Friday, August 15, 2025

Reagan Was Right: It’s Scary When The Government Helps


After WWII, America effectively ruled the world. To understand how we lost that crown and how it evolved to leading from behind, look no further than the Bureaucratic-Marxist complex that dominates nearly every government function today, which in turn sets the tone for our citizenry.

Look no further than our fake institutionalized kindness, which has morphed into a right not to fail, as if that were even possible. You and I can be kind and caring. When a government does it, with other people’s money (OPM), it becomes something else: Institutionalized Caring, i.e., a faux, loving Big Brother. Every facet of local, State, and Federal government over two generations has adopted the false mantra of caring, yet in practice, it has done the opposite. Let’s review a few ways the government “helps” people:

Healthcare Access vs. Bureaucratic Barriers

  • Claim: Government programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and the ACA were designed to ensure healthcare for all.
  • Reality: Millions receive substandard or no healthcare at all due to administrative overreach, bureaucratic intransigence, high costs, and a detachment from reality, resulting in unforced errors.
  • Veterans face long wait times and systemic failures in VA hospitals.
  • Mental health services are routinely withheld or limited by bureaucratic fiat.

“We care about your health”—as long as you work within our system.

Housing Assistance vs. Urban Neglect

  • Claim: HUD and local housing authorities aim to provide safe, affordable housing.
  • Reality: Public housing is often dilapidated, unsafe, crime-ridden, and mismanaged.
  • Rent subsidies (Section 8) have long waitlists and limited availability, and are often in deplorable condition.
  • Affordable Housing is an oxymoron. Government rules make affordable housing cost more than for-profit housing on a square foot basis. Million-dollar affordable housing units are an abomination.

“We care about shelter,”—as long as you conform to our vision and rules.

Education Funding vs. Systemic Inequality

  • Claim: Public education is the cornerstone of opportunity.
  • Reality: America spends more per child on education than any other industrialized country. Why can’t Johnny read then?
  • Federal programs like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top prioritized testing over learning, overlooking the root causes of ineffective teachers and useless administrators.

“We care about your children,”—but only if you don’t mind if they can’t read, write, or think critically!

Welfare Programs vs. Punitive Oversight

  • Claim: Programs like SNAP, TANF, and unemployment insurance exist to support struggling families.
  • Reality: Benefits are often just enough to get by, which encourages gaming the system and destroys ambition, and they’re routinely handed out to people who could work, but won’t.
  • Many states have shifted or supplemented benefits with well-financed NGOs providing everything from healthcare to legal access and food, enriching the NGOs much more than their clients!
  • Bureaucratic hurdles discourage leaving the government womb.

“We care about the poor,”—but the more the merrier. After all, caring for the poor is a growth industry!

Disaster Relief vs. Delayed Response

  • Claim: FEMA and state agencies are ready to respond to crises.
  • Reality: Responses to hurricanes, wildfires, and other disasters have been slow, mismanaged, or politically influenced.
  • Aid distribution is uneven, with frequent bureaucratic and slow responses to immediate needs, despite the billions of available funds, while overspending on administration.
  • Long-term recovery or even better, mitigation to address repeat losses is rarely prioritized.

“We care in a crisis,”—but optics come first, and rules are rules!

Government Efficiency

  • Claim: While imperfect, the government is a good steward of your tax dollars.
  • Reality: Most government functions are funded at a higher amount than for the same work in the private sector. Despite this taxpayer-funded wealth, they’re technical levels often resemble offices and functions from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Did you know the Federal government is the largest purchaser of vacuum tubes in the world and still has typing pools using typewriters?
  • Almost no one gets fired for bad performance; they just get promoted. This is true at all levels of government. On top of that, government pay and benefits have increased to the point where they are typically better, often much better, than in the private sector.

“We are public servants,”—but don’t mess with our rice bowl!

Perhaps splitting us up into dozens, even hundreds, of pots was not the initial intent, but at some point, to justify hundreds of both feel-good and essential programs, the government lost sight of its intended mission. What evolved were well-funded fiefdoms with numerous layers of management, accountable to no one. This is true at every level of government, with a public be damed attitude more the rule than the exception.

The obvious answer is to stop treating everyone as if they are either a physical or emotional cripple, unable to live their lives without help. Before the Johnson era, private charity dominated social support needs. Once the Great Societyera came into being, the government took over, creating one-size-fits-all solutions to avoid the appearance of favor or discrimination. Discrimination (common sense) that had served us well was removed by law, allowing gamesmanship to develop into an art form. Millions now no longer work in favor of the security of living within government programs.

The only non-protected group today is adult white males. Think about that for a minute. Every other group, the crazier or more antisocial the better, can lay claim to your money for their support. Fracturing us along our many different lines furthers government power:

1.    If society is seen as fragmented (by class, race, geography, etc.), it legitimizes state involvement—whether through welfare programs, policing, education reform, or surveillance.

2.    It creates a narrative where the government is the glue holding disparate groups together.

3.    A divided public is less likely to unite against centralized authority. If people are busy fighting each other (left vs. right, urban vs. rural, etc.), they’re less likely to challenge the system itself.

4.    Governments often use the “fractured society” lens to frame national identity as a work in progress, always needing improvement.

What we know for sure is that the government not only benefits but also engineers our differences through subsidies and law. President Trump, this is your next target. Make America Great Again by ending policies that treat groups differently. Only then will our greatness return and be unstoppable by future administrations.



at

On the Fringe and Badlands Media- August 15

 



at

Who Has Been Busy Destroying Democracy? ~ VDH


"Destroying democracy" -- the latest theme of the left -- can be defined in many different ways. 

How about attempting to destroy constitutional, ancient, and hallowed institutions simply to suit short-term political gains?

So, who in 2020, and now once again, has boasted about packing the 156-year-old, nine-justice Supreme Court? 

Who talks frequently about destroying the 187-year-old Senate filibuster--though only when they hold a Senate majority? Who wants to bring in an insolvent left-wing Puerto Rico and redefine the 235-year-old District of Columbia -- by altering the Constitution -- as two new states solely to obtain four additional liberal senators?

Who is trying to destroy the constitutionally mandated 235-year Electoral College by circumventing it with the surrogate "The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?" 

Does destroying democracy also entail weaponizing federal bureaucracies, turning them into rogue partisan arms of a president? 

So who ordered the CIA to concoct bogus charges of "collusion" to sabotage Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, the 2016-2017 transition, and the first 22 months of Trump's first term? 

Who prompted a cabal of "51 former intelligence officials" to lie to the American people on the eve of the last debate of the 2020 election that the FBI-authenticated Hunter Biden laptop was instead the work of a "Russian intelligence operation?"

 Who ordered the FBI to connive and partner with social media conglomerates to censor accurate news deemed unhelpful to the 2020 Biden campaign? 

Who pulled off the greatest presidential coup in history by using surrogates in the shadows to run the cognitively debilitated Biden presidency, then by fiat canceled his reelection effort, and finally anointed as his replacement the new nominee Kamala Harris, who had never won a single primary delegate? 

Who ordered FBI SWAT teams to invade the home of a former president because of a classification dispute over 102 files out of some 13,000 stored there? 

Who tried to remove an ex-president and leader of his party from at least 25 state ballots to deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to vote for or against him? 

Who coordinated four local, state, and federal prosecutors to destroy a former and future president by charging him with fantasy crimes that were never before, and will never again be, lodged against anyone else? 

Who appointed a federal prosecutor to go after the ex-president, who arranged for a high-ranking Justice Department official to step down to join a New York prosecutor's efforts to destroy an ex-president, and who met in the White House with a Georgia county prosecutor seeking to destroy an ex-president -- all on the same day -- a mere 72 hours after Trump announced his 2024 reelection bid?

 Who but the current Democrats ever impeached a president twice? 

Has any party ever tried an ex-president in the Senate when he was out of office and a mere private citizen? 

When have there ever been two near-miss assassination attempts on a major party presidential candidate during a single presidential campaign? 

Who destroyed the southern border and broke federal law to allow in, without criminal or health background audits, some 10-12 million illegal aliens? 

Who created 600 "sanctuary jurisdictions" for the sole purpose of nullifying federal immigration law, in the eerie spirit of the renegade old Confederacy? 

Who allowed tens of thousands of rioters, arsonists, and violent protestors over four months in 2020 to destroy over $2 billion in property, kill some 35 people, injure 1,500 police officers, and torch a federal courthouse, a police precinct, and a historic church -- all with de facto legal impunity? 

How do the purported destroyers of democracy find themselves winning 60-70 percent approval on most of the key issues of our times, while the supposed saviors of democracy are on the losing side of popular opinion? 

How does a president "destroy democracy" by his party winning the White House by both the popular and Electoral College vote, winning majorities in both the Senate and House by popular votes, and enjoying a 6-3 edge in the Supreme Court through judges appointed by popularly elected presidents? 

So what is behind these absurd charges? 

Three catalysts: one, the new anguished elitist Democratic Party alienated the middle classes through its Jacobin agenda and therefore lost the Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court, and now has no federal political power. 

Two, the Democratic Party is polling at record lows and yet remains hellbent on alienating the traditional sources of its power -- minorities, youth, and Independents. 

Three, Democrats cannot find any issues that the people support, nor any leaders to convince the people to embrace them. 

So it is no surprise that the panicked Democrats bark at the shadows -- given that they know their revolutionary, neo-socialist agenda is destroying them. And yet, like all addicts, they choose destruction over abandoning their self-destructive fixations. 




at

What’s Really Behind Opposition to Trump’s Move in DC?


Lots of misinformation is being spread about President Donald Trump’s decision to federalize law enforcement in Washington, D.C.  Much of it is the usual Trump Derangement Syndrome: “fascist” tendencies toward “authoritarianism” at the expense of “black and brown” people because of DJT’s “racism” and desire to bury the Epstein scandal.  There’s no “emergency” justifying the takeover.  The “solution” is to do what Democrats failed to do for decades: Make DC the 51st state so it need not undergo such “humiliation.”

Where to start?

My point of departure is political.  Washington is the “federal city.”  The Constitution is explicit.  Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over “the district constituting the seat of government.” 

Washington was a political compromise — neutral territory between North and South, chosen as an uninhabited swamp between Maryland and Virginia (and conveniently upriver from George Washington’s Mount Vernon).  It was supposed to be apolitical.  Democrats want to make it hyper-political.

The reaction to the Trump federalization of D.C. law enforcement is to claim that “this proves we should have made D.C. a state!”  Well, no it doesn’t.  All it proves is your naked political ambitions to guarantee the left two senators and a bunch of congressmen. 

There’s a lot of jabber about “home rule.”  There are two largely unmentioned facts about “home rule.”  First, it is an historical anomaly.  Nobody talked about D.C. “home rule” until 1974.  For nearly 185 years of the Republic, D.C. functioned under its constitutional identity as the “federal district.”  And don’t tell me that the string of illustrious nobodies leading D.C. for the past 50 years — including such a distinguished figure as Mayor Marion Barry, convicted for possession and use of crack cocaine — proves the merits of “home rule.”  It arguably demonstrates the opposite.

Second, whatever “home rule” D.C. has is whatever Congress gives it.  Its government has the powers Congress delegates — no more, no less.  It exists at the sufferance of Congress — i.e., the collective decision of the people of the United States (as the Constitution intended).  So all these claims about “denying home rule” are so much political smoke.

Congressional Democrats have been trying to hike Washington’s political clout for decades.  Back in the days of “home rule,” the Democrat Congress even thought of giving D.C. congressional seats as if it were a state.  Such a constitutional amendment was even proposed in 1978.  It passed the Senate with the bare minimum of votes and died in ratification, having been approved by only 16 (mostly blue) of the required 38 states.

Democrats learned their lesson: A constitutional amendment to give D.C. congressional seats would never be ratified, because small (especially small red) states were not going to lose seats to the District.  They understood the difference between a state and a district.  That’s when liberals switched to their “statehood” tactic — it avoids needing approval from those pesky states!

I’d argue that Congress cannot constitutionally make D.C. a “state.”  What would be the “State of Columbia” is land given by Maryland to create “the district constituting the seat of government of the United States.”  That bequest was for a specific purpose.  If Congress does not want to administer all that land, it cannot invent a new state.  The proper response would be to return the land to Maryland.  There’s precedent for that: Congress in the 19th century gave back the land Virginia had ceded for the capital, which is today’s Arlington.

That does not amplify Democrat political power in Congress, while it introduces a new squabble into very blue Maryland’s Democrat politics: the boys of Baltimore and Annapolis would now have to share power with the Washington crowd. 

I make these points because, despite all the rhetoric about “home rule,” the truth is that Americans think of Washington first and foremost as our capital.  It is the nation’s capital, not the next oppressed victim stifled by the norms of the U.S. Constitution.  And as long as Americans as a whole regard Washington in a qualitatively different way from other places — as “our capital” — that aligns with the constitutional vision of a congressionally governed district and not the next blue political machine.

That leads me to my second point: crime.  Liberal apologists have fomented all types of excuses to claim that the president had no authority to federalize D.C. law enforcement, that it was discriminatory and diversionary, etc., etc.  Crime is supposedly on the way down.  Let’s talk.

In 2023, there were 274 murders in Washington, D.C.  That means one human being killed every 31 hours.  Every day and a half.

Senate Democrat whip Dick Durbin of Illinois claimed there’s no “emergency” justifying Trump’s action.  Does one dead human being every 31 hours not constitute an “emergency”?  In whose cosseted world?

Perhaps a murder every day and a half is “normal” or “statistically to be expected” in some people’s minds — but I suspect few of those holding that opinion have ever stood in front of the business end of a knife or gun.

A murder every day and a half is an emergency.  Maybe it’s not an emergency in Chicago or New York, but Washington is at root “the district constituting the seat of government of the United States,” and most Americans would think a murder every day and a half is an “emergency.”

Because Washington stands in a unique relationship with congressional and executive power, it is also appropriate that the national capital be a showcase of law and order, not the morass of “restorative justice” and the latest liberal pipe dreams of “criminal justice reform” that exacerbate crime.  Therein lies the real liberal objection: If Donald Trump can make an example out of Washington, it calls into question the “policing reform” and “criminal justice” agendas of crime-ridden major cities, potentially auguring political realignments there that liberals do not want to see.

Yes, the talking heads attacking Trump cited other cities as being more crime-ridden.  You do have a better chance getting murdered in Detroit than D.C.  But national tourism to Detroit hardly mirrors D.C., and most Americans don’t want to die in either.  So let’s stop the “lies, damn lies, and statistics” and address the reality of what’s behind this opposition: pursuing political ambition and defending failed policies.



at

WATCH: Phoenix school board member shut down for praying

 The Center Square


Jeremiah Cota, a member of the Phoenix Union High School District Governing Board, is prevented from reading the Lord's Prayer at an Aug. 8, 2025 meeting.

Courtesy Phoenix Union High School District/YouTube
(The Center Square) — During a Phoenix school board meeting, member Jeremiah Cota was quickly shut down for saying the Lord’s Prayer, rather than an Indigenous land acknowledgement. 

In an exclusive interview with The Center Square, Cota, who represents Ward One on the Phoenix Union High School District Governing Board, recounted his experience being silenced at a board meeting on Aug. 8. 

The board member highlighted the fact that these land acknowledgements are treated like a religious prayer. 

“I do fully believe these land acknowledgements are like a religious ritual. And I am well aware that it is very reverent when they say these acknowledgments,” said Cota. “It is hushed tones, it is bowing of the heads. It is a very solemn moment. And it is a prayer, if you ask me.”

Land acknowledgements are statements by organizations that recognize it is on land that historically was inhabited by Indigenous peoples. 

Cota, a member of the Free People of the San Carlos Apache tribe, grew up on an American Indian reservation. He explained land acknowledgments are not appropriate at board meetings and said it is simply virtue signaling.  

“They basically ascribe victimhood status if you're a Native American,” Cota said. “I can say as a tribal member, no one has ever asked me if a land acknowledgment about my tribe is OK. It’s virtue signaling and to make them feel good about themselves.”

As a newly appointed board member, Cota, at his third meeting, was asked to read the land acknowledgement. Instead, he started reading the Lord’s Prayer, but was swiftly interrupted by legal counsel.


“We can’t have a religious prayer before we start to read the land acknowledgment,” said the board parliamentarian during the meeting. 

Cota continued to read the Lord’s Prayer.

Board President Ceyshe Napa interrupted Cota, and he was ruled out of order. 

“I just don't know why the Lord’s Prayer was so offensive to many people in the room, and that's very concerning to me,” Cota said. 

 Simultaneously, he was told that the board does not follow Robert's Rules of Order and that it is “merely a suggestion.”  

 The Phoenix Union's own Rules of Order state otherwise: 

 “In matters of procedure not covered by law or Board policy, Robert's Rules... shall be used as a guide.”

 “Oh, I was shocked. I was absolutely shocked when I heard her say that,” Cota told The Center Square. “We have Robert's rules of order that govern all our meetings, so I was absolutely shocked when I heard her say that Robert's rules of order do not apply here.”

In experiencing what he considers to be religious discrimination, Cota has since written a complaint letter to Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes. He said he will continue to advocate for freedom of religion.

“If you're going to allow the land acknowledgments, you should allow a prayer. That should be the rule, or we should not have the land acknowledgment,” Cota said. “As a board member, that is something I'm going to work on, because I do believe they (land acknowledgments) don't have any role in our governing body. They don't add to the student's academic performance. This doesn't have to do anything with the students at all.”

Phoenix Union High School District currently has over 27,000 students enrolled in the Arizona capital's area. 

“I got into the education field because I cared about what was going on, especially on my reservation,” Cota said. “I do encourage others to be involved with your child's education. I always say, if you don't raise your children, someone else will.”

"Esther is an education reporter for The Center Square. Please email her at ewickham@thecentersquare.com for tips or questions." 

at

🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

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. 


at

D.C. Sues Trump Administration Over ‘Unlawful’ Takeover of Police Department

 The suit challenges the ’emergency police commissioner’ who was named Thursday.


National Guard troops and the U.S. Capitol Police keep watch on Capitol Hill. AP/J. Scott Applewhite

Washington, D.C. is filing a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s takeover of the city’s police force, with the district’s attorney general accusing President Trump of going far beyond his legal authority.

“The administration’s unlawful actions are an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the 700,000 Americans who call D.C. home. This is the gravest threat to Home Rule that the District has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it,” District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb said, according to the Associated Press.

Attorney General Pam Bondi named an “emergency police commissioner” for the nation’s capital on Thursday but city officials call the directive “unlawful” and say it cannot be followed by the Metropolitan Police Department.

Ms. Bondi’s directive named Drug Enforcement Administration Administrator Terry Cole to the new role and granted him the “powers and duties vested” in the position. The directive also states that the police department needs approval from Commissioner Cole to issue any orders.

Late Thursday evening, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb sent an opinion to Metro Police Chief Pamela Smith stating that the order was “unlawful, and that you are not legally obligated to follow it.”

Mayor Muriel Bowser posted the opinion on X and stated, “In reference to the U.S. Attorney General’s order, there is no statute that conveys the District’s personnel authority to a federal official.”

Mr. Schwalb went to U.S. District Court on Friday seeking an immediate order to block Ms. Bondi’s action, with a hearing scheduled for Friday afternoon.

In a sworn declaration to the court, Ms. Smith said that if carried out, the order “would upend the command structure of [the Metropolitan Police Department], endangering the safety of the public and law enforcement officers alike,” the Washington Post reported.

“In my nearly three decades in law enforcement, I have never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive,” the police chief added.

Ms. Bondi also said she was rescinding sanctuary city policies and other city policies limiting inquiries into immigration status and preventing arrests based solely on federal immigration warrants.

Ms. Smith had told police officers hours earlier on Thursday to share information with immigration agencies regarding people not in custody, but Ms. Bondi said that wasn’t good enough because cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers was limited due to sanctuary policies.

The takeover came after Mr. Trump repeatedly claimed that Washington’s crime is out of control. He has also said homelessness has created safety issues.

Ms. Bondi claims federal authorities have already made more than 150 arrests and confiscated 27 guns.

“We are going to protect D.C. and make it safe again,” Ms. Bondi said in a TV interview. “Citizens are coming out of their homes and they are going up to these law enforcement officers and they’re thanking them for keeping them safe.”

https://www.nysun.com/article/d-c-sues-trump-over-unlawful-takeover-of-police-department

at

Why Declassified Information is Called a Silo Equity



I am writing this outline because we have many new readers and also to keep everyone on the same page, so to speak.

There is a reason why information held within an administrative agency, within a silo, is called an “equity.”  The information has ownership exclusive to the originating agency or silo.  A known equity of a specific silo.

EXAMPLE of an “FBI equity” and how it is handled below:

An “equity” is information with ownership belonging to a specific agency or silo. Only the agency head can declassify information within their silo. Ex. The head of the FBI cannot declassify or release the “equity” of the CIA. The head of the CIA can declassify an equity of the CIA, and the FBI head can declassify the equity of the FBI.

Only the President and the Director of National Intelligence (Tulsi Gabbard) can reach into any agency (silo), retrieve information then declassify it. The President and the DNI can work together to release information from any silo.

This process is what we are seeing with the releases of information, FBI equities, from FBI Director Kash Patel. These are exclusive equities of the FBI, and can be released (with approval) from the head of the executive, the President.

Then the issue of distribution surfaces. Once an equity is declassified, Patel then has to determine how to make the information public. He could: (a) release it directly from the FBI to the public; (b) release it to the legislative branch for distribution to the public (Grassley or similar): or (c) release it to a media outlet (Solomon), who in turn releases it to the public.

The White House may not want the FBI to release it directly to the public due to the appearance of politics. The legislative option may not want to be the distribution hub due to the appearance of politics. The media outlet may or may not want to release it for their own reasons.

The office of the President may not want the FBI to release the information directly because it can create a problem for the Executive if the material is framed politically. The FBI is a subsidiary of the Executive. The information can look very political if a political appointee is releasing information that is politically explosive in nature.

In the first set of FBI declassification releases, the White House obviously approved of the release and the office of Senator Chuck Grassley was working with Kash Patel to distribute the declassified information, because it pertained to research and investigations they were conducting. The “equity” was beneficial to their interests.

In the current FBI releases by Kash Patel, the exclusive FBI equities are being released to John Solomon for distribution. This approach is because of a pre-existing relationship.

At the same time Director Patel is releasing information from within the specific FBI silo, DNI Tulsi Gabbard is declassifying and releasing information from both her silo (DNI) and other silos (CIA). In the CIA releases, Gabbard is coordinating with the declassification approval of CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

When you understand the silo system and how information is considered an equity of each silo, you start to realize how certain silos cannot operate without the approval of another.

The DOJ cannot use a CIA equity unless the CIA approves. The DOJ cannot use an NSA equity unless the NSA approves. Regardless of how the information is identified, each silo must approve of their equities being released. If they do not approve the only option is for the President to override the silo head and declassify the information himself.

As an outcome of the way our checks and balances have been modified against our interests, the judicial branch has repeatedly deferred to the DOJ around the issue of “national security.” In fact, if the DOJ labels any Lawfare approach as a national security matter the subsequent evidence therein, the NSI (even when not seen) is accepted by the judicial branch without question. The judicial branch defers to the executive on all matters defined by the executive as “national security.”

This is the area of exploit being discussed by Mary McCord in this segment. However, notice there is one apparatus that can supercede the DOJ-NSD’s ability to weaponize Nat Sec Information, that’s the power of the intelligence apparatus. WATCH:




McCord notes how she and Andrew Weissmann navigate through the process of using National Security Information (NSI) as they move toward their target; the most common reference is their political opposition, Donald J Trump.

This silo process is also how the DC system protects itself from sunlight.

A whistleblower from the CIA cannot go to the FBI with evidence of corrupt activity and expect the FBI to take action on that evidence without the approval of the CIA. If the CIA whistleblower takes the equity evidence to the FBI and the CIA does not permit the equity evidence to be used, the FBI cannot use it.

Similarly, if a non-silo member of the public connects the dots using information/evidence from multiple silos, the DOJ cannot use that evidence without first requesting approval from each of the silo heads.

Silos only know their own information. Silos do not know the information in other agencies. This was the entire premise of creating the DNI, a super-silo that can cross reference each silos’ equities. Using this power is what I have been outlining for the past several years, and this is what Tulsi Gabbard has been doing for the first time since the DNI office was created.

Alternatively, Kash Patel has selected John Solomon for the release of information exclusive to Kash Patel’s silo. Because the equities do not involve any other silo, this is possible.  Solomon doesn’t care if the information release is defined as political, and most of the information is expired old news being repackaged for public consumption.

Throughout this process, the MSM regards all declassified information against their interests to be political constructs, easily ignored.  Trump as head of the executive is framed as releasing information against his political opposition.

Also understand, each legislative committee or sub-committee within congress (legislative branch) is its own independent silo. The HPSCI doesn’t know what the SSCI is doing, and vice-versa. Additionally, each agency within the executive branch is its own independent silo. There are also silos within the judicial branch, and within each federal court within the judicial branch – including the FISA Court.

Each silo is its own compartment of information holding exclusive equities.

This DC system has been weaponized over time to create the complicated mess that currently exists.

Keep all of this in mind, as you look at the information outflow and distribution network.

Warmest best,

~ Sundance


at

“The Transparency Initiative” – FBI Director Kash Patel Outlines His Objective with Russiagate Information Releases



FBI Director Kash Patel appears on broadcast with Sean Hannity to discuss his goals and objectives with the ongoing information releases from the FBI, “The Transparency Initiative.”

Take your emotion out of it. Take your feelings out of it. Do not project anything onto it. Imagine yourself hearing and reviewing this for the first time.  Watch and listen carefully to it. Your intuition will not be wrong.  WATCH:


Next segment below.


What you are witnessing is a performance.  This is performative, not substantive.

It sounds simplistic, but the #1 easiest *tell* is the venue, Sean ‘tick-tock’ Hannity.  The #2 and #3 are the references to Trey Gowdy et al.  The chaff and countermeasures process.

Kash Patel says, “we are building a case for the American public“…  There it is.

Accept things as they are, not as we would wish them to be. Do not project onto it.

There’s the defined “accountability” outcome Kash Patel and Pam Bondi are delivering.

It’s okay.  Sunlight is a good goal, exposure is a good goal, but moderate expectations and do not expect to see any indictments.  They “are building a case for the American public,” not a jury.

If they were building a case for a jury, they wouldn’t be on television talking about building their case.



at