Pres. Trump Blames D.C. Plane Crash that killed 67 on DEI and Biden!

President Trump addresses the American Airlines flight that crashed with the Black Hawk Helicopter in D.C. pointing out DEI among other things.

When asked how he could come to the conclusion that Diversity (DEI) had something to do with the plane crash, Trump answered, “Because I have common sense. Okay. And Unfortunately a lot of people  don’t. We want brilliant people doing this (Air traffick control), this is a major chess game at the highest level.” He went on to describe the real rough facts of what it takes to be in that position. Listen to his entire address to the nation on the American Airlines flight that crashed with the Black Hawk Military Helicopter in D.C. and collect the many dots he is giving you.

Earlier today it was reported by media news sources that there are no survivors from the American Airlines flight that collided with the Black Hawk helicopter near Washington, D.C. The collision, which occurred on January 29, 2025, involved American Airlines Flight 5342, carrying 60 passengers and four crew members, and a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter with three soldiers on board.

Official statements from D.C. Fire and EMS Chief John Donnelly and other authorities have confirmed that the operation has shifted from rescue to recovery, with no survivors expected. The crash site, located in the Potomac River, has been the focus of extensive recovery efforts, with at least 28 bodies recovered so far. Social media posts have been digging and researching and among the first to reflect that no survivors have been found. The conditions of the river, described as extremely cold and windy, have further complicated the recovery process.

Due to the earlier mixed reports, I asked the A.I. Grok on X this question: “Was this a preplanned crash? Why did the media have reports before the crash?”

Grok the new A.I. fact checker gave a mis and dis fact checker answer. How revealing this all has been.

Grok A.I. answered, “The question of whether the crash between the American Airlines flight and the Black Hawk helicopter was preplanned involves looking at several aspects, including the nature of the media reports that surfaced before the event.

Preplanned Crash:

• Official Statements: No official sources or investigations have concluded or even suggested that the crash was preplanned. Both the U.S. Army and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have stated that the Black Hawk was on a training mission, and the passenger jet was on a routine approach to land. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is leading the investigation into the incident, which is still in its early stages.
• Circumstantial Evidence: The fact that the crash involved a military training flight and a commercial airliner in a densely packed airspace around Washington, D.C., suggests that this was likely an accident rather than a preplanned event. The area’s airspace is known for its complexity due to the presence of both civilian and military aircraft.

Media Reports Before the Crash:

• Posts on X: There have been posts on X suggesting that media outlets like CNN had articles prepared about the crash before it happened. However, these claims are based on social media speculation and should be treated with caution as they are not independently verified by official sources or credible journalism standards.
  • The notion that media had pre-written articles could be due to several factors:
    • Prepared Templates: News organizations often have pre-written templates or drafts for breaking news scenarios, particularly for events like plane crashes in busy airspaces, which can be quickly customized with actual details once an incident occurs.
    • Misinformation or Misinterpretation: Social media can spread misinformation, where posts might claim an article was published before an event, when in fact, it might have been a misinterpretation of timestamps, or a draft mistakenly published early.
    • Coincidence: Sometimes, news outlets might be working on stories related to aviation safety or incidents in the area, which could coincidentally align with an actual event, leading to confusion.

Investigation:

• The NTSB’s investigation will look into all aspects of the incident, including communications between air traffic control and both aircraft, the decision to change runways, and the actions of all parties involved. Only after a thorough investigation can any definitive conclusions be made about the nature of the crash.

In summary, while there are unverified claims on social media suggesting preplanning, current official reports and the context of the crash do not support the notion that this was preplanned. The timing of media reports could be explained by standard journalistic practices or misinformation. It’s crucial to await the results of the official investigation for a factual understanding of the event.

Here is a big fat dot in the multilayer dots in this event…. President Trump has now opened up the White House Press to all voices to report the news, even those on social media such as tic toc.  Now we all know the deepstate controlled media hated that. And now we have “Grok the A.I. fact checker of X” telling us that social media is speculation and not credible journalism that meets the “deep state” control standards.

Evidence: Grok A.I. the fact checker, siding with CNN as true journalism, stated, “However, these claims are based on social media speculation and should be treated with caution as they are not independently verified by official sources or credible journalism standards.”

Credible journalism standards have been flushed down the swamp toilet long ago. The low ratings of the so called news media has lost its credibility and is no longer able to hoodwink the public. A.I. is desperately grasping to stay afloat. It is obvious that they read scripts that are A.I. prepared in advance and the human element wins over A.I. every time… as humans can think, feel and decide and A.I. can only program and be programmed.

Mind control is and has been a study with ancient roots. The philosophers of ancient Greece and Rome always belittled the average person who could reason and condemned them as mad little idiots who dared to go against their reasoning and obvious mind washing techniques. Man made pseudo science and philosophical mind control programming go hand in hand. We are now entering the point of time where the knowledge of programming is being laid out for all to see the sins of it.

Remember psychology was created to replace philosophy which people began to outthink. And so we have scholars, theologians, scientists, and psychiatrists who try their hardest to categorize, label, and condemn all who have the gift of discernment and independent thought.

The organized church and its clergy do its part to also discredit those who have discernment and the God given gift of understanding and the power of the Holy Spirit whom science and philosophy cannot out reason, and only remove, or kill, steal and destroy those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. The puppets have no idea how God works in the realm they cannot see, and those who do know are always conjuring up their own underworld minions to tell them how to kill, steal and destroy for there is no truth in them and they must cling to their own masters of the underworld to exist.

It is a battle between good and evil. God and mammon. The ruler of this world and the Kingdom of God.

I asked Grok, “How does science view God?

Grok’s answer: “Science, as a methodological approach to understanding the natural world, does not directly address the existence or nature of God in the same way it might address a physical phenomenon like gravity or photosynthesis. Here’s how science interacts with the concept of God:

1. Methodological Naturalism: Science operates under the principle of methodological naturalism, which means it looks for natural explanations for natural phenomena. This approach excludes supernatural explanations by design, not because it denies the existence of God or gods, but because scientific methods are not equipped to test or measure supernatural claims.

1. Agnostic Stance: From this perspective, science remains agnostic about God. It neither confirms nor denies the existence of God because such questions fall outside its scope. Scientists might personally hold any number of spiritual beliefs, but these are separate from their scientific work.
2. Historical Context: Historically, many scientists were also theologians or deeply religious, like Isaac Newton, who saw his scientific discoveries as a way to understand God’s design. However, over time, with the rise of Enlightenment thinking, science and religion began to be seen more distinctly, though not always in opposition.
3. Scientific Study of Religion:
   • Psychology of Religion: This field studies how religious beliefs influence behavior, cognition, and emotion. It might look at phenomena like prayer, religious experiences, or the impact of religion on mental health, but it does so from a naturalistic viewpoint, examining these through the lens of human psychology, not theology.
   • Sociology of Religion: This examines the role of religion in society, its functions, and its influence on social structures, again from a naturalistic standpoint.
   • Evolutionary Biology: Some theories suggest that religion or belief in a deity might have evolutionary advantages, like fostering group cohesion or providing psychological comfort, but these are theories about the function of belief, not about the truth of the beliefs themselves.
4. Conflicts and Dialogues:
   • Conflict Thesis: There’s a narrative, notably from the 19th century onwards, suggesting inherent conflict between science and religion (e.g., the Galileo affair). However, this is an oversimplification; many scientists today see no conflict between their faith and their science.
   • Dialogue and Integration: Some scientists and theologians engage in dialogue, seeking ways in which science and religion can inform each other. This includes fields like theistic evolution, where some interpret religious texts in light of scientific findings about the universe’s origins.
5. Science on Specific Claims: If a claim about God leads to testable predictions (e.g., “praying for healing leads to better health outcomes”), science can study the phenomenon’s effects, but it cannot verify the divine source of such effects.

In essence, science views God through the lens of methodological naturalism, focusing on observable, testable aspects of the world. While individual scientists might hold diverse beliefs about God, science as an enterprise does not engage in proving or disproving divine existence but seeks to understand the workings of the natural universe. The relationship between science and the concept of God is more about how they intersect in human experience, thought, and society rather than direct confrontation or confirmation.

So there you have it. Science and God are as different as night and day. Good and evil. You are either in the world and of it, or in the world and NOT OF THE WORLD. Each must choose who they shall follow. Technocracy is out to remove free will as that is something they can not control. People are not made robots, it is man that is trying to make them controlled and programmable bots to obey. They have learned from ancient ways how to drive a man mad, and torture a human to the point of breaking their will, but they have NEVER BEEN ABLE TO DESTROY FREE WILL, only DESTROY THE FLESH!

As Jesus said, “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul. But rather fear him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell.” Matthew 10:28.

Any and all of those who have tortured, neuralinked, chipped, and played with man’s DNA will be held accountable and God will give them their just payment for their deeds. Revenge belongs to God and God always does what he says he shall do. Our position is to hold to the promises of God and to listen to the Holy Spirit and follow the way of the Lord. Read God’s Word for ourselves with the Holy Spirit guiding us to the truth and the pure Wisdom that comes from God and not from man and his philosophical and small minded teachings he has memorized and debated by himself, for himself, with others doing the very same.

Once you see the glory of the Holy Spirit and heed the teachings you will find it hard to even stomach the PhD scholarly debates of foolishness and most know the key names of those ones of whom I speak.

They are as trolls so disturbed that they are now screeching things like “I think I believe in God after all these years of not believing.”…. this attracts the Christian who believes they are coming into the fold to follow the way of the Lord, when in reality they have dawned a sheep’s skin and entered in to devour in other naughty ways. How much time does one have to waste listening to philosophers with PhD’s claiming to be so scholarly and embedded with science as a weapon against all creation? These are the same ones who deny the very things science does know and desires to keep hidden from humanity. Things like “in a galaxy far, far away there are little green men and we shall go to Mars to colonize, for earth is much to small to exist with our future populations? And besides man has destroyed most of it??

That being said… I asked Grok, “How many people like the idea of living in a 375 sq. ft. box and eating bugs?

Grok answered, “Determining the exact number of people who like the idea of living in a 375 sq. ft. space and eating bugs is challenging due to the specificity and combined nature of these two preferences. However, we can examine each aspect separately and then infer about their intersection:

Living in a 375 sq. ft. Space:

Popularity of Small Living Spaces: There is a growing interest in tiny homes and micro-apartments, particularly in urban areas where space is at a premium. Websites, blogs, and communities dedicated to tiny houses, like Tiny House Talk and the Tiny House Blog, showcase this trend. For instance, the Boxabl 375 sq. ft. tiny home has garnered attention for its design and affordability, suggesting a niche but enthusiastic audience.

Reddit and Social Media: Communities like r/malelivingspace and r/pics on Reddit show posts with thousands of upvotes and comments on 375 sq. ft. living spaces, indicating a segment of the population appreciates or is curious about this lifestyle.

Eating Bugs:

Entomophagy (Eating Insects): There’s a rising interest in entomophagy due to environmental sustainability, food security, and nutritional benefits of insects. In Western cultures, this is still a niche interest, but it’s gaining ground. Surveys and studies suggest a small but growing percentage of people are open to or currently eat insects as part of their diet, especially in contexts like food innovation or as a response to climate change impacts on traditional agriculture.

Intersecting Preferences:

Combining Both: There isn’t direct data on how many people would like both living in a 375 sq. ft. space and eating bugs. However: Sustainability and Minimalism: Both trends align with broader movements toward sustainability, minimalism, and lower environmental impact. Individuals who are drawn to one might be more likely to be interested in the other due to shared values like environmental consciousness or a desire for simplicity.

Urban Demographics: In cities where tiny living is more common, there might be a slightly higher interest in alternative diets like entomophagy, driven by similar motivations of sustainability, cost, and space efficiency.

Given these considerations, while there isn’t a specific count, we can estimate:

A small, dedicated community exists where these interests overlap. This community would likely be composed of environmentally conscious individuals, urban dwellers looking for space-efficient solutions, and those interested in novel or sustainable food sources.

The actual number would be in the thousands to tens of thousands, but this is highly speculative without direct survey data. It would be a subset of those interested in either tiny living or entomophagy, with a significant overlap in urban, environmentally aware demographics.

Remember, these are rough estimates based on related trends, not precise figures from specific surveys on these exact combined preferences. Ask anything”

Well, there you have it. In a world of 8 billion or so, they have actual estimated numbers of thousands to tens of thousands on board to eat bugs and live in a box. These are among those who believe in the pseudo science and I wonder how many are paid to support it? Let’s ask Grok. You see, because Grok can’t reason, we have to ask specific questions as he is a bot. The type of bot they desire for you to become – programmable to obey.

So I asked specifically, “How many are paid to support the eat bugs and 375 ft box house?”

Grok answered, “There isn’t direct evidence or quantifiable data indicating that people are specifically paid to support both the concept of eating bugs and living in 375 sq. ft. box homes. However, we can break down these concepts individually to understand if there are any financial incentives or payments related to them:

Eating Bugs:

• Bug Bounty Programs: These are not directly related to eating bugs but rather to finding and reporting software bugs. However, there’s no direct link to promoting entomophagy (eating insects).
• Promotional Campaigns: Some companies or organizations promoting sustainable food solutions might compensate influencers or researchers to advocate for entomophagy. For example, startups in the insect food industry might pay for marketing or content creation. However, this is speculative, and there’s no widespread, documented system of payment for this advocacy.

375 sq. ft. Box Homes:

• Affiliate Marketing and Sponsored Content: Bloggers, vloggers, or influencers in the tiny house community might receive payment or commissions for promoting products like the Boxable home or similar tiny living solutions. This isn’t about supporting the lifestyle per se but about promoting specific products for financial gain.
• Research and Advocacy: There might be grants or funding for research into sustainable housing solutions, including tiny homes, but these are more about encouraging innovation and study rather than directly paying individuals to live in or promote such homes.

Intersection:

• Combining both concepts, there’s no clear evidence of a concerted effort or payment scheme to support individuals in both eating bugs and living in tiny homes. The idea seems more like a convergence of two separate trends (sustainable living and food) rather than a singular, incentivized movement.

Speculative Estimation:

• Given the lack of specific data:
  • Very few, if any, are likely paid to advocate for both living in a 375 sq. ft. box and eating bugs as a combined lifestyle choice. This would be an extremely niche overlap, likely involving influencers or content creators who might naturally align with both concepts for their audience or personal beliefs rather than direct payment for that specific combination.
  • Any payment would be more about individual advocacy for sustainable practices or products (tiny homes or insect-based foods) rather than the exact scenario of living in a certain size home while promoting an insect diet.

Read this from 2014. None of this is new. Should people eat insects instead of meat? Experts explain the benefits of bugs – ABC News (go.com)

Back to Grok, “In conclusion, while there might be financial incentives for promoting either tiny homes or entomophagy separately, there’s no clear or documented evidence of payment for specifically supporting both at the same time. Any overlap would likely be coincidental or part of broader sustainability advocacy where individuals or companies naturally intersect these areas.”

So I reworded the question…. As A.I. can’t think it can only gather data and spit that out. I asked, “How many programs are paid to promote eating bugs and putting insects in our food sources?”

A.I. Grok Answered: “Based on the information available from the “Related Web Results” and posts on X:

• Federal Grants in the U.S.: There’s mention from posts on X of a $700,000 federal grant aimed at promoting edible insects. This suggests at least one significant program in the U.S. funded by federal money to push the idea of eating insects.
• Global Initiatives:
  • The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) of the United Nations has been promoting entomophagy since 2013, advocating for insects as a sustainable food source. This isn’t necessarily a “program” in the traditional sense but rather an institutional endorsement and research push.
• In Europe, there are moves towards normalizing insects as food, with the EU’s Food Safety Authority approving certain insects for human consumption, indicating regulatory support which might be part of broader sustainability programs.
• In Canada, there’s mention of a company producing cricket powder being stocked in a nationwide grocery chain, suggesting commercial initiatives might be supported indirectly through regulatory or market development programs.
• Business and Research:
  • Various startups and companies, like those mentioned in the context of Thailand and the global market, are likely to receive some form of investment or grants aimed at research, development, or market introduction of insect-based foods. The Barclays report cited predicts significant growth in this sector, suggesting business incentives or funding might be involved.

• Educational and Cultural Programs:
  • Efforts to change consumer perceptions globally, like through educational programming by groups like Brooklyn Bugs, indicate there might be small-scale or local programs funded to educate and promote the consumption of insects.

Given this information, while exact numbers are not specified:

• At least one major program in the U.S. with federal funding.
• Several companies, research initiatives, and possibly educational programs worldwide, which might be supported by various forms of grants, investments, or regulatory frameworks aimed at promoting entomophagy.

Thus, while we can’t give an exact number, there are evidently multiple programs, initiatives, and business ventures, both at governmental and private levels, that are financially supported to promote eating bugs and integrating insects into food sources.

So there you have it, the United Nations, EU, and I’m sure the idea folks who openly push it at the World Economic Forum are all in and there are financial programs to push it!

Are you seeing how this all works yet? There is much more than Klaus behind this bug eating scheme, and all the technocrat ideas that are actually more classified as Crimes against humanity than anything to preserve it.

So I asked Grok, “To force humanity to eat bugs and put them into the food supply is that a crime against humanity?”

Grok answered, “The question of whether forcing humanity to eat bugs and incorporating them into the food supply constitutes a “crime against humanity” involves both legal and ethical considerations. Let’s break it down:

Legal Perspective:

• Definition of Crimes Against Humanity: Under international law, specifically the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), crimes against humanity include acts such as murder, torture, forced displacement, and other severe forms of inhumane treatment, committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, with knowledge of the attack. Key elements include:
  • Intent and Scale: There must be a deliberate, widespread, or systematic effort targeting civilians.
  • Severity of Acts: The acts must be of a severe nature, causing great suffering or serious injury to body or mental health.
• Application to Forced Consumption of Insects:
  • No Explicit Legal Precedent: Forcing people to eat bugs or adding insects to the food supply does not, on its own, meet the legal threshold for crimes against humanity as defined by international law. It does not inherently involve acts like murder, torture, or severe deprivation of physical liberty.
  • Potential for Coercion or Harm: If the act of forcing a population to consume insects were part of a broader campaign involving severe coercion, deprivation of other food sources, or causing widespread health issues, it could theoretically be argued as part of a “systematic attack” under extreme circumstances. However, this would require clear evidence of intent to harm and significant negative impact, which isn’t typically associated with entomophagy (eating insects).
• Current Context: The promotion of insects as a food source is generally framed in terms of sustainability and nutrition, not as a coercive measure. Regulatory bodies like the EU’s Food Safety Authority have approved certain insects for consumption, indicating that their inclusion in the food supply is viewed as a regulated, voluntary option rather than forced.

Ethical Perspective:

• Autonomy and Consent: Ethically, forcing any dietary change on a population raises questions about personal autonomy and consent. If insects were added to the food supply without transparency or the ability to opt out, it could be seen as a violation of individual rights. However, this would fall under ethical or civil rights concerns rather than crimes against humanity.
• Cultural and Psychological Impact: Forcing a dietary practice that is culturally unfamiliar or repugnant to many could be perceived as a form of cultural imposition or psychological harm. However, this would still not meet the threshold of crimes against humanity unless it were part of a broader, systematic campaign of severe abuse.
• Health and Safety: If insects in the food supply were proven to be harmful (e.g., causing widespread illness or nutritional deficiencies), this could raise ethical and potentially legal issues. However, current evidence suggests that insects can be a safe and nutritious food source when properly regulated.

Public Sentiment and Conspiracy Theories:

• Misinformation and Fear: Posts on X and other platforms often frame the inclusion of insects in the food supply as part of a broader conspiracy, sometimes invoking phrases like “crimes against humanity” to express strong opposition. These sentiments often lack evidence of actual harm or legal grounding but reflect a deep mistrust of institutions promoting these changes.
• WEF and Global Initiatives: Organizations like the World Economic Forum (WEF) have discussed insects as a sustainable protein source, which has led to conspiracy theories about forced dietary changes. However, discussing or promoting insects as food does not equate to forcing their consumption or committing crimes against humanity.

Conclusion:

• Not a Crime Against Humanity Under Current Law: Based on the legal definition and available evidence, promoting or even mandating the consumption of insects does not constitute a crime against humanity. It lacks the necessary elements of widespread, systematic harm or severe acts against civilians.
• Ethical Concerns: While there are valid ethical concerns about autonomy, transparency, and cultural sensitivity, these do not rise to the level of international crimes. They are better addressed through policy, regulation, and public discourse.
• Critical Examination: It’s important to critically assess both the establishment narrative (e.g., sustainability claims) and the conspiracy-driven counter-narratives. While mistrust of large-scale dietary changes is understandable, labeling them as crimes against humanity requires a legal and factual basis that is not currently supported. (End of Grok)

So there you go people. What do you think of it’s okay to eat bugs… if the powers that be in charge create a food shortage?

Do you think it might be time to make some laws that stop the insane ideologies that tyrants desire to enact on humanity?

I also asked Grok specifically, “How many government and private company funds are available for boxibl housing?”

Government Funding:

• U.S. Government Contract: Boxabl has secured a $9.2 million contract to deliver 156 Casitas for military housing. This indicates direct government funding for Boxabl’s housing solutions in a specific context.

Note…. 9.2 million for 156 tiny houses? Equals roughly a little more than $58,974 dollars each? What sort of scam is this? Especially when the tiny house market has been around for a long time?

Private Company Funding:

• Crowdfunding and Investment: Boxabl has raised over $140 million through crowdfunding and venture capital investments. This includes:
  • $29 million+ raised through StartEngine, making it one of the largest crowdfunding campaigns on that platform.
  • Additional funds from institutional investors like D.R. Horton Inc., which also serves as a strategic partner.

• Elevate Money Partnership: Boxabl has entered into a partnership with Elevate Money, leading to the launch of the Future of Housing Fund. Through this partnership, Elevate Money has the first right to purchase a minimum 10% of Boxabl’s monthly production, suggesting indirect private funding or investment opportunities.
• Potential IPO, SPAC, or Direct Listing: Boxabl is planning to go public, which would open up further avenues for private investment through public markets.

Summary of Funds:

• Government Funding: At least $9.2 million for a specific military housing contract.
• Private Funding: Over $140 million from various sources including:
  • Crowdfunding: $29 million+ through StartEngine.
  • Venture Capital and Other Investments: Over $111 million (to reach the $140 million total).

Thus, combining both government and private company funds, Boxabl has access to at least:

• $9.2 million in direct government funds for one specific project.
• Over $140 million in private funds from investors, crowdfunding, and partnerships.

Please note that these figures might not be exhaustive of all funding Boxabl has received but represent the amounts explicitly mentioned in the provided sources. (End of Grok’s answer)

So here we go… and listening to the plans that are being thwarted by the Trump administration… we can expect more interruptions via dots that most are not even aware exist to connect. There are a lot of dots here and there, each one has a lot to do with EVERYTHING!

Once you learn the way the deep state words things, and specifically redirects the question via the redirected answer you begin to see the gas lighting. You begin to see how truth is morphed into a lie, and how a lie is morphed into a truth. You begin to see the programming and all the mind control stealth that goes into it – just like any corrupt lawyer can get their guilty party off the hook by presenting a skewed presentation of the facts and leaving out motives and actual pertinent information.

It’s like trying to get an order of protection against a person who has threatened you, but because they have not ACTUALLY physically harmed you YET – your order of protection is DENIED. That is where we the people are at this junction of lawlessness. But, it will be turned around to restore law and order.

So I asked Grok, “WHAT IS DEEP STATE DOING TO INTERFERE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS?”

A.I. Grok responded, “According to the information from the “Related Web Results” and posts found on X, here are the ways in which elements described as the “deep state” are reportedly interfering with President Trump’s executive orders in 2025:

Bureaucratic Resistance:

• Misinterpretation of Orders: There are claims that the deep state deliberately misinterprets executive orders in ways designed to hurt Trump’s agenda. They are said to claim that the orders are “unclear” and require further “clarification” from the White House before any changes can be implemented.
• Delaying Appointments: The deep state is accused of delaying Trump’s nominee appointments, which would undermine his ability to implement his policies effectively.
• Legal and Administrative Challenges: There’s mention of legal challenges to some of Trump’s executive orders, like the one targeting birthright citizenship, immediately after they were signed. This suggests an organized effort to delay or halt implementation through legal means.
• Impeachment Proceedings: There’s an indication that the deep state is attempting to fight back against Trump’s accountability measures by initiating impeachment proceedings.

Strategic Actions:

• Disobeying Direct Orders: Reports suggest that Pentagon officials and other government agencies are holding secret meetings to discuss how they might respond if Trump issues orders they disagree with, including possibilities like deploying active-duty troops domestically or firing large swathes of apolitical staff.

• Creating Chaos: There are allegations that the deep state, in coordination with the media, plans to generate both faux and real chaos within government agencies to portray Trump’s executive orders as dangerous and out of control.
• Obstructing Directives: Specific instances include the Defense Department obstructing Trump’s orders to deploy troops to the U.S.-Mexico border under the guise of resource concerns.

• Placing Officials on Leave: There are claims that senior aid officials have been placed on leave for trying to circumvent Trump’s orders, suggesting a form of resistance or obstruction within the bureaucracy.

Policy Reversals and Revisions:

• Reviving and Revising Executive Orders: Trump’s efforts to reinstate certain policies, like the Schedule F executive order which would make federal employees easier to fire, are met with resistance through legal challenges and by revoking previous executive orders that had protected these employees.
• Schedule F and Civil Service: Trump’s push to implement Schedule F to strip job protections from federal employees is met with pushback from unions and critics who see it as an attempt to politicize the civil service. This includes efforts to reclassify positions to make them political appointees, which faces opposition.

In summary, the actions described include bureaucratic resistance, legal challenges, strategic non-compliance or obstruction, and policy reversals aimed at slowing down, modifying, or preventing the implementation of Trump’s executive orders. These actions are attributed to elements within the government bureaucracy, often referred to as the “deep state,” which are seen as opposing Trump’s agenda. However, these claims largely come from sources critical of these actions, and the situation reflects ongoing political and administrative battles over control of policy implementation. (End of Grok’s answer)

That being said, today Tulsi Gabbard unleashes on the deep state, the 51 intelligence officials, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party in her opening statement. “Democrats have accused me of being Trump’s puppet, Putin’s puppet, Assad’s puppet, Modi’s puppet, but what truly unsettles them is I refuse to be their puppet.”

Meanwhile the entire confirmation hearings were having their own fireworks today! Deep state will not win this battle… watch and see! Whoever is placed, will be the ones God says – not the deep state! We shall see just who those ones are! So hang in there, nothing is ever as it appears!

So all of this being said… This is what we are looking at and yes, there is a mountain to climb ahead. Stay strong and take all things before the Holy Spirit to discern, for the devil is in the details and his minions are angry. Keep the faith that God is watching all things and is NOT MOCKED.

KEEP ON PRESSING INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD! PRESS, PRESS, PRESS!

DIANNE