The FBI is no longer recruiting the “best and brightest” to be special agents, but selecting candidates based on “race, gender and/or sexual orientation.”
An alarming deterioration in recruitment standards for the FBI has been exposed in a report delivered to the House Judiciary Committee by an alliance of retired and active-duty agents and analysts.
Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) requirements pushed by FBI Director Chris Wray have degraded recruitment standards in all areas including “physical fitness, illicit drug use, financial irregularities, mental health, full-time work experience and integrity,” and pose a threat to the FBI’s ability to protect America from harm, say the authors.
The report cites cases of new agents who are so fat and unfit, they can’t even pass the new relaxed standards for fitness; who are illiterate and need remedial English lessons; who don’t want to work weekends or after hours; have serious disabilities or mental-health issues, and “create drama.”
The FBI is no longer recruiting the “best and brightest” to be special agents, but selecting candidates based on “race, gender and/or sexual orientation.”
The alliance of anonymous FBI reformers includes senior former executives and agents from the counterintelligence and counterterrorism branches who warn that today’s FBI “lacks the fortitude and skills warranted to defeat [existential] threats . . .
“And if the current trajectory of FBI Special Agent recruitment and selection continues — using DEI as the primary and sole measure — our homeland security efforts will be significantly hampered.”
An increasing number of “lower-quality candidates — described by one source as ‘breadcrumbs’ because they were rejected by other federal law-enforcement agencies” — are applying to become FBI special agents; and are being recruited because they “satisfy the FBI’s priority to meet Diversity, Equity and Inclusion mandates.”
‘Fewer applying’
Flying in the face of Wray’s boast to Congress last year that recruitment numbers are soaring, especially in red states, the report finds that FBI’s special-agent hiring numbers are down, “likely due to the decline in the nation’s trust in the FBI and a corresponding decrease in the number of individuals interested in applying to the FBI for employment.”
A former senior counterintelligence agent involved with writing the report said controversies engulfing the FBI in the Trump era have had the perverse effect of attracting recruits who want to be “agents of social change versus protecting the country.”
Recruitment has become “self-destructive” and is setting up the FBI for “generational failure.”
Another former agent who helped draft the report said: “Why are we funding a new FBI headquarters if you’re hiring second-rate people?”
The report is written as if it were an official FBI intelligence product, with code names given to sources and sub-sources who anonymously provided firsthand knowledge of FBI recruitment and selection practices.
They include instructors and counselors at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va., application coordinators and assessors from FBI field offices across the country, and supervisors and executives from FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC.
They reveal a farcical situation with new recruits:
Veteran supervisor special agent SIERRA 72 disqualified a black female applicant because she was more than 50 pounds overweight using the FBI’s body-fat index and could not pass the physical fitness test.
But FBI HQ ordered SIERRA 72 to push the candidate through the recruitment process.
Other supervisors say a high percentage of candidates fail the mandatory fitness test, despite the fact that standards have been relaxed.
They “simply quit in the middle of the 1.5-mile run.”
One veteran agent who works as a recruitment coordinator, codenamed SIERRA 87, said the drug policy for new agents has been “liberalized to include applicants who had a lifestyle of using drugs.”
A candidate who “was arrested and fought with police officers” was not disqualified. Nor are candidates with driving-under-the-influence convictions, or people with “documented mental illness.”
Nor are candidates who lie during the recruitment process.
SIERRA 72 disqualified a special-agent applicant because their only work experience was “working two years as a coffee-shop barista and having a bachelor’s degree in art history.”
But FBI HQ ordered SIERRA 72 to push the applicant through.
SIERRA 23, a special agent for four years in counterterrorism, observed that most new agents “disappear during the day, go home early, or never want to work late for after-hours operations. SIERRA 23 does not trust most of the agents with his/her life since they have questionable competence, tactical abilities and work ethic.”
SIERRA 22 said one applicant recently rejected by a local police department and one who was a long-term unemployed “gamer” were pushed through by FBI HQ for non-special-agent positions despite objections from the field office.
Other recruits have to be given remedial English classes because they are not capable of writing basic reports “in a coherent manner [and] often fail to utilize proper capitalization, punctuation and sentence structure.”
In one case, training agent SIERRA 11 “advised a new agent that his/her writing skills needed improvement and that the new agent needed to pay attention to detail.”
The new agent complained to the supervisor that SIERRA 11 was “too difficult and expecting too much.”
A female minority recruit “could not compose a simple FD-302,” the standard FBI interview report,” said SIERRA 79, a criminal investigator of four decades.
“The agent never made a case or wrote an affidavit and had to be pulled along to support investigations [and] could not be trusted in court.”
During the agent’s probationary period, her supervisor went up the chain of command to request that her employment be terminated but was told “we need minority female agents.”
An FBI-agent recruit “stuttered and appeared to have Tourette syndrome or other tic disorder that hindered [his/her] ability to communicate,” said SIERRA 32, a veteran supervisor at the academy who wondered how this recruit “would function in a high-threat, hostile environment.”
Ivy League graduates were being hired fresh out of college and placed in high-level positions to do “strategic planning . . . responsible for establishing policy, procedures and goals with counterproductive results.”
Recruiters are required to host “Diversity Applicant Recruitment” events based on race, gender and sexual orientation.
“Straight white males may not attend. If a recruiter chose not to attend a Pride Parade or fly the Pride flag . . . the recruiter would most likely be removed immediately.”
The report urges the House Judiciary Committee to order a 90-day audit of the FBI’s recruitment practices, to introduce legislation to strengthen the oath of office for FBI special agents, and to call Director Wray to testify before Congress over whether he is “willfully lying to conceal significant deficiencies” in recruitment or has been misinformed by subordinates.
A spokesman for committee Chairman Jim Jordan said the panel was evaluating the report:
“We are thankful that these brave FBI officials have come forward with this report that described some of the ridiculous things happening at the bureau. We will continue to work with these officials . . . so we can further implement the proper legislative changes.”
The authors want to remain anonymous because those still serving know they will be “crushed” like whistleblowers before them, says one of the authors.
More at:
MSNBC’s Joy Reid Puts Up Defense for Inappropriate Book in Schools, Guest Obliterates Her on Live TV
One of the most disturbing developments to come out of the progressive movement is their gung-ho attitude toward the sexualization of young children and their desire to groom them to accept sexual deviancy in a variety of forms as normal behavior. We’ve heard countless stories about schools aiding minors in defying parents by helping them socially transition to a different gender without informing them about it.
There have also been incidents where schools have allowed kids who claim to be transgender — individuals who are too young to vote, buy cigarettes, drink a beer, or join the military — to procure hormone therapies and even gender reassignment surgery. Many of these children will go on to regret getting the life-altering surgeries, realizing in time they were victims of falling for a social contagion and not legitimately suffering from gender dysphoria.
All the while, people like MSNBC host Joy Reid are championing the exposure of children to perverse, inappropriate materials in school libraries and classrooms. In fact, during a recent episode of her program — who actually watches this stuff? — Reid attempted to offer a defense for why these books should be available, only to be smacked back to reality by a guest appearing on the show.
Moms for Liberty co-founder Tiffany Justice conducted an interview with Reid last Friday, where she was asked by the host why she wanted to see books such as “All Boys Aren’t Blue” removed from public school libraries.
Justice essentially stated the material should be yanked from school library shelves due to containing rape, pedophilia, sex toys, and incest. Why is any of this featured in a book designed for minors? What reasoning could their possibly be for children to learn about sex toys? This is clearly grooming behavior.
The interview kicked off with Reid cuing up a clip of Justice explaining that parental rights involves “directing the upbringing of their children,” which includes “their values, education, their morals, their religious and character training.”
Reid asked her guest if she still upheld this particular definition of the term.
“Yes, it’s a God-given right to direct the upbringing of your children,” Justice replied. At this point, you can see the excitement in Reid’s eyes, believing she has a “got ya” moment.
“Do LGBTQ parents and parents of LGBT kids, do they have parental rights?” she asked Justice.
“Every parent,” Justice said. “Every parent has the fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their kids.”
Clearly, this was not the answer that Reid was expecting. It derailed her whole strategy, thus, she moved on to an entirely different point. Reid then brought up a report published by the Washington Post in May of last year that discovered over a thousand book challenges for the 2021-22 school year, the majority of which were allegedly filed by 11 people, with each individual filing 10 or more challenges.
A report that was published by the Tampa Bay Times found that only two people, a dad and a high school teacher, filed a total of 600 complaints out of a total of 1,100.
“Why should 13 people get to decide what books tens of thousands of children get to read?” Reid asked during the segment.
“Well, I’m thinking it’s probably because those 13 people saw what some of the content was in the books,” Justice fired back. “Explicit, graphic sexual content — and I’m happy to talk about some of that content if you would like to.”
Reid decided to keep pushing, a decision she probably regretted later.
“Well, this is the question again — the books that are being banned, I want to give you …”
“No books are being banned,” the Moms for Liberty co-founder interjected. “I want to be clear, no one is banning books. Write the book, publish the book, put it in a public library. We’re talking about a public school library.”
Yes, a public school is supposed to be for a whole community. They should not be catering to a specific group of individuals who want to normalize the sexualization of minors. I mean, this is not rocket science, nor should it be a moral conundrum. This is not appropriate material for kids to be exposed to, thus it does not belong in a school library. The end.
“Children don’t have unfettered access to the internet at school,” she added. “I did a records request and I wanted to see what kind of internet sites are banned in schools. If we’re going to talk about banning, and the subject matter in the books that moms are concerned about, they’re the same things that kids don’t have access to on the internet. So it just feels very hypocritical, right? Why is no one out there protesting for, you know, ‘Free the internet in schools!’?”
Rather than answer the question, Reid pivoted to talking about how conservatives are trying to ban not just these sexually explicit books, but beloved classics as well. Some of the titles she rattled off include “The Diary of Anne Frank,” “Slaughterhouse Five” by Kurt Vonnegut, Judy Blume novels, and books concerning the Civil Rights movement.
It’s pretty clear Reid recognized she was faltering, as she tried to change the subject and try a different angle to make it look like conservatives are fascists trying to censor progressives.
Justice made it clear during the interview the requests were made by local chapters of her organization, not the national organization.
“The question I’m asking is, what is the expertise that you have — and other Moms for Liberty advocates have — to decide that a book, an award-winning book like ‘All Boys Aren’t Blue,’ isn’t appropriate for students to read?” Reid then asked.
“What a tragic story of a young man who is anally raped by his adult family members,” Justice stated in her response. “You have incest, rape, pedophilia … in what context is a strap-on dildo acceptable for public school? That’s my question to you. Tell me what the context around the strap-on dildo or the rape of a minor child by a teacher — we’re talking about a public school.”
Reid tried one last time to get Justice, asking her for the name of the main character in the “All Boys Aren’t Blue” book. Justice answered correctly, thus once again deflating the MSNBC host. She was clearly attempting to make it appear as if Justice hadn’t read the book.
She then tries to jab at Justice saying she’s “still not an expert in the book.”
However, Justice still came out on top.
“I don’t have to be an expert to know dildos are not for public school,” Justice zinged.
This was a complete and total disaster for Reid. Trying to defend the exposure of minors to this sort of sexually explicit material is never going to result in a win for the progressive movement. Clearly, these folks are morally bankrupt.
And the left wonders why so many parents are now choosing to home school their kids?
More at:
Media: The Economy Is Actually ‘Fantastic,’ Voters Are Just Too Dumb To Notice
For basically the entire Biden presidency, the corporate media have been trying to sell Americans on the idea that the economy is as good as it could possibly be, given the circumstances. But the messaging hasn’t resonated with voters, and the President’s poll numbers on the economy remain well underwater. In response, Biden’s frustrated media allies have started complaining about voter ignorance and bemoaning that he has been denied “credit” for the “fantastic” economy.
…
Of course, the reason the corporate media are desperately insisting voters are wrong about the economy is because they want to boost Biden’s chances in the 2024 election. The administration itself has even tried instructing journalists on how to cover the economy, and it appears to have paid off for them. In late 2021, the White House held a series of private meetings with the heads of major news outlets, in which administration officials pressured the media to aggressively push any and all positive economic news, no matter how small.
Shortly thereafter, CNN’s coverage of oil and gas prices went from 77 percent negative to 79 percent positive, and suddenly almost every anchor on the network was hyping the recent 5¢-per-gallon drop refueling costs. “Relief at the pump,” they chanted excitedly.
No matter how bad Biden’s poll numbers get, these journalists will never treat them as an accurate reflection of economic conditions. As a result, many Biden stooges in the media have begun talking about the existence of a so-called “disconnect” between the state of the economy and voter sentiment.
Journalists have crafted a variety of excuses for why this mysterious disconnect exists — all of which amount to, essentially, the polls are wrong. On January 19, MSNBC host Chris Hayes suggested that perhaps Americans just weren’t paying close enough attention to the economy:
If people aren’t paying attention to it, then it’s very hard to go out and take credit. And especially when it comes to the Biden administration, they haven’t been getting nearly enough credit for a whole bunch of good stuff, like the economy.
That same evening, Hayes’s colleague Stephanie Ruhle theorized that perhaps the real culprit was blind partisanship: “Are we going to get to the point where facts do not matter, and for the economy example, people are going to feel the way that aligns with their political party?”
But easily the most absurd rational came from CNN’s John Berman back in July of 2023: voters just “like being unhappy.”
Unfortunately for these self-appointed Biden surrogates in the media, telling voters not to believe their lying wallets is not a winning campaign strategy. If Americans continue to feel pain at the gas pump and the grocery store, no amount of kooky rationalizing by Stephanie Ruhle is going to change that.
More at:
More Stories
NYPD Declares Columbia University Protest a Riot — Crackdown Begins, Dozens Arrested
Hamas Supporters at Columbia University Smash Windows, Take Control of Hamilton Hall in Overnight Attack
Sceptical Supreme Court Could Hand Trump Partial Victory In Immunity Case