Democrats And Their Supporters Offer A Case Study In How Abuse Works

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall 

There are just some people who can’t walk away from abuse. While most people, most women, in a relationship will hit the bricks if the man they’re seeing even seems like he’d raise his hand to her – and either men have it in them or they don’t, no one switches sides willy nilly or comes to this point late in life – others take abuse and return, time after time. Apparently, the thought of “He’s really sorry and won’t do it again” sticks around in the brain as long as Joe Biden has these days. That – this collective, self-delusional dementia – is how the Democratic Party can get anyone’s vote, ever.

The wife of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Democrats’ favorite alleged gang member, is demanding his prompt return to the United States, despite the fact that she has filed police reports on at least two occasions claiming he was physically abusive with her.

Jennifer Vasquez Sura wants her husband back, just like so many other abuse victims still think they “love” their abusers, and that their abusers “love” them. But love doesn’t involve a right hook or the back of the hand. 

Still, leftists have been pouring money and support into the cause of returning the man she once feared for her life from, with elected officials making a pilgrimage to his prison like he were a political prisoner and not an illegal alien. 

Imagine the pressure on Jennifer. Maybe she’s being sincere, or perhaps she’s seeing one half of the political world descend on her and her family, showering her with moral and financial support the likes of which she’s never received before. How do you stand up to that? How do you do anything with that other than exactly what it wants you to do?

In the world of politics, solid blue Democrat Party enclaves are the closest analogy out there. Cities where Democrats have had complete control, absolute control, for generations, while the lives of their constituents and the neighborhoods in which they live have entirely gone to hell.

You have to ask yourself, “Why?”

Not because of the destruction, that is the nature of progressive politics – it is a parasite that destroys its host – but why on the idea that people don’t simply choose another option.

I grew up in Detroit and moved to Baltimore after graduating from college to work in Washington, DC. These are three once-great American cities completely gutted by the cancer that is Democrat Party control. The sad thing is, in even the worst areas of these cities, you can drive and see the shadow of what once was. 

They, and other cities like them, weren’t always hell holes of vacant lots, abandoned buildings, crime, and drugs. Democrats created them. You can argue the destruction was an unintended consequence of their policies, but once it became known as a common consequence, it is worth noting that they did not reverse course. The addiction, economic ruin, decay, destruction, all the lives lost, and all the lives damaged in the wake of all of that didn’t elicit any self-reflection or course correction from the left. A serial killing sociopath would be hard-pressed not to feel at least a tinge of guilt over this thorough decimation of tens of millions of people. Yet, the DNC and its army of Borg drones show all the remorse of a Terminator completing its mission. 

California recently saw Democrats block a bill that would make it a felony to buy–yes, buy-a child of 16 or 17 for sex. It’s already a felony in the state to sell a child up to the age of 17 for sex – just call it what it is: sex slavery – but to buy a child is only a guaranteed felony charge up to the age of 15, where it becomes either a felony or a misdemeanor for 16 and 17.

What kind of sick people would carve out a misdemeanor charge for child sexual predators who prefer slightly older kids? Democrats.

How many child rapists in good standing must there be in the Democrat Party in California for them to make a public stand against this? 

Headlines like “California Democrats reject push for harsher penalties for soliciting sex from older teens,” and “California Democrats block another attempt to ramp up penalties for sex solicitors of 16 and 17-year-olds,” have not deterred them. Hell, the odds of you having heard about it are almost nothing because the people who “speak truth to power” are in on the scam.

Evil is the best word that comes to mind.

The relationship between the Democrat Party and its voters is the relationship between an abuser and their victim who just can’t escape their clutches. Republicans would do well to remember that when trying to do outreach into these hotbeds of progressive destruction and remind their voters that it doesn’t have to be this way – that a black eye or busted jaw is not a sign of love, or a rotten education system designed to condition children into permanent poverty is not respect, they’re the exact opposite. 

Why We May Lose Our Country

Between the leftist attack on a shared culture and the existential importance of babies, America is becoming a Balkanized, depopulated mess. 

posted by Allan J. Feifer at American Thinker 

Being an American citizen used to mean something; now, not so much. We are on the decline, lacking focus and unable to answer the most important question that matters: what is an American?

By 1800, America was largely an established and cohesive nation. We had an almost industrialized process of taking people in and producing fundamentally similar people, thoroughly American, within a generation or two. This process continued for the next 160 years with laws and policies aiming to integrate immigrants into a predominantly Anglo-Saxon, Protestant identity. Laws were enacted to encourage learning and cultural conformity.

However, the concept of assimilation saw the winds shift in the mid-20th century. The Civil Rights Movement and toward multiculturalism led to greater acceptance of diverse cultural identities. Assimilation was out, and cultural identity, whatever the heck that was, was deemed more important.

The decline of the central importance of the dominant culture in favor of making room for all kinds of competing ideologies and priorities, coupled with the beginning of the welfare state, has led to societal disruption that has been particularly hard on traditional Americana.

Let’s start with a working definition of what an ideal American must be:

An English-speaking man or woman who works, marries, believes in God, has at least 2.2 children, lives in an orderly manner without the requirement for government support, saves for retirement, and centers their lives around their children, recognizing intact families as the highest contribution to society possible.

There are 125 million individuals between 18 and 49, but only 31.1 million are suitable for childbearing. The current birth rate for employed individuals living here is only 1.5 births vs. the 2.1 necessary to sustain the population without immigration.

Couple the above numbers with a significantly declining labor participation rate and the lengthened lives of our citizens, and you can quickly understand how economic calamity is virtually assured unless we birth more traditional American babies to pay the bills.

The labor force participation rate in the U.S. has been declining over the past two decades, peaking at around 67% in the early 2000s. It has since dropped to approximately 62.5% as of March 2025, a drop of 7.2%, and is accelerating as women opt out of childbearing. This is unsustainable is probably one of the unspoken reasons behind the Biden administration’s unchecked immigration. It’s definitely the reason behind Trump floating the idea of a $5,000 per-child baby bonus.

Paying to incentivize women to have babies is an idea that is already a reality in some European countries. But here, just having babies isn’t enough. Immigrant groups are having babies, but they’re not assimilating to American values. Therefore, the question requires us to return to how we promote authentic American citizens to create the next generation of authentic and thoroughly assimilated Americans.

There are four fundamental changes that the government can incentivize or mandate that will accomplish this task in a single generation:

• Close the floodgates of illegal and unqualified immigration. Done!
• English-only in education, dealing with the government, and in the workplace. We have started this, but there is much left to do.
• Eliminate the majority of subsidies that induce people not to join the workforce.
• Encourage reproduction through tax policy, but exclude anyone on the dole from receiving such benefits. One of those benefits should be a low-interest housing loan with downpayment support.

That’s it. Adopt these four policies, and our population imbalance self-corrects. Who could be against this?

Democrats and some women, that’s who! Progressives have a deeply felt belief that marriage and children rob women of their freedom. There’s a lot of truth behind the stereotype of an “Angry Cat Lady,” who is a feminist and has embraced work and cats in lieu of family and children.

Years ago, TV’s Judge Judy correctly told a defendant,

These children are entitled to at least one parent to set a good example. Grownups take care of their children; they don’t just provide them with food, they provide them with a moral compass. They try not to teach them to become brawling animals in parking lots, hitting each other with 2X4s, scratching each other’s eyes out. Human beings don’t do that to each other. You don’t belong at a club at 12 a.m., you belong home, reading them stories from a book!

Progressives and Democrats subscribe to the theory that women have the right to choose everything. They can choose to work, be promiscuous, have abortions right up to the time of delivery, and they can reject having a family, getting married, or submitting to any moral authority. Somewhere along the line, perhaps after WWII, when women took the place of men in factories and offices, or later, when the Pill made it possible to become more like men, we discovered the Devil’s bargain women had engaged in to “Have it all.”

The essential truth of successful living is that sacrifice must override many personal desires. “Having it all” is a prescription for the cultural collapse nibbling away at us today. Importing human beings to make up for women who have stopped procreating is not a solution.

I know many women will disagree with me. Consumerism and women having “their own money” require two incomes today. We must reexamine the choices that made this so. We need a national dialogue that sees our thought and opinion leaders ask fundamental questions, such as whether we are really better off today with our misplaced priorities. I, for one, don’t believe we are.

X22, And we Know, and more- May 4

 

What Will Become of Democrat Calls for Violence?

Ward Clark reporting for RedState 

The calls for violence are growing louder and louder by the day. The agitators are calling for the assassination of public figures and elected officials; they are calling for acts of insurrection by federal and local law enforcement. 

These are actions that would very likely prompt a second civil war, but the agitators have no thought of that, or, on the few occasions when they register that possibility, seem somehow to think that their side would win. 

The people making these calls for violence are, of course, all members of the "progressive" left. Jonathan Turley recently penned an interesting piece on those people.

We have been discussing the increasing political violence on the left. That includes a student who published a column recently on “when must we kill them?” I noted that such views are often reflections of the many extremists currently in teaching. That was evident this week in Maine, where English teacher JoAnna St. Germain of Waterville Senior High School called uponthe Secret Service to kill Trump and his supporters.

On Tuesday, St., Germain  called on Facebook for the Secret Service to “step up” and avoid a civil war by killing Trump and his supporters. She insisted that it would not constitute an assassination because Trump is not a legitimate president “duly elected by the American people.”

She explained that “If I had the skill set required, I would take them out myself.”

Whatever “skill set” St. Germain possess, sanity does not appear to be part of it.

That much is certain.

St. Germain seems to think that the Secret Service might follow the example of the Praetorian Guard that murdered Caligula. That's unlikely in the extreme. Also, there is further evidence of St. Germain's insanity in her insistence that President Trump was not "duly elected by the American people," which is absolute bug-funk crazy; like him or not, President Trump was overwhelmingly elected by the process defined in the Constitution, the process that has elected every president back to George Washington.

But what would happen if these people ever acted on their fantasies?

It's doubtful that the left would be able to organize anything like an effective military force. It's doubtful they would be able to organize a porta-potty cleaning detail, for that matter, but just on the off chance, let's presume that they manage to put together a large-scale version of the 2020 "Summer of Love" riots and seize control of some federal facilities - and take as hostages some elected officials.

One such incident would be quickly handled by law enforcement. Two such would have the same result. But 10? 20? 50? That would be an actual, no-kidding insurrection on a considerable scale.

This could lead to conflict on a national scale.

We always say, “It can’t happen here.” I’m still thinking a hot civil war unlikely, although I’m thinking the odds of such a thing are increasing. People in Bosnia in the '90s no doubt thought the same thing.

Jonathan Turley concludes in the column linked above: 

After losing the last election, some on the left are turning to calls for violence or committing political violence. Ironically, they do so in the name of democracy. That is precisely why rage is so addictive and contagious. It gives you license to do things that you would ordinarily never do.

This whole thing wouldn't unfold at all the way the Democrats think it would.

Were the fever-dreams of these leftist activists to come true, we would see pitched battles on the streets of our major cities, with what is left of established authority against rioting mobs. Imagine those mobs engaging in raids on the suburbs when the cities run short of food and water. Imagine a complete breakdown of emergency services in those cities as first responders encounter armed gangs willing to kill them for their vehicles, equipment, and medicines. 

Imagine hordes of refugees fleeing the cities, into the countryside, under the misapprehension that somehow there is plenty of food to be had in the countryside, but having no skills whatsoever to find or grow said food. Imagine rural residents facing rampant theft and trespassing responding by forming their own armed militias to repel the invaders, and thus escalating the conflict into the countryside. Imagine this resulting in the nation forming into coalitions, and things exploding into conflict.

There is one side that has a large proportion of the nation's military veterans, and one side that has all the guns - and knows how to use them.

That's what really makes these calls for violence from the left so absolutely insane. They call for political violence, they call for the assassination of elected officials, they call for attacks on other Americans - and they have no idea whatsoever how that would end up, and how they would be utterly, catastrophically on the losing end.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

Here Are 12 Reasons Why NPR And PBS Deserved To Be Defunded

‘No media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies, and the Government is entitled to determine which categories of activities to subsidize.’

Brianna Lyman reporting for The Federalist

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order defunding NPR and PBS — two taxpayer-subsidized “news” organizations that have consistently published propaganda.

The order proclaims that “Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.”

“At the very least, Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage,” the order continues. “No media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies, and the Government is entitled to determine which categories of activities to subsidize.”

Here are 12 reasons why NPR and PBS News deserved to be stripped of taxpayer funds.

1. NPR Refused To Cover Hunter Biden’s Laptop

Perhaps the most egregious example of why NPR should be defunded — and should have been five years ago — is their refusal to cover the Hunter Biden laptop scandal in the lead up to the 2020 election.

“We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions,” NPR Managing Editor for News Terence Samuel said in a statement back in October 2020. A newsletter published by NPR Public Editor Kelly McBride claimed “there are many, many red flags in that New York Post investigation.”

Following NPR’s announcement that they wouldn’t do journalism, “#defundNPR” trended on then-Twitter, The Federalist’s Jordan Boyd reported.

Well, five years later, NPR has finally been defunded.

2. 100% Of NPR’s ‘Editorial Positions’ Are Held By Registered Democrats

NPR editor Uri Berliner previously reported that voting records showed “87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans.”

NPR’s Katherine Maher admitted it was a “concern” during a March Congressional hearing that all 87 positions are held by registered Democrats.

As Rep. William Timmons (R-S.C.) said in a post on X, “NPR’s blatant partisan imbalance is unacceptable — taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for a one-sided echo chamber.”

3. NPR Spread Tear Gas Hoax

As pointed out by The Federalist’s Elections Editor Elle Purnell, NPR “falsely claimed demonstrators outside the White House were tear-gassed by U.S. Park Police” in June 2020.

“Park Police Tear Gas Peaceful Protesters To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op,” one NPR headline stated. A post on Twitter from NPR Politics stated: “Police in Washington, D.C., used tear gas and rubber bullets on peaceful protesters to clear them away from St. John’s Church, which suffered a small fire.” (The “small fire” being an apparent act of arson).

But the “peaceful” protesters actually threw “projectiles, including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids,” according to acting Park Police Chief Gregory T. Monahan. Monahan also stated Park Police did not use tear gas but rather smoke canisters, which as noted by Purnell, “lack the irritant used in tear gas.”

4. NPR Editor Promoted Defense Of Looting

NPR assistant editor Natalie Escobar promoted a book in 2020 titled “In Defense of Looting,” as highlighted by Purnell. The book, authored by Vicky Osterweil, argues — according to a summary from Escobar — “that looting is a powerful tool to bring about real, lasting change in society.”

5. Country Music Is A ‘Symbol of Racism’

Purnell also pointed out how NPR’s Britany Luse hosted a podcast episode in August of 2023 titled “How racism became a marketing tool for country music.”

“[I]s racism what it takes for country music to go number one?” Luse posited. “I wanted to know how country music became this symbol of racism and why country music fans are flocking to stars … who are peddling racist rhetoric today.”

6. NPR Said Declaration of Independence Is ‘Offensive’

NPR’s antipathy toward the Declaration of Independence has been on full display for years.

On July 8, 2022, NPR added an “Editor’s note” to a 2019 “NPR Tradition” of reading the Declaration of Independence that said: “This story quotes the U.S. Declaration of Independence — a document that contains offensive language about Native Americans, including a racial slur.”

That same year, Host of NPR’s Morning Edition Leila Fadel announced NPR would “break with tradition” and instead of reading the Declaration of Independence would examine “what equality means and has meant in this document.”

7. NPR Apologized For Calling Illegal Aliens ‘Illegal’

“Sorry, that was a mistake,” NPR said in response to a now-deleted tweet. “NPR’s policy is not to characterize people as ‘illegal.’ We slip up from time to time, but we’ll keep working hard to get it right.”

(They got it right the first time).

8. If You Use The Wrong Skin Color Emoji You Could Be Racist

At least that’s what NPR’s Alejandra Marquez Janse, Patrick Jarenwattanon and Asma Khalid suggested in a 2022 article titled: “Which skin color emoji should you use? The answer can be more complex than you think.”

9. PBS Dedicated An Entire Documentary To Reparations

PBS released a documentary in 2024 titled “The Cost of Inheritance” that “explores the complex issue of reparations in the U.S. using a thoughtful approach to history, historical injustices, systemic inequities, and critical dialogue on racial reconciliation.”

The documentary claims to “inspire understanding of the scope and rationale of the reparations debate.”

10. PBS White House Reporter Called Trump Mt. Rushmore Address A Love Letter To ‘White Resentment’

Trump delivered an address in front of Mount Rushmore in 2020 highlighting America’s rich history and greatness. But PBS White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor claimed Trump was spreading the “lie” that the nation “treated men and women equally, that we founded this country just by our own wits” and that “we’re seeing a celebration of America’s independence on land that was stolen from Native Americans.”

And, as reported by Media Research Center, Alcindor questioned “what part of America” and what “period” is Trump referring to when he says “Make America Great Again.”

“He’s fitting in this history that is, in some ways, a Republican history about the idea they’re really looking at white resentment,” she claimed.

11. PBS Encouraged Viewers To ‘Stay Woke!’

A 2017 episode of “A Seat At The Table” titled “Stay Woke!” sounded “the alarm to WAKE YOU UP!”

The episode discussed “what it really means to be WOKE, and why it’s important to move beyond awareness to action.”

“We can’t address racism by pretending it doesn’t exist,” the episode description reads.

12. PBS Hosted Biased 2024 Convention Coverage

According to NewsBusters’ Clay Waters, “PBS treated the RNC to 72% negative and 28% positive commentary” while the “DNC received far friendlier reception: 12% negative, 88% positive.”

PBS — according to Waters — accused the RNC of platforming “white supremacy.”

Public School Gaslights Community after Disciplining Student for Conservative T-Shirt

John Klar reporting for American Thinker 

A Vermont superintendent and an attorney for a public school that prohibited a young student from wearing a shirt that states “There are only 2 genders” now claim the school did not discipline her, and that it has consistently “[done its] very best to protect free speech in schools.”  These officials are using local media to gaslight the Vermont public and the school community.  The school’s own emails reveal what actually occurred.

Peoples Academy Middle Level school in Morristown, Vermont, repeatedly disciplined thirteen-year-old student “M.P.” for wearing a school-prohibited T-shirt.  Only when she retained legal counsel did school officials relent (though even then, she was initially threatened with discipline by a teacher).  Thomas More Society special counsel Adam Hochschild alleged in a letter to school officials that M.P. had been removed from class, reprimanded, punished with in-school suspension, and admonished that her prohibited shirt was “hate speech.”

After the school conceded that M.P. would henceforth be permitted to wear the shirt and that her free speech rights would be respected, the matter should have ended.  However, Vermont school superintendent Ryan Heraty and legal counsel Pietro Lynn then claimed in an interview with a local newspaper that the school had never disciplined M.P. and always strove to act impartially.  This is classic gaslighting, in this case dismissing the young girl’s complaints as if the school, not she, was the victim.

The article in the Vermont Community Newspaper Group’s News & Citizen references the letter from Thomas More Society and states, “The student was never disciplined, according to Lynn and Heraty.”  Lynn is further quoted as saying, “Schools generally do their very best to protect free speech in schools[.]”

Heraty is quoted in the article:

We’ve been put in the middle of this culture war that’s using the public school system as a place to play out national politics, and we really don’t want any part in national politics.

These are simply false statements.  M.P. was disciplined.  Peoples Academy Middle Level school fully embraced the social justice transgender ideology that it inflicted on M.P.  The school didn’t just happen to find itself “in the middle of this culture war” – the school was waging it against a young girl, and still is, as reflected in the article.

This is what actually happened: On more than one occasion, the Peoples Academy Middle Level school principal pulled M.P. out of class for wearing the verboten T-shirt, condemned the shirt as “hate speech,” and refused to allow her to return to class unless she removed the shirt or hid its message – hardly “doing their very best to protect her free speech rights.”

At the time, the school admitted in writing that it had disciplined her.  In a September 2024 email to M.P.’s parents, school principal Jessica Wills stated:

Today your daughter wore a shirt to school that caused harm to our learning community. ... The shirt “there are only two genders” is an act of harm that targets gender identity. ... You chose to take her home today, as an unexcused absence, rather than take one of our three options of providing her with a clean shirt, bringing her other clothing, or having the shirt turned inside out.

In December 2024, right after M.P. again bravely wore the shirt in direct protest against this violation of her fundamental free speech rights, the principal wrote:

I have asked [M.P.] to keep her shirt covered up several times now, she didn’t want to. I offered her an alternative space to work where she would be alone, and she opted for that instead of being in classes. I will not always have an available separate space for her.

The school backed down only after the family’s counsel this year demanded that the school stop censoring and disciplining M.P.  Even then, the next time she wore the shirt, a teacher took her out of class and told her she would be written up.

The statement that M.P. “was never disciplined” suggests that being called to the office, denied liberty to return to class, and made to sit alone in a separate room from other students is not discipline.  It is a false statement.

These officials would not directly respond to my specific inquiries about their public statements to the media, again displaying the opposite of “being in the middle” of an ideological dispute they have imposed on students.  In an email, I asked Ryan Heraty:

You claim in the interview that the student was never disciplined. Is that accurate?  Was she at any time told that she could not wear the shirt stating “There are only two genders,” or sent out of class, written up, isolated, or otherwise censored?

I received the following evasive response, which restates the faux claim that the school is victim, and not victimizer, in this dispute:

Let me do my best to answer all of your questions with one statement. We believe that all of our students should feel like they are welcome and belong in our schools. We also follow Vermont law in [sic] regards to any curriculum materials. Unfortunately, public schools are often used as a platform for political division and that is causing significant harm. We do our best to keep the focus on teaching and learning.

This school administration “does its best” to dissemble and deny accountability for its overt politicization of gender theory in the classroom.  This superintendent and legal counsel followed up the abuse of M.P. by the public school with a hit job against her and her parents in the local media — hardly doing their best to “keep the focus on teaching and learning.”

When I emailed attorney Pietro Lynn, he responded, “I am not authorized to communicate with you about the matter.”  Apparently, Lynn was authorized (and paid?) to communicate untruths to a sympathetic local media outlet, but not to answer as to how he could claim that M.P. was not disciplined for her shirt.

I directed Lynn to Vermont’s Rules of Professional Conduct, which apply to him as an attorney but not to dishonest school superintendents.  For example, Rule 4.1. (TRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS) provides that “in the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person.”  Rule 8.4. (MISCONDUCT) states, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: ... (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”  

Readers can judge for themselves whether Pietro Lynn violated Vermont’s Rules of Professional Conduct by stating to a newspaper that M.P. was not disciplined for wearing her shirt to school and that the school protected her rights.  Lying to the media after the T-shirt event was just one more slur against this child and her family, publicly denying responsibility for egregious official policy and conduct.

CIA to Cut 1,200 (5%) Jobs Within Spy Agency – Director Ratcliffe Shifts Focus to “Human Intelligence”

Sundance reporting for CTH 

The Washington Post (but of course, CIA outlet) is reporting on a downsizing effort within the CIA to eliminate approximately 1,200 jobs.  The number represents approximately 5% of the workforce although the actual number of CIA employees is classified (national security, dontchaknow).

Within the report, Director John Ratcliffe is noted as shifting the focus of America’s leading spy agency to use more “human intelligence.”  That phrase, “human intelligence,” is IC silo code speak for shifting away from “analysts” (political operatives) and engaging in more ¹factual intelligence information.

According to the report, DNI Tulsi Gabbard has also reduced the employment level within the Director of National Intelligence office by approximately 25% (current payroll estimate of 2,000 employees).  The general narrative within the WaPo reporting is that “national security” is being compromised by large downsizing of spy agency employment.

Additionally, to bolster the positions of the current political operatives within the CIA, the WaPo waxes concerningly about China and other mysterious foreign adversaries recruiting the CIA employees who are now becoming increasingly concerned about their paychecks.

WASHINGTON POST – “The Trump administration is planning significant personnel cuts at the Central Intelligence Agency and other major U.S. spy units, downsizing the government’s most sensitive national security agencies, according to people familiar with the plans.

The administration recently informed lawmakers on Capitol Hill that it intends to reduce the CIA’s workforce by about 1,200 personnel over several years and cut thousands more from other parts of the U.S. intelligence community, including at the National Security Agency, a highly secretive service that specializes in cryptology and global electronic espionage, a person familiar with the matter said. The person, like others interviewed, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

[…] The staff reductions would take place over several years and would be accomplished in part through reduced hiring. No outright firings are envisioned. The goal of a roughly 1,200-person staff reduction includes several hundred individuals who already have opted for early retirement, the person familiar with the matter said.

The downsizing is taking place separately from efforts by the U.S. DOGE Service, led by billionaire Elon Musk, to radically restructure the federal government. Musk met with Ratcliffe in late March for a discussion that included government efficiency measures, but no DOGE teams have been working at the agency’s Langley, Virginia, campus. (more)

[¹Obviously, I can certainly appreciate the “human intelligence” shift noted by Director Ratcliffe for all the factual reasons that necessitate his concern.  It is part of the reason why I ended up frustrated with “western reports” and determined the only way to really understand what is going on inside Russia during the sanctions was to travel there myself and review.

It was quite an experience to sit in a renamed Starbucks coffee shop at the crowded Galleria Mall in downtown St Petersburg, Russia and read the Wall Street Journal reporting on the devastation to the Russian economy, while looking around at the packed stores and purchases being made on an ordinary weekday.  Then to read the New York Times reports of shortages of steel in Russia, while driving past many miles of apartment and condominium construction.  Everything cited in western corporate media, “according to sources familiar with the situation”, was/is the complete opposite of everything factually visible.]

♦ Imagine a world, our world, where all the scary threat protection systems are removed. What does that world look like?

CCTV cameras removed. Body scans at airports removed. X-Ray machines removed. Shoes stay on. You carry a bottle of water onto an airplane without issue. You return to the 1980’s world of transit.

Your metadata is no longer being captured for review. Your conversations are no longer being recorded by your devices. Your data profile is no longer being sold and monetized.

No one is tracking you, or anyone else. It’s a scary world with all kinds of perceived ‘risks’ and potential ‘threats’ existing, that never surface.

It’s a world where all these terrible ‘what if’ dark imaginings still happen in the psyche, but nothing ever comes from them.

Stop being scared, and suddenly you no longer need the ‘global counterterrorism conference’ and all the looming rules and regulations they can put into place to protect you, ultimately control you, from the scary imagined stuff that has existed for generations….

Australia used quarantine camps for a fictitious threat. New Zealand set up regional roadblocks for a fictitious threat. The EU made you carry documents to ensure your compliance with a fictitious threat.  In the USA, the paint in WalMart was blockaded to protect you from a fictitious threat. You could not stand at a bar to drink, but if you sat down at a table the virus wouldn’t get you.  In Canada they shut down the bank accounts of those who did not comply with the rules of the fictitious threat.

Do we realize the same IC people at Dan Bongino’s ‘global security conference‘ are the same IC people who stimulated the threat response noted above?

Do we realize the same industry professionals now control the election outcomes in Brazil, France, Romania, Germany and 2020 USA?

Those who benefit from fear, claim it is a scary world out there. However, be careful about hiring some entity to protect you from it; and ask yourself quiet questions about the rules they show up with.

What exactly is this global security network protecting us from? And why do we need to be protected from it?

Ask Jair Bolsonaro. Ask Marine LePen. Ask Donald Trump. Ask Romania. Ask the AfD party in Germany.  As we are witnessing in real time, the western global security network is protecting us from all of these ‘threats.’

Some nervous people say, “trust the plan.”  I ask the simple question, “why do we need a plan“?

Think about it.