed that her children were kidnapped by black people. And people believed her, unfortunately. She should be sentenced to death. He must remain behind bars until the very end.”

“I’m sure her children, strapped in their automotive seats, screamed and cried as they drowned in their own mother’s hands for her lustful pleasures. Shameful,” – wrote one other commentator.

Sixteenth Judicial District Solicitor Kevin Brackett recalled pulling Susan Smith’s automotive out of the water with her children inside. She added that these crimes shocked not only the family but your complete country.

“On behalf of the community I now represent, I do not believe she should ever be released from prison until the last living person who remembers Michael and Alex dies, and that will not happen in her lifetime. She should never have been released,” Brackett said Wednesday.

Defense lawyer Susan Smith argued that she planned to die with her sons, but jumped out of the automotive on the last minute.

Lead prosecutor Tommy Pope noted that Smith was not wet or injured when she ran for help after the automotive disappeared beneath the lake.

“God is an important part of my life and I know he has forgiven me… I just ask that you show the same kind of mercy.”

Killer mother Susan Smith applies for release 30 years after drowning her two young sons at her first parole hearing. The Parole Board unanimously rejected… pic.twitter.com/0jR88Mkuzo

— Fox News (@FoxNews) November 20, 2024

“Susan’s focus was always on Susan,” said Pope, who presented evidence during Smith’s murder trial that she was distraught over her breakup with one other man. Prosecutors say the connection ended because Smith had children.

“Susan made a terrible, terrible decision, choosing a man over her family,” Pope said. “If she could have put David in the car, he would have been there too.”

David Smith, Michael and Alexander’s father, who was captured entering the constructing, told the board that his ex-wife had never shown any remorse for their murder.

David Smith has just arrived at Susan Smith’s parole hearing.
He is her ex-husband and the daddy of the boys she murdered.
He wanted the death penalty, and now 30 years later he must face it again when it asks the South Carolina Parole Board to release her. pic.twitter.com/2WdqXjwQxM

— Brian Entin (@BrianEntin) November 20, 2024

“It wasn’t a tragic mistake. (…) She deliberately wanted to end their lives,” he said.

David Smith testified that his grief over the loss of his sons “came close to taking my own life.”

His current wife, Tiffany Smith, says there are still days when her husband cannot get out of bed because of the pain.

“Michael and Alex didn’t get a chance at life,” she said. “They were given the death penalty.”

He said his ex-wife served just 15 years for each child. “It’s just not enough.”

Susan Smith’s attorney, Tommy Thomas, told the parole board his client’s case shows “the dangers of untreated mental health.” He said Susan Smith was not diagnosed with depression after the birth of her second child.

Her stepfather testified that he had sexually abused her for years.

Susan Smith was not a model prisoner. She was convicted multiple times, once for sex with a prison officer and one other time for drug possession. She was also threatened with punishment for providing documents with her ex-husband’s contact details.

Her lawyer said that if she was released on parole, she would live with her brother.

David Smith said if his wife applied for parole again, he could be there for the sake of his sons.

(*30*) he told the board.