From # 15:
he’s a communist plant...a sleeper agent. Who ever voted for a communist and then just 4 years later wants to join the CIA?
# 32 is another possibility.
Posted on 09/26/2016 10:08:01 AM PDT by VitacoreVision
During a panel discussion Thursday at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual conference, CIA Director John Brennan (shown) was trying to make the point that just because an individual has an “activist” background, that wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, keep him from working for the federal government in sensitive positions. After all, he said, the CIA hired him even after he admitted voting for a communist in the 1976 presidential elections.
In 1980, Brennan was trying to obtain a top security clearance for the Central Intelligence Agency, and part of the process involved taking a lie detector test. He was asked: “Have you ever worked with or for a group that was dedicated to overthrowing the US?” Brennan explained to the panel what happened next:
I froze. This was back in 1980, and I thought back to a previous election [1976] where I voted, and I voted for the Communist Party Candidate [Gus Hall]….
I said I was neither Democratic or Republican, but it was my way, as I was going to college, of signaling my unhappiness with the “system," and the need for “change.”
I said I’m not a member of the Communist Party, so the polygrapher looked at me and said, “OK,” and when I was finished with the polygraph, I left and said [to myself], “Well, I’m s-----d.”
Brennan wasn’t “s-----d” after all. He was admitted to the CIA, which proved his point as he told the Black Caucus:
So if, back in 1980, John Brennan was allowed to say, “I voted for the Communist Party with Gus Hall — and still go through, rest assured that your rights and expressions and your freedom of speech as Americans is something that’s not going to be disqualifying of you as you pursue a career in government.
Was this, as Brennan claimed, just a youthful indiscretion? Or have his actions during his 25 years with the CIA, and now, since March of 2013, as its director, shown a deeper, more disturbing side to his politics?
As historian Ron Radosh points out, “The CPUSA at that time was dedicated to gaining support for Soviet foreign policy, with the intent of defeating the United States in the Cold War.… Moscow regularly gave Hall thousands of dollars to enable the Communists in America to carry on their work.”
In his graduate thesis which earned him an M.A. in government from the University of Texas in Austin, Brennan denied the existence of “absolute human rights” and argued that a government — this time the Egyptian government — could censor certain inflammatory speech:
Since the press can play such an influential role in determining the perceptions of the masses, I am in favor of some degree of government censorship. Inflammatory articles can provoke mass opposition and possible violence, especially in developing political systems.
In other words, the guarantees in the Bill of Rights, specifically those related to the First Amendment, aren’t absolute, according to Brennan, and may be, in certain circumstances, abrogated or even ignored altogether.
Let’s overlook Brennan’s role in creating false talking points for U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice (who claimed that the Benghazi attack, thanks to input from Brennan, was based on “the best information at present”) was not premeditated, but instead was a “spontaneous reaction” to “a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated through the Arab and Muslim world.”
Let’s ignore Brennan’s assurance that charges brought by California Senator Dianne Feinstein in March 2014 that the CIA had hacked into computers belonging to some of her staffers were false, even though they were later proven to be true.
Let’s look instead, albeit briefly, into Brennan’s “disposition matrix,” which he personally designed to allow the president of the United States to kill Americans by overriding and ignoring constitutional guarantees provided in that Bill of Rights that he so easily dismissed early on. It was Brennan who not only codified the procedure by which “targeted” killings of Americans could take place, but did so in a way that made it a permanent part of American “foreign policy” for future administrations. The “streamlined” system that now exists requires input from several different federal agencies, providing information on suspects that allows those involved to cull, sift, sort, and winnow out those who don’t meet the shifting standards of potential danger, and then submit the final list to the president for his approval.
Brennan revealed his mindset in August 2012 when describing the system: “I tend to do what I think is right. But I find much more comfort, I guess, in the views and values of the president.”
In February 2013, NBC received a white paper from the Justice Department describing just how those decisions are made in order to justify them, dressed up with just enough legal jargon to sound reasonable. For instance, that white paper says that the president can kill an American citizen if “an informed, high-level official” of the federal government — presumably John Brennan — has unilaterally decided that the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” and if his capture is not otherwise feasible. The definition of “imminent” is flexible enough, holding that it is not necessary for a specific attack to actually be in process but only when the suspect/target is found to be “generally engaged” in terrorist activities aimed at the United States. It also asserts that courts should not be involved as it would only slow things down: “Judicial enforcement of such orders would require the court to supervise inherently predictive judgments by the president and his national security advisors as to when and how to use force against a member of an enemy force against which Congress has authorized the use of force.”
When that white paper was released back in 2013, Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, was appalled, stating:
[The paper is] a profoundly disturbing document.… It’s hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy [sic] built on a system of checks and balances. It summarizes in cold [quasi-] legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority: the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and [to] kill them far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement.
The paper delayed only briefly Brennan’s appointment as head of the CIA. In January 2013, after reviewing the document, the ACLU called for the Senate to delay its deliberation of the appointment, which it did, for two months. On March 5 the Senate Intelligence Committee approved Brennan’s nomination by a vote of 12 to 3, which provoked a strong reaction, and a memorable filibuster, by Senator Rand Paul, who stated:
No one politician should be allowed to judge the guilt, to charge an individual, to judge the guilt of an individual and to execute an individual.
It goes against everything we fundamentally believe in our country.
Though the White House admitted that it had no such authority, Brennan was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 63 to 34.
Based on the evidence, it’s clear that Brennan’s contempt for rights guaranteed under the Constitution remains in place 40 years later.
If he is a practicing Mohammedan, and denies he is a Mohammedan, he is then a very good Mohammedan practicing Taqiyya.
simple answer is no
every indication is this guy has turned mussie
He might be useful?..but he should not be director.
Was he still youthful when he voted for a marxist muslim America-hating faggot illegal alien in 2008 and again in 2012?
I did some stupid stuff when I was younger, but nothing this stupid.
Communist in the ‘76 Presidential election? Would that have been Jimmeh Cahtuh?
And these were perhaps the least of John Brennan’s “indiscretions”. It is also suspected he may be a convert to Islam, which would tend to explain his efforts to stop Law Enforcement Officers from training in the aspects of prosecuting Muslims for infractions of existing US and various state laws not supported in Shari’ah law.
And that may be by far the greater treason.
I believe Anderson later switched to the Democrats and backed Walter F. Mondale in 1984.
Any here ever have such a youthful indiscretion? I certainly didn’t. I also haven’t converted to islam. But then I love America.
You're thinking of a different Anderson.
This was Thomas J. Anderson - battled Howard Baker for a Senate seat in the late '70s, was a JBS member to the end. Interesting dude.
Brennan has the “GOODS” on Barry’s Passport !!!
From # 15:
he’s a communist plant...a sleeper agent. Who ever voted for a communist and then just 4 years later wants to join the CIA?
# 32 is another possibility.
Republicans who voeted with Democrats to confirm Brennan:
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Flake (R-AZ), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Rand Paul pulls plug on nearly 13-hour filibuster
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rand-paul-filibuster-john-brennan-cia-nominee-088507
After almost 13 hours, Rand Paul ends Brennan filibuster
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/rand-paul-filibusters-brennan-nomination-cia-direc/
Rand Paul Leads Filibuster of Brennan Nomination
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-filibusters-brennan-nomination/?_r=0
This must have really been eating at him, either guilt or fear of being found out. The average Joe who did something stupid like that forty years ago probably wouldn’t even remember having done it.
How could such an idiot have achieved so much?
He, and his boss are Ameriphobes.
IIRC, the break in was from Brennan’s company
Communists and Muslims make strange bedfellows, just like Nazis and Muslins.
5.56mm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.