Gerald Johnson

The Dirty Little Secret of Wildfire How America Traded Logging Jobs for a Perpetual Firefighting Economy For much of the 20th century, the forests of the Pacific Northwest were managed as working landscapes. Private timber companies and federal land managers cut, planted, thinned, and tended the land with the understanding that the trees were an asset to be sustained across generations. Clearcuts functioned as firebreaks. Small crews routinely extinguished ignitions before they became news. The result was a regional economy built on living-wage jobs, steady tax revenue for schools and public safety, and forests that, for the most part, stayed green. Occasional fires occurred. What did not occur were the annual, multi-hundred-thousand-acre, smoke-choked seasons that have become the new normal. That changed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The northern spotted owl was elevated into the most consequential bird in modern American policy. Scientists and environmental organizations argued that the species required large tracts of old-growth habitat. Petitions, lawsuits, and court orders followed. In June 1990 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the owl as threatened. Federal Judge William Dwyer’s rulings and the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan locked up roughly 24 million acres of federal forest across Oregon, Washington, and northern California. Federal timber harvests collapsed—often by 80 to 90 percent from 1980s levels in the key regions. Mills closed by the dozens. Supporting businesses disappeared. Unemployment surged. Some communities never fully recovered. Private industrial landowners continued managing their own ground because they still had direct financial skin in the game. Federal and state lands largely stopped being managed for timber production or for systematic fuel reduction at anything approaching the previous scale. The forests kept growing. Fuels kept accumulating. An ignition that once would have been contained by a small crew with shovels and a radio now found denser, more continuous fuel beds. Large fires (5,000 acres and up) went from relatively rare events in the 1970s to routine occurrences in the 2000s and 2010s. In multiple recent seasons, more timber has burned than the industry harvested in its heyday. The irony is difficult to miss: forests “saved” from chainsaws have been delivered to ash in far greater volume. Meanwhile, the northern spotted owl’s population has continued to decline across much of its range. Logging was never the primary driver. Competition from the invasive barred owl has proven far more significant, and habitat loss from high-severity fire now ranks high among the threats. The original crisis was urgent enough to trigger listing and sweeping land-use restrictions. The promised recovery under the Northwest Forest Plan has been, at best, incomplete. The economic and ecological bill arrived in the form of unmanaged fuels and repeated megafires. And that is where the dirty little secret begins. Once the timber economy on public land was kneecapped, a new industry rose to replace it. Wildland firefighting—suppression, logistics, aviation, camps, contracts, and the supporting apparatus—became a multi-billion-dollar annual enterprise. Agencies and contractors employ thousands. Budgets are large and sticky. In government, “use it or lose it” is not a slogan; it is an operating principle. A quiet fire season is a budgeting risk. Early, aggressive attack on every ignition that could still be handled by a small crew is expensive in the short term and reduces the later need for the full apparatus. Allowing fires to grow until they justify emergency declarations, large incident management teams, and federal cost-share arrangements is, from a certain bureaucratic perspective, rational and financially advantageous. Local structural firefighters and many ground-level wildland crews do not share this incentive structure. They want the fire out. Once a fire reaches a certain size or complexity, however, control shifts upward to state and federal incident management teams whose metrics, funding streams, and political realities are different. Neither major political party has shown a strong appetite for fixing the underlying problem. One side treats any expansion of active management or commercial thinning as an assault on old growth and the owl. The other side speaks frequently about forest health but rarely forces the structural changes in litigation risk, planning timelines, and budget incentives that would actually move the needle at scale. Campaign contributions and jobs flow from the existing system. Admitting that the original policy overcorrected and produced a more dangerous landscape remains politically costly. Climate change and longer fire seasons are real factors. Drier fuels and hotter summers make everything worse. But denser, less-managed forests on the public estate are the accelerant that policy deliberately chose. Private industrial lands are managed more intensively and still burn, yet the severity is generally lower. Young plantations and certain silvicultural choices create their own risks, but private owners retain a direct financial reason to keep fuels in check and respond quickly. Public lands under the post-owl regime largely do not. Oregon and the broader region now hold more trees than they did in the 1920s, largely because private landowners continued to replant. They also experience more catastrophic fire. The government did not “save” the forest. It changed who controlled the management decisions and, in the process, swapped a productive industry for a perpetual emergency-response industry. The owl was the symbol. The lasting result is a landscape that burns bigger, rural economies that never fully healed, and a political class with limited incentive to alter the arrangement. Instead of market-driven capital allocation, the new system runs on taxpayer subsidies. Households and businesses understand that money spent inefficiently is money gone. Government tends to treat the same dollars as an everlasting well. Until the incentives change—until early detection, aggressive initial attack, mechanical thinning where appropriate, and genuine long-term forest management are rewarded more than the sheer size of the suppression effort—the same pattern will continue every summer: more smoke, more lost timber, more money spent, and the same speeches about how hard everyone is fighting the fires that policy helped create.

WheelerRipWA's tweet photo. The Dirty Little Secret of Wildfire

How America Traded Logging Jobs for a Perpetual Firefighting Economy

For much of the 20th century, the forests of the Pacific Northwest were managed as working landscapes. Private timber companies and federal land managers cut, planted, thinned, and tended the land with the understanding that the trees were an asset to be sustained across generations. Clearcuts functioned as firebreaks. Small crews routinely extinguished ignitions before they became news. The result was a regional economy built on living-wage jobs, steady tax revenue for schools and public safety, and forests that, for the most part, stayed green.

Occasional fires occurred. What did not occur were the annual, multi-hundred-thousand-acre, smoke-choked seasons that have become the new normal.

That changed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The northern spotted owl was elevated into the most consequential bird in modern American policy. Scientists and environmental organizations argued that the species required large tracts of old-growth habitat. Petitions, lawsuits, and court orders followed. In June 1990 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the owl as threatened. Federal Judge William Dwyer’s rulings and the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan locked up roughly 24 million acres of federal forest across Oregon, Washington, and northern California.

Federal timber harvests collapsed—often by 80 to 90 percent from 1980s levels in the key regions. Mills closed by the dozens. Supporting businesses disappeared. Unemployment surged. Some communities never fully recovered. Private industrial landowners continued managing their own ground because they still had direct financial skin in the game. Federal and state lands largely stopped being managed for timber production or for systematic fuel reduction at anything approaching the previous scale.

The forests kept growing. Fuels kept accumulating. An ignition that once would have been contained by a small crew with shovels and a radio now found denser, more continuous fuel beds. Large fires (5,000 acres and up) went from relatively rare events in the 1970s to routine occurrences in the 2000s and 2010s. In multiple recent seasons, more timber has burned than the industry harvested in its heyday. The irony is difficult to miss: forests “saved” from chainsaws have been delivered to ash in far greater volume.

Meanwhile, the northern spotted owl’s population has continued to decline across much of its range. Logging was never the primary driver. Competition from the invasive barred owl has proven far more significant, and habitat loss from high-severity fire now ranks high among the threats. The original crisis was urgent enough to trigger listing and sweeping land-use restrictions. The promised recovery under the Northwest Forest Plan has been, at best, incomplete.
The economic and ecological bill arrived in the form of unmanaged fuels and repeated megafires. And that is where the dirty little secret begins.

Once the timber economy on public land was kneecapped, a new industry rose to replace it. Wildland firefighting—suppression, logistics, aviation, camps, contracts, and the supporting apparatus—became a multi-billion-dollar annual enterprise. Agencies and contractors employ thousands. Budgets are large and sticky. In government, “use it or lose it” is not a slogan; it is an operating principle. A quiet fire season is a budgeting risk. Early, aggressive attack on every ignition that could still be handled by a small crew is expensive in the short term and reduces the later need for the full apparatus. Allowing fires to grow until they justify emergency declarations, large incident management teams, and federal cost-share arrangements is, from a certain bureaucratic perspective, rational and financially advantageous.

Local structural firefighters and many ground-level wildland crews do not share this incentive structure. They want the fire out. Once a fire reaches a certain size or complexity, however, control shifts upward to state and federal incident management teams whose metrics, funding streams, and political realities are different.

Neither major political party has shown a strong appetite for fixing the underlying problem. One side treats any expansion of active management or commercial thinning as an assault on old growth and the owl. The other side speaks frequently about forest health but rarely forces the structural changes in litigation risk, planning timelines, and budget incentives that would actually move the needle at scale. Campaign contributions and jobs flow from the existing system. Admitting that the original policy overcorrected and produced a more dangerous landscape remains politically costly.

Climate change and longer fire seasons are real factors. Drier fuels and hotter summers make everything worse. But denser, less-managed forests on the public estate are the accelerant that policy deliberately chose. Private industrial lands are managed more intensively and still burn, yet the severity is generally lower. Young plantations and certain silvicultural choices create their own risks, but private owners retain a direct financial reason to keep fuels in check and respond quickly. Public lands under the post-owl regime largely do not.

Oregon and the broader region now hold more trees than they did in the 1920s, largely because private landowners continued to replant. They also experience more catastrophic fire. The government did not “save” the forest. It changed who controlled the management decisions and, in the process, swapped a productive industry for a perpetual emergency-response industry. The owl was the symbol. The lasting result is a landscape that burns bigger, rural economies that never fully healed, and a political class with limited incentive to alter the arrangement. Instead of market-driven capital allocation, the new system runs on taxpayer subsidies.

Households and businesses understand that money spent inefficiently is money gone. Government tends to treat the same dollars as an everlasting well. Until the incentives change—until early detection, aggressive initial attack, mechanical thinning where appropriate, and genuine long-term forest management are rewarded more than the sheer size of the suppression effort—the same pattern will continue every summer: more smoke, more lost timber, more money spent, and the same speeches about how hard everyone is fighting the fires that policy helped create.

319

190K

geraldj4 retweeted

Portland Moderate. @pdxmoderate

2 months ago

Daimler Truck is shutting its Portland factory, laying off 375 workers, and moving production to the East Coast. Riverpoint Medical is expected to announce next week that it's moving 200 high-paying jobs from Portland's District 2 to Clark County. Those positions average about $175,000 a year. That's 575 jobs and more than $115 million in annual wages leaving Portland. This isn't bad luck. It's the predictable result of years of failed city and state leadership. Businesses have repeatedly warned about crime, rising taxes, soaring utility costs, excessive regulation, and policies they say make Portland a harder place to invest and grow. Instead of addressing those concerns, too many elected officials have doubled down. Every company that leaves takes paychecks, investment, and opportunity with it. Working families and local businesses are left to absorb the consequences. Blazers next. Keep ignoring the warning signs, and more employers will follow. But hey—at least foie gras is banned. https://t.co/FmLZDrlKqc @GovTinaKotek @MayorKWilson @jvegapederson @mitch4portland @jamiedunphy @pnwpolicyangel @candaceforpdx @TeacherTiff4PDX @NovickOR @PortlandDSA

147

358

27K

geraldj4 retweeted

Matt Van Swol

@mattvanswol

2 months ago

My story about pulling our son out of NC public schools to homeschool him reached far more people than I expected. So I owe you the full explanation. Fair warning: it's worse than you think. 1) My son was in a class with many kids that could not speak the English language. Zero English. None. Not a word. You might be asking yourself... well, how did lessons occur in the classroom? I'm glad you asked. In fact, the way the teachers communicated with the Spanish-speaking only students was by using their personal iPhones as translators, speaking instructions into the iPhones, and the iPhones spitting out the Spanish instructions to the Spanish-speaking students, and then the Spanish-speaking students speaking Spanish into the iPhones, and the English questions/answers coming are read out for the teacher. If you're exhausted just reading that...good. Now hold that feeling. Imagine you’re an English-speaking student sitting in that same classroom, like my 5 year old son was. Every lesson is interrupted while translations happen and naturally, the teacher’s attention is constantly divided. The pace of learning slows DRAMATICALLY for everyone else. The consequence is that the classroom stops being optimized for the students who can already understand the instruction and instead becomes an exercise in overcoming a language barrier that never should have existed inside an American, English-language classroom in the first place. A place built to teach kids who are ready to learn quietly becomes a place mostly occupied with bridging a gap in language. I don't think my five-year-old should spend one irretrievable year of his early schooling waiting at that bridge. 2) I saw the writing on the wall for the future of my county's school system and realized that not only was the future incredibly bleak, but downright aggressively woke in a way words fail to describe. For multiple months, our school system allowed kids to: a) Create Anti-ICE protest signs inside of the schools b) Exit the school grounds, often WITHOUT SUPERVISION by ANYONE c) Stand along busy highways and scream "FUCK ICE" for a few hours Most shockingly, it was clearly encouraged by the schools, by leadership, and by many of the teachers. That was political activism. It gets worse... for years Buncombe County has forced biological girls to deal with biological males (who call themselves trans) to enter into girls locker rooms and bathrooms. This has been happening for years and no one dared to try to change or speak up until very very recently... that should tell you a lot about what the school leadership believes and their political bent. There is an evil lie that I see being spread by many that have condemned our decision to homeschool. That lie is this: “Public schools are neutral. By homeschooling, you’re only exposing your child to one side.” This is a grossly evil lie. In fact, the opposite is happening. Schools are not neutral institutions simply because they are publicly funded; every school day has a limited number of hours, and every lesson taught means another lesson isn’t. There is a finite amount of time in school, everyone understands this, which means priorities matter. Every hour spent discussing political activism is an hour that isn’t spent on reading, writing, mathematics, science, history, or civics. So when schools increasingly prioritize activism, identity politics, or current political causes... something else inevitably gets pushed aside. Guess what? That’s not neutrality, that’s a choice. What so many parents continue to discover is that their child comes home with a head full of ideas about the world that are purely one-sided because that's all there was time for. Nuance is lost because nuance is time-consuming. Is there TIME for nuance when half the class cannot speak English and you're speaking into a translator? Of course not. A child who can chant but cannot argue the other side hasn't been educated, they've been conditioned and the conditioners always, ALWAYS believe they're doing the child a kindness. 3) I'm fairly confident that today's school system is not designed for boys at all, it's purely designed for girls. I'll give an example. One of the schools in my area noticed that boys were throwing pine-cones (calling them grenades) and playing with sticks (calling them guns and swords). This made the girls in the class uncomfortable. So the school banned the boys from playing with sticks or pinecones outside, saying that the boys were playing "violent games" and should stop. One group's nature (the girls) became the rule. The other group's nature (the boys) became an problem... and once you see it, you see it everywhere. Classrooms rewards staying still, staying quiet, non-aggression, obedience. So ask yourself honestly... if you designed an institution that graded children partly on their ability to sit motionless for six hours, who would you expect to win? Girls, of course. Boys "get into trouble" FAR more often than girls, and the "offenses" are things like being too aggressive, not staying in line, fidgeting, or being "defiant" for staying buried in a book instead of the worksheet. The punishment schools reach for first is often to take AWAY recess, which is literally the physical release every study says he needs, as the penalty for needing it! At my table, he can stand up when he needs to move. He can go deep on the thing that lights him up instead of being dragged off it. He can build his imaginary armies. He can be exactly the boy he is and have that be an ASSET instead of someone saying that's a problem. 4) No teacher, no matter how gifted, no matter how well-meaning, walks into that classroom knowing my son the way we know him, and no one ever will. The single most important qualification for teaching a child isn't a degree or a curriculum or a district budget.. ...it's just how much do you actually care whether this SPECIFIC kid makes it? How far would you go for him? How late would you stay for him? How many times would you explain it again and again? How completely would you refuse to give up on him? And on that measure, the whole world loses to his mother (who will be homeschooling him), it's not even close. Nobody on earth will ever love him more than she does. Nobody will study him, root for him, ache for him, and delight in him the way she does every ordinary day. There has never been anyone on this earth more qualified to raise my son than the woman whose love for him knows no depths and has no end. Hope that helps clarify a few things.

mattvanswol's tweet photo. My story about pulling our son out of NC public schools to homeschool him reached far more people than I expected.

So I owe you the full explanation. Fair warning: it's worse than you think.

1) My son was in a class with many kids that could not speak the English language.

Zero English. None. Not a word.

You might be asking yourself... well, how did lessons occur in the classroom?

I'm glad you asked.

In fact, the way the teachers communicated with the Spanish-speaking only students was by using their personal iPhones as translators, speaking instructions into the iPhones, and the iPhones spitting out the Spanish instructions to the Spanish-speaking students, and then the Spanish-speaking students speaking Spanish into the iPhones, and the English questions/answers coming are read out for the teacher.

If you're exhausted just reading that...good. Now hold that feeling.

Imagine you’re an English-speaking student sitting in that same classroom, like my 5 year old son was.

Every lesson is interrupted while translations happen and naturally, the teacher’s attention is constantly divided.

The pace of learning slows DRAMATICALLY for everyone else.

The consequence is that the classroom stops being optimized for the students who can already understand the instruction and instead becomes an exercise in overcoming a language barrier that never should have existed inside an American, English-language classroom in the first place.

A place built to teach kids who are ready to learn quietly becomes a place mostly occupied with bridging a gap in language.

I don't think my five-year-old should spend one irretrievable year of his early schooling waiting at that bridge.

2) I saw the writing on the wall for the future of my county's school system and realized that not only was the future incredibly bleak, but downright aggressively woke in a way words fail to describe.

For multiple months, our school system allowed kids to:

a) Create Anti-ICE protest signs inside of the schools
b) Exit the school grounds, often WITHOUT SUPERVISION by ANYONE
c) Stand along busy highways and scream "FUCK ICE" for a few hours

Most shockingly, it was clearly encouraged by the schools, by leadership, and by many of the teachers.

That was political activism.

It gets worse... for years Buncombe County has forced biological girls to deal with biological males (who call themselves trans) to enter into girls locker rooms and bathrooms.

This has been happening for years and no one dared to try to change or speak up until very very recently... that should tell you a lot about what the school leadership believes and their political bent.

There is an evil lie that I see being spread by many that have condemned our decision to homeschool.

That lie is this:

“Public schools are neutral. By homeschooling, you’re only exposing your child to one side.”

This is a grossly evil lie.

In fact, the opposite is happening.

Schools are not neutral institutions simply because they are publicly funded; every school day has a limited number of hours, and every lesson taught means another lesson isn’t.

There is a finite amount of time in school, everyone understands this, which means priorities matter.

Every hour spent discussing political activism is an hour that isn’t spent on reading, writing, mathematics, science, history, or civics.

So when schools increasingly prioritize activism, identity politics, or current political causes... something else inevitably gets pushed aside.

Guess what? That’s not neutrality, that’s a choice.

What so many parents continue to discover is that their child comes home with a head full of ideas about the world that are purely one-sided because that's all there was time for.

Nuance is lost because nuance is time-consuming.

Is there TIME for nuance when half the class cannot speak English and you're speaking into a translator?

Of course not.

A child who can chant but cannot argue the other side hasn't been educated, they've been conditioned and the conditioners always, ALWAYS believe they're doing the child a kindness.

3) I'm fairly confident that today's school system is not designed for boys at all, it's purely designed for girls.

I'll give an example.

One of the schools in my area noticed that boys were throwing pine-cones (calling them grenades) and playing with sticks (calling them guns and swords).

This made the girls in the class uncomfortable.

So the school banned the boys from playing with sticks or pinecones outside, saying that the boys were playing "violent games" and should stop.

One group's nature (the girls) became the rule.

The other group's nature (the boys) became an problem... and once you see it, you see it everywhere.

Classrooms rewards staying still, staying quiet, non-aggression, obedience.

So ask yourself honestly... if you designed an institution that graded children partly on their ability to sit motionless for six hours, who would you expect to win?

Girls, of course.

Boys "get into trouble" FAR more often than girls, and the "offenses" are things like being too aggressive, not staying in line, fidgeting, or being "defiant" for staying buried in a book instead of the worksheet.

The punishment schools reach for first is often to take AWAY recess, which is literally the physical release every study says he needs, as the penalty for needing it!

At my table, he can stand up when he needs to move. He can go deep on the thing that lights him up instead of being dragged off it. He can build his imaginary armies.

He can be exactly the boy he is and have that be an ASSET instead of someone saying that's a problem.

4) No teacher, no matter how gifted, no matter how well-meaning, walks into that classroom knowing my son the way we know him, and no one ever will.

The single most important qualification for teaching a child isn't a degree or a curriculum or a district budget..

...it's just how much do you actually care whether this SPECIFIC kid makes it?

How far would you go for him?
How late would you stay for him?
How many times would you explain it again and again?
How completely would you refuse to give up on him?

And on that measure, the whole world loses to his mother (who will be homeschooling him), it's not even close.

Nobody on earth will ever love him more than she does.

Nobody will study him, root for him, ache for him, and delight in him the way she does every ordinary day.

There has never been anyone on this earth more qualified to raise my son than the woman whose love for him knows no depths and has no end.

Hope that helps clarify a few things.

27K

383K

geraldj4 retweeted

Ryan Saavedra

@RyanSaavedra

2 months ago

Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT) delivers an incredibly powerful speech about Iran. Watch every second of this. "Yesterday we saw the president of the United States and many others at Dover Air Force Base presiding over a ceremony that is very sacred to those of us who served, and that is a dignified return of remains from the war zone. That process happens beginning in the war zone through Dover to the hometown of our fallen heroes. I participated in many of those ceremonies myself to include carrying friends of mine off the plane. One of those is on this bracelet. He was cut in half by an Iranian EFP. This regime that we are fighting does not care about our partisan politics. They don't care who you voted for, who you pray to, or where you live. They want to kill all of us. And they don't just say it, they actually do it, and they've been doing it for forty-seven years. This is a war of choice. The Democrats are correct. It's a war of choice that was begun by a radical lunatic band of terrorists that took over a beautiful nation 47 years ago, took it over with brutality, force, and savagery. And the second they took it over, they didn't free their people, they didn't unleash the largest oil reserves in the world to build schools and bridges. They took it over to murder their own people and to spread their disgusting ideology across the world, and that is exactly what they have been doing. They don't just say it and talk about it. You don't have to believe what they say. You can simply watch what they've done. They have attacked families, women, children, innocent people. They don't just attack them and kill them, they rape them. They skin them alive on camera. They celebrate it. They honor those people who do disgusting things that we would put in jail for the rest of their lives in this country, and they do it for fun, and they pay them money to do it, and they're heroes to that nation. They've done it to friends of mine. They've done it to families who've been in this chamber. And the fact that we sit here and listen to elected officials of this country defend these lunatics who want us all dead. They want all of you dead. They want all of us dead. They don't want us to disappear with a snap of a finger. They want us to be raped, burned alive, and cut into pieces. Watch the video from October 7. That's what they want to happen from Maine to San Diego, from Seattle to Miami. They want this country turned into a burning husk of its former self, and you don't have to theorize that. That's what they do. From the 1983 barracks bombing, where 280 Marines were vaporized in a morning, from USS Cole to the Achille Lauro, to every terrorist attack, from the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas. These are not humanitarian freedom organizations. They are death-dealing cults, and they want all of us to die brutal deaths. William Buckley was abducted in 1985, an American military officer. He was skinned alive on camera by the Iranians. American prisoners of war who were captured. They were never called prisoners of war because they were captured by lunatic terrorists, so they were not subject to the Geneva Convention. They were captured and murdered, power drills through their brains. This is in Iraq. These are families that have dealt with this, and they've never gotten a single dime. These families have never gotten restitution, and not a single president has ever stood up to them. Love Donald Trump or hate him, love his policies, hate ICE, love ICE, whatever. There's never been a single president who has stood up to Iran and hit back. For 47 years, our troops and our families have been absorbing attack after attack after attack all over the world. And their radical ideology does not stop at the Persian Gulf. It doesn't stop at Tel Aviv. They want to do this everywhere. It's a global radical ideology, and we've been fighting it for half a century. We didn't start this war. We did not, but we will finish it. And forever wars are not popular with anybody these days. Both sides of the love to attack our forever wars. And I can promise you, being someone overseas wearing the uniform, when you're fighting for your country, you don't care what party's in office, but you're fighting to defend your country, and you turn on the news and see your elected officials stabbing you in the back, telling you that you're failing, that you've failed every goal of the war, is what I just heard. Last time I checked, we've wiped these bastards out. An occasional missile strike and boats in the straits, that's not military strength. Those are the flailings of a failing empire. Those are the flailings of a nation in collapse because they deserve it. So I encourage our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, whatever's politically convenient, whatever plays well on Twitter or Facebook, think about the people who are deployed right now, standing on that wall with a loaded weapon, who have volunteered to defend our country and our way of life. Because they are there defending us in a just war, because we did not start a war with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. They started it with us 47 years ago, and their attacks have gone unanswered for half a century. It's time to fix this problem and make sure another generations of Americans does not have to fight this murderous, savage adversary."

27K

geraldj4 retweeted

John Solomon

@jsolomonReports

3 months ago

BREAKING: Fed Reserve working paper suggests Biden illegal immigrant wave drove up home prices 30% https://t.co/3KJsTN4Qep

474

11K

676

geraldj4 retweeted

CONSTITUTION X 🇺🇸

@ConstitustionX

3 months ago

🚨 SHOCKING POLL JUST DROPPED — Even CNN can’t hide it anymore! 76% of BLACK Americans DEMAND nationwide Voter ID! 85% of White voters 82% of Latino voters EVERY major group is OVERWHELMINGLY saying YES to the SAVE Act! Senator John Thune — these numbers need to get through your thick skull RIGHT NOW. America has spoken. Stop the excuses. PASS THE SAVE ACT TODAY or explain to every voter why you’re ignoring 80%+ of the country! This is NOT optional. 🇺🇸🔥 Tag @JohnThune @SenateGOP @GOP RETWEET if you want real election integrity!

50K

18K

Gerald Johnson @geraldj4

4 months ago

The Banality of Keir Starmer: Chestless Bureaucrats and the Betrayal of Britain’s Daughters https://t.co/vbYlks6wou

Gerald Johnson @geraldj4

6 months ago

Former lawmaker dying of cancer says Senate full of 'blowhards' when it should be greatest deliberative body https://t.co/oaVXmCmJ6W #FoxNews

geraldj4 retweeted

Conservative in Oregon

@oregonducksmama

6 months ago

‼️Another long term business is closing in Portland Oregon. This is what Hookset Automotive wrote about it… THE GATES ARE CLOSED. THE DEAL IS DEAD. Twenty years of loyalty. Twenty years of sacrifice. In 2002, we fell in love with Portland’s heart. We built Hookset Automotive with grease, sweat, and a belief in this community. I traded my dream of being an architect for an oil rag to build an honest business with my husband, JC. We did everything right. Portland did everything wrong. I didn’t just run a shop; I served. I led the Parkrose Business Association. I hosted town halls. I stood before the City Council and begged for the law to be enforced. I was trying to save Portland from becoming the next Detroit. I fought for this district until there was nothing left to give. In return, the city turned on us. •Financial Extortion: The city didn't just lie; they taxed the shit out of us while doing so. They drained our resources with skyrocketing taxes while providing zero protection in return. •Betrayal: Mingus Mapps, who once ran Historic Parkrose, used our neighborhood as a political stepping stone to the City Council. He ignored our pleas while drawing a salary meant to protect our streets. •Slander: When I spoke up about the crime and the "Slough Town" gunfire, neighborhood groups responded with a smear campaign—spreading vile lies about my marriage to silence a woman asking hard questions. •Sabotage: Last week, our landlord illegally chained the gates shut while we were inside. We were held against our will. When we called 911, the police—the same officers I defended for two decades—looked at us through the fence and called it a "civil issue." They went out of their way to make sure we didn't get help, even contacting the fire department to tell them not to interfere. Your promise of protection was a lie. We gave this city our lives, and it gave us a lock and a cold shoulder. We are closing our doors because the basic rules of a civilized society don't apply here anymore. The deal we made with this city—that if you work hard, pay your taxes, and follow the law, you’ll be protected—was a total lie. To our loyal customers: You were our family. We are devastated it ended this way, but we couldn’t have tried harder. We poured every ounce of our souls into this place, only to be abandoned by the city we tried to save. Portland, you didn’t just fail us—you threw us away. Keep your "weird." We’re taking our integrity somewhere that actually values it. The gates are closed for good. (Original post from FB in comments)

621

11K

560

287K

geraldj4 retweeted

Nick Freiling

@NickFreiling

6 months ago

A cutting reflection from Cardinal Ratzinger, Good Friday 2005: "Pilate is not utterly evil. He knows that the condemned man is innocent, and he looks for a way to free him. But his heart is divided. And in the end he lets his own position, his own self-interest, prevail over what is right. Nor are the men who are shouting and demanding the death of Jesus utterly evil. Many of them, on the day of Pentecost, will feel "cut to the heart," when Peter will say to them: "Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God... you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law." But at that moment they are caught up in the crowd. They are shouting because everyone else is shouting, and they are shouting the same thing that everyone else is shouting. And in this way, justice is trampled underfoot by weakness, cowardice and fear of the diktat of the ruling mindset. The quiet voice of conscience is drowned out by the cries of the crowd. Evil draws its power from indecision and concern for what other people think."

NickFreiling's tweet photo. A cutting reflection from Cardinal Ratzinger, Good Friday 2005:

"Pilate is not utterly evil. He knows that the condemned man is innocent, and he looks for a way to free him. But his heart is divided. And in the end he lets his own position, his own self-interest, prevail over what is right.

Nor are the men who are shouting and demanding the death of Jesus utterly evil. Many of them, on the day of Pentecost, will feel "cut to the heart," when Peter will say to them: "Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God... you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law."

But at that moment they are caught up in the crowd. They are shouting because everyone else is shouting, and they are shouting the same thing that everyone else is shouting. And in this way, justice is trampled underfoot by weakness, cowardice and fear of the diktat of the ruling mindset. The quiet voice of conscience is drowned out by the cries of the crowd.

Evil draws its power from indecision and concern for what other people think."

304

19K

887K

geraldj4 retweeted

Townhall.com @townhallcom

7 months ago

🚨TOTALLY NOT SHOCKING — Conservatives who attend a weekly religious service are the LEAST likely to have been diagnosed with a mental health problem. Liberals who never go to church are the most likely to have been diagnosed with a mental health problem. We can tell.

townhallcom's tweet photo. 🚨TOTALLY NOT SHOCKING — Conservatives who attend a weekly religious service are the LEAST likely to have been diagnosed with a mental health problem.

Liberals who never go to church are the most likely to have been diagnosed with a mental health problem.

We can tell. https://t.co/r0fWlXxnhE

158

geraldj4 retweeted

DataRepublican (small r)

@DataRepublican

9 months ago

https://t.co/Sb8xf7kPBL

519

788K

Gerald Johnson @geraldj4

10 months ago

The Jobs Americans Won’t Do? Try: The Skills Young Americans Weren’t Taught https://t.co/aJSvxI9NYh

geraldj4 retweeted

Green Beret Nap Time

@GBNT1952

10 months ago

Since they seem intent upon continuously using doctrinal propaganda on the US populace, I think it’s important to highlight exactly what Crow and other Members of Congress are really doing. Rep. Jason Crow’s post is a doctrinal example of narrative escalation within modern IO and psychological warfare doctrine. Check out FM 3-05.301 / MISO. By claiming that the President is threatening him with arrest and execution—a statement never actually made by Trump—Crow amplifies and inflates the narrative to its most extreme form in order to shape public perception. This tactic, often called interpretive maximalism, takes an opponent’s words or actions and stretches them into a dire or existential threat, allowing the speaker to adopt a position of moral heroism while casting the opponent as an authoritarian danger. When Crow doubles down on this framing, he creates what IO doctrine refers to as a self sealing narrative, where any denial or criticism becomes proof of the alleged threat. The emotionally loaded language like “upholding my oath,” “standing with our troops,” “disregard for the rule of law,” are designed to trigger identity based responses and mobilize his political base through fear, outrage, and moral urgency. In doing all of this, Crow shifts the conversation away from what was actually said and into a battle over perceived intent, a classic PSYOP mechanism that reframes political disagreement as existential warfare. This is not an evidentiary argument—it is a strategic influence play aimed at narrative dominance. It is important that Americans recognize these tactics so that they can understand when propaganda is being pushed by their own government officials.

GBNT1952's tweet photo. Since they seem intent upon continuously using doctrinal propaganda on the US populace, I think it’s important to highlight exactly what Crow and other Members of Congress are really doing.

Rep. Jason Crow’s post is a doctrinal example of narrative escalation within modern IO and psychological warfare doctrine.

Check out FM 3-05.301 / MISO.

By claiming that the President is threatening him with arrest and execution—a statement never actually made by Trump—Crow amplifies and inflates the narrative to its most extreme form in order to shape public perception.

This tactic, often called interpretive maximalism, takes an opponent’s words or actions and stretches them into a dire or existential threat, allowing the speaker to adopt a position of moral heroism while casting the opponent as an authoritarian danger.

When Crow doubles down on this framing, he creates what IO doctrine refers to as a self sealing narrative, where any denial or criticism becomes proof of the alleged threat.

The emotionally loaded language like “upholding my oath,” “standing with our troops,” “disregard for the rule of law,” are designed to trigger identity based responses and mobilize his political base through fear, outrage, and moral urgency.

In doing all of this, Crow shifts the conversation away from what was actually said and into a battle over perceived intent, a classic PSYOP mechanism that reframes political disagreement as existential warfare.

This is not an evidentiary argument—it is a strategic influence play aimed at narrative dominance.

It is important that Americans recognize these tactics so that they can understand when propaganda is being pushed by their own government officials.

509

362K

geraldj4 retweeted

Eric Daugherty

@EricLDaugh

12 months ago

🚨 HOLY SMOKES! In a SHOCKING MOVE, the number two House Democrat Katherine Clark said the quiet part out loud regarding the shutdown...SUFFERING is their tool "Of COURSE there will be families that are going to suffer! [...] It is one of the FEW leverage times we have." 🤯

21K

10K

872K

Gerald Johnson

@geraldj4

Who to follow

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users