FBI Whistleblower Exposes Terror Tags on Parents EDUOFFICIALS

In part:

Garland testified on October 21 that the Justice Department and its components were not using counterterrorism tactics to target ‘concerned parents at school board meetings’ but Republicans say they have documentation that shows differently.

McCarthy also blasted Biden for going after parents instead of ‘actual threats.’

‘This is further proof that we have a President in the White House who is more interested in going after our own citizens, including concerned parents, than he is in going after actual threats. This raises the question that should alarm every American: if the Biden administration is using our country’s top law enforcement agency to go after parents, what are the actual threats they are ignoring?,’ he said.

The House GOP leader was responding to the revelation the Federal Bureau of Investigation has created a ‘threat tag’ to flag all investigations into potentially criminal threats, harassment and intimidation of educators.

Republicans argue this could be used to target parents protesting local education policies. Parents have taken to going to school board meetings to express concern about the teaching of critical race theory, transgender policies and other issues.

The latest revelations came from an FBI whistleblower, who provided an email dated October 20 to House Republicans sent on behalf of the counter-terrorism division and the criminal division.

The email referenced Garland’s October 4 directive to the FBI to ramp up its involvement in school board threats, and notified agents of a new tag, ‘EDUOFFICIALS,’ to assign to any threats against school administrators, board members, staff or teachers to determine the scope of the problem on a national level and to provide a ‘comprehensive analysis of the threat picture.’

Republicans slammed the move.

‘This disclosure provides specific evidence that federal law enforcement operationalized counterterrorism tools at the behest of a left-wing special interest group against concerned parents,’ House Republicans claimed in a letter to Garland.

The email directed agents to analyze the motivation behind the criminal activity and to identify whether there were potential federal violations that could be investigated and charged.

*** 6 Takeaways From Merrick Garland's Senate Testimony

“Not only has America’s education bureaucracy declared war on parents concerned about local schools—but so has the Department of Justice, which has weaponized the FBI against parents to chill their speech,” Neily claimed in a statement. “The American people deserve a full accounting of exactly who was involved, and when—so that egregious overreach like this may be prevented in the future.”

The FBI’s “Counterterrorism and Criminal Divisions created a threat tag, EDUOFFICIALS, to track instances of related threats,” according to the email. “The purpose of the threat tag is to help scope this threat on a national level and provide an opportunity for comprehensive analysis of the threat picture for effective engagement with law enforcement.”

The email was signed by Counterterrorism Division assistant director Timothy Langan, and former Criminal Division assistant director Calvin Shivers, who retired earlier this month. source


NSC Jake Sullivan, Family Affair and the Russian Collusion Scandal

Do you really want to know the fundamentals of the back story on who is involved still in the Russian collusion scandal that froze not only the Trump administration, an impeachment and proved the real collusion? Good, then let’s look deeper at Jake Sullivan. He is presently the National Security Advisor for Joe Biden…but it gets worse, much worse. Frankly, I would submit the FBI never investigated the whole Russian collusion operation but rather enhanced the plot.

Jake Sullivan’s wife once clerked for Merrick Garland when he was a DC Circuit judge and is now part of the Department of Justice . Additionally, Jake’s brother, Tom Sullivan presently serves as the Chief of Staff  for policy at the State Department and Tom’s wife, Rose is the acting assistant secretary for legislation at HHS. Understand that Merrick Garland oversees the work of the John Durham investigation, rather it appears that, Margaret Goodlander, Jake’s wife is the point person at the DoJ for the Durham operation. This is all while the Russian collusion plot was concocted to cover for Hillary’s email server scandal and this was a time that Jake was Hillary’s Chief of Staff. Beginning to see how this work and still works?Jake Sullivan Wife And Family - Wikiage.org Jake’s wife Margaret

The Importance of Diplomacy: Jake Sullivan on his Career ... L to R: Ben Rhodes, Jake Sullivan, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Tom Donilon.


Fox News reported Tuesday that Sullivan is the “foreign policy advisor” referred to in the indictment of former Hillary Clinton presidential campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, according to two well-placed sources. This is the closest Durham’s probe into the origins of the Russia investigation has come to anyone directly associated with the Biden White House.

The Durham indictment lays out a scenario in which an unnamed Clinton campaign lawyer “exchanged emails with the Clinton Campaign’s campaign manager, communications director, and foreign policy advisor [Jake Sullivan] concerning the Russian Bank-1 allegations that Sussmann had recently shared,” with an unnamed reporter.

There is no indication that Sullivan is a target of Durham’s investigation, only that he received information from a campaign lawyer. Durham’s indictments have since revealed that the information he received, about an alleged link between the Trump presidential campaign and the Russian bank, and that was fed to the FBI, was false.

In light of Sullivan’s newly confirmed connection to a Clinton campaign lawyer, there is a new focus on Biden’s national security adviser’s role in previous political scandals and his family ties to the Biden administration.

Matthew Buckham, founder of the group American Accountability Foundation (AAF), a nonprofit organization dedicated to bringing transparency to government officials and political elites, told Fox News that it is especially “troubling” that Sullivan has a family member at the top level of DOJ, the agency responsible for overseeing the Durham probe. In addition, AAF plans to recommend to Congress that it launch an investigation into Garland’s ties to Sullivan.

“The fact that he has relatives in the agency responsible for overseeing the investigation is very troubling from an oversight and a watchdog perspective and is something that we would recommend and potentially will recommend Congress keep a close eye on and investigate,” said Buckham. “This is something we always flag and we don’t want any undue influence from family members in an ongoing investigation.”


Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice is teeming with conflict, double standards and conspiracy, but you be the judge. Some facts are just pesky things that cannot be denied.
Perhaps to put this is some further context watch this video: 

More sourcing. 

Democrat Legislation is Remaking American using MMT

Government Jobs for Everyone….consider this –>

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is a heterodox macroeconomic framework that says monetarily sovereign countries like the U.S., U.K., Japan, and Canada, which spend, tax, and borrow in a fiat currency that they fully control, are not operationally constrained by revenues when it comes to federal government spending. MMT was pioneered by American economist and theorist Warren Mosler in 1992, along with Bill Mitchell, a university professor based in Australia and a key developer of the theory.

Modern Monetary Theory & Why Central Banks are lost in the ...

AIER: Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) offers some unconventional policy recommendations based on the United States’ monetary sovereignty. MMT proponents also advocate government guaranteed jobs paying a living wage for all Americans. What would be the consequences of such a guarantee?

The Public Service Employment program detailed in a 2018 paper from the Levy Economics Institute would be funded by Washington and administered by states. It would offer full and part-time jobs paying $15 per hour plus benefits. The program’s spending would be mandatory, like other entitlement programs. The jobs would “provide public services in nonprofit community organizations, public schools, and state and local governments.”

The program could accomplish three distinct ends. The first is stabilizing aggregate demand during economic downturns. The second is instituting work-relief in place of cash assistance. The third is implementing a “living wage” for all Americans.

When the economy slips into recession, businesses lay off some workers and cut others’ wages. Reductions in these workers’ spending produce second-round (and third-round) effects: landlords, for example, cut back their spending after not receiving rent. Many economists support macroeconomic stabilization.

Stabilization works much better when automatic. Discretionary stabilization spending, like 2009’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, can take months to enact. Laid off workers can start a guaranteed government job immediately.

Today unemployed workers receive cash assistance. While I do not advocate government make-work jobs, work-relief has two advantages over cash assistance. First, work requirements effectively control fraud, as revealed by the 1990s welfare reforms. People working while on the welfare rolls never showed up for mandatory job training.

Work-relief also denies recipients the leisure of staying home. People will compare the full value of their options. Suppose a person values the freedom of not working at $30,000 a year. If they also receive $10,000, only a $20 per hour job matches the full value of the cash assistance.

The MMT jobs program also implements a living wage providing a “just” level of compensation. Economics shows how workers in a competitive labor market get paid the value they create for businesses. The “problem” of low wages is then inadequate job skills.

The living wage is redistribution disguised as work. Market wages and salaries are not charity; the prices customers willingly pay for goods and services cover workers’ pay. Market-based salaries come entirely from voluntary payment and workers earn their pay by helping produce goods and services.

Guaranteed jobs effectively set a minimum wage because few Americans will work for businesses offering worse compensation packages (wages and benefits). Government jobs would be far more effective in assisting low-wage workers because a minimum wage ends up pricing many out of the labor market altogether.

Government jobs paying $15 an hour plus benefits would likely cost $40,000 per job annually. MMT proponents project 15 million government jobs would be needed even when the economy is strong. MMT can advocate such a budget-busting program because in its view monetary sovereignty renders Federal spending costless under most circumstances.

The biggest potential problem with the jobs guarantee, even at a lower wage, is whether people will have to work. What exactly is a government “guaranteed job?” The term job suggests a person must work satisfactorily or be fired. The guarantee suggests anyone fired must then be given another position.

Government guaranteed no-show jobs would blow up the labor market. If you had a “job” paying $30,000 plus benefits not requiring work, how much would you need to be paid to take a real job? Guaranteed $15 per hour no-show jobs would effectively be a $30 or $40 per hour minimum wage.

The United States is prosperous because we produce goods and services people want in large quantities. Yet production requires real work, not government make-work jobs. By diverting millions out of productive private sector jobs, the MMT jobs guarantee seems guaranteed to impoverish America.

About that Drone Attack on the Pennsylvania Power Grid

The Drive: U.S. officials believe that a DJI Mavic 2, a small quadcopter-type drone, with a thick copper wire attached underneath it via nylon cords was likely at the center of an attempted attack on a power substation in Pennsylvania last year. An internal U.S. government report that was issued last month says that this is the first time such an incident has been officially assessed as a possible drone attack on energy infrastructure in the United States, but that this is likely to become more commonplace as time goes on. This is a reality The War Zone has sounded the alarm about in the past, including when we were first to report on a still unexplained series of drone flights near the Palo Verde nuclear powerplant in Arizona in 2019.

ABC News was first to report on the Joint Intelligence Bulletin (JIB) covering the incident in Pennsylvania last year, which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) published on Oct. 28, 2021. The document, which ABC obtained a copy of, but only released a small portion of, is marked unclassified, but parts also labeled Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) and For Official Use Only (FOUO). Other outlets have since obtained copies of this document, which reportedly says that this likely attack took place on July 16, 2020, but does not identify where the substation in question was located.

DHS via ABC News

RELATED READING: FBI Strategic Intelligence/Assessment on Domestic Terrorism

A portion of an annotated satellite image from a US Joint Intelligence Bulletin regarding a likely attempted drone attack on a power substation in Pennsylvania in 2020.

“This is the first known instance of a modified UAS [unmanned aerial system] likely being used in the United States to specifically target energy infrastructure,” the JIB states. “We assess that a UAS recovered near an electrical substation was likely intended to disrupt operations by creating a short circuit to cause damage to transformers or distribution lines, based on the design and recovery location.”

ABC and other outlets have reported that the JIB says that this assessment is based in part on other unspecified incidents involving drones dating back to 2017. As already noted, The War Zone previously reported on another worrisome set of incidents around Arizona’s Palo Verde Generating Station, the largest nuclear power plant in the United States in terms of its output of electricity, in 2019. In the process of reporting that story, we uncovered other reported drone flights that prompted security concerns near the Limerick Generating Station nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania earlier that year.

The Night A Mysterious Drone Swarm Descended On Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant By Tyler Rogoway and Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone
Here’s What’s In New Guidelines For Defending Infrastructure Against Drone Attacks By Brett Tingley Posted in The War Zone
The Y-12 Nuclear Development Site Has Deployed Its First Anti-Drone System By Brett Tingley Posted in The War Zone
Some Chinese-Made Drones Cleared By Pentagon For U.S. Government Use By Brett Tingley Posted in The War Zone
Is The United States Firing Off “Electricity Bombs” in Syria? By Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone

“To date, no operator has been identified and we are producing this assessment now to expand awareness of this event to federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement and security partners who may encounter similarly modified UAS,” the JIB adds.

Beyond the copper wire strung up underneath it, the drone reportedly had its camera and internal memory card removed. Efforts were taken to remove any identifying markings, indicating efforts by the operator or operators to conceal the identifies and otherwise make it difficult to trace the drone’s origins.

DHS via ABC News

A low-quality image showing the drone recovered after the likely attempted attack in Pennsylvania. The green lines are the nylon cables. A copper wire was attached to the bottom ends of both lines.

It’s unclear how much of a threat this particular drone posed in its modified configuration. The apparent intended method of attack would appear to be grounded, at least to some degree, in actual science. The U.S. military employed Tomahawk cruise missiles loaded with spools of highly-conductive carbon fiber wire against power infrastructure to create blackouts in Iraq during the first Gulf War in 1991. F-117 Nighthawk stealth combat jets dropped cluster bombs loaded with BLU-114/B submunitions packed with graphite filament over Serbia to the same effect in 1999.

Regardless, the incident only underscores the ever-growing risks that small drones pose to critical infrastructure, as well as other civilian and military targets, in the United States. If this modified drone did pose a real risk, it would also highlight the low barrier to entry to at least attempt to carry out such attacks. New DJI Mavic 2s can be purchased online right now for between $2,000 and $4,000.

The technology is so readily available that non-state actors around the world, from terrorists in the Middle East to drug cartels in Mexico, are already employing commercial quad and hexacopter-type drones armed with improvised explosive payloads on a variety of targets on and off more traditional battlefields. This includes attempted assassinations of high-profile individuals.

The U.S. government is finally coming to terms with these threats and there are certainly some steps being taken, at least at the federal level, to protect civilian and domestic military facilities against small drones. At the same time, it is equally clear that there is still much work to be done.

This particular incident in Pennsylvania last year highlights separate security concerns relating to Chinese-made small drones that are now widely available in the United States and are even in use within the U.S. government. DJI, or Da Jiang Innovations, is by far the largest Chinese drone maker selling products commercially in the United States today and has been at the center of these debates in recent years.

Whether or not the modified Mavic 2 posed a real danger in this instance or if this was truly the first-ever attempted drone attack on energy infrastructure in the United States, it definitely reflects threats are real now and will only become more dangerous as time goes on.