Two weeks ago, Tulsi Gabbard was derided among leftists and their allies as "inexperienced," "untrustworthy" and "unprepared" to be President Trump's Director of National Intelligence.
They said all sorts of bad things with a once-important Republican even refusing to vote for her.
According to NBC News:
In a scathing, lengthy statement after the vote, (former Senate Majority Leader Mitch) McConnell said it was apparent Gabbard was not prepared for the job and demonstrated a "history of alarming lapses in judgment."
“The Senate’s power of advice and consent is not an option; it is an obligation, and one we cannot pretend to misunderstand. When a nominee’s record proves them unworthy of the highest public trust, and when their command of relevant policy falls short of the requirements of their office, the Senate should withhold its consent," McConnell said, specifically sounding the alarm about Gabbard's remarks about Snowden, Chinese aggression and Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
"In my assessment, Tulsi Gabbard failed to demonstrate that she is prepared to assume this tremendous national trust."
So what was he talking about amid a lot of leftist eyerolls -- preserving this?
The NSA maintains a chat system for the "intelligence community" called Intelink. The servers are supposed to be used for government work, but gender activists have hijacked at least two channels—LBTQA and IC_Pride_TWG—to discuss fetishes, kink, and sex, all legitimized as "DEI." pic.twitter.com/5Ramc5fb1L
— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) February 24, 2025
Yet to Gabbard's credit, she threw the whole lot of them out -- fired, yanked security clearances, personas non grata. Perverts like that have no business anywhere near the intelligence field.
Memo sent. We know who they are. Action is underway. https://t.co/dC3fV1D9ZO
— Tulsi Gabbard ???? (@TulsiGabbard) February 25, 2025
Her judgment was impeccable.
Because once upon a time, there were standards of intelligence professionals. They had to accept those rules in exchange for access to the nation's top secrets and refrain from any appearance or scandal which could lead to from blackmail hostile intelligence services. They had more surveillance power among other things, but for that reason, could not go around acting in ways that made them vulnerable to blackmail or public contempt, and that included what they did on their own time.
While some might argue that most of these people are so shameless they can't be blackmailed, some are, and the agencies as yet have not put out the 'XXX' sign as their national mission on the taxpayer dime. We pay spies well to spy on adversaries, undercut enemies, and keep secrets, not set up chatrooms to reinforce their mental illnesses. The CIA's opening gallery at its headquarters puts stars on the wall for spies who gave their lives in service to their country. Not one of these perverts is fit to lick their boots let alone be in the same building as those stars.
No, those two things can't exist. Recent history is replete with spies who went to swinger clubs and ended up commiting treason. Surely Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's open love affair on FBI time and government equipment was part of this slide in standards, as were the recent series of law enforcement cases about CIA perverts who drugged and assaulted women.
Yet this slide downhill seems fairly recent -- can you imagine what an old-guard intelligence operative such as Dewey Clarridge would say to news of this about his beloved agency? All I can think is that I am glad he didn't live to see this.
They violated the rules in place for those in positions of highest trust of our national security secrets to stay out of the world of degenerates, and they did it on government time and computers, considering it "their" time and computers, instead of a public trust. The taxpayers were actually paying for them to discuss these perversions.
These trans employees discuss hair removal, estrogen treatments, and breast implants. "Getting my butthole zapped by a laser was . . . shocking," said one trans-identifying DIA official. "Medical science is gonna give me tits one way or another," said a Navy intel employee. pic.twitter.com/qXLtq0nk45
— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) February 24, 2025
LEAKED: NSA and CIA officials express their desire to have hermaphrodite babies in order to advance trans ideology. “An intersex birth would be a great opportunity to raise a kid as non-binary and let them choose later.”
— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) February 25, 2025
The people who run the surveillance state are insane. pic.twitter.com/vW0Xi7UVOn
Seems a Lavender Mafia there wasn't a figment of anyone's imagination:
— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) February 26, 2025
Instead of discussing espionage challenges, strategic aims, or the rigors of intelligence work, these perverts were fondly discussing their genitals, reinforcing one another as if in a circle of jackoffs doing it together. It wasn't just a couple of deviants in the ranks, it was a whole culture of them, a petri dish of slime.
Chris Rufo is out here spying on the NSA … pic.twitter.com/82K3dc3Uf7
— Russ Greene (@GreenPlusAnE) February 25, 2025
Naturally, the New York Time reported it with a prim, antiseptic spin:
Great news, but the chat messages contained more than "sexual themes." They weren't discussing symbolism in Madame Bovary. They were talking about cutting off their genitals, enjoying piss fetishes, and organizing gangbangs on official intel agency servers! pic.twitter.com/1sD6ZbrtbP
— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) February 26, 2025
Which is nonsense. Since when, ever, has pervy behavior ever been compatible with intelligence work? And how long has this grotesque behavior been going on? How widespread was it? How much did it harm the missions of the intelligence agencies. Was the CIA's failure to topple Nicolas Maduro during Trump's last term the inevitable result of these chatrooms? Were the CIA officers so busy ranting on about their rear ends they failed to do their jobs? Do we now look at every CIA operative as a closet pervert now?
Were anti-Trump schemers James Clapper or John Brennan part of it? Did the vaunted William Burns, viewed up until now as an intelligence heavyweight as CIA director under Joe Biden, know about this? What do Burns, or for that matter Gina Haspel have to say about these security-risks in the ranks otherwise bellowing about Tulsi Gabbard being a risk to the nation's secrets on their watches?
Tulsi Gabbard took the right choice in getting rid of these layabouts who seriously do not care about intelligence work as they do their genitalia. She booted their keisters as is necessary for the health and credibility of the organization and did it quickly. These lowlife needed to go so that the hard task of restoring the credibility of these agencies can finally begin.
Image: Screen shot from X video