Posted on 08/17/2018 8:48:00 AM PDT by Kaslin
If ex-CIA Director John Brennan did to Andrew Jackson what he did to Donald Trump, he would have lost a lot more than his security clearance.
He would have been challenged to a duel and shot.
"Trump's ... performance in Helsinki," Brennan had said, "exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes & misdemeanors.' It was ... treasonous."
Why should the president not strip from a CIA director who calls him a traitor the honor and privilege of a security clearance? Or is a top-secret clearance an entitlement like Social Security?
CIA directors retain clearances because they are seen as national assets, individuals whose unique experience, knowledge and judgment may be called upon to assist a president in a national crisis.
Not so long ago, this was a bipartisan tradition.
Who trashed this tradition?
Was it not the former heads of the security agencies -- CIA, FBI, director of national intelligence -- who have been leveling the kind of savage attacks on the chief of state one might expect from antifa?
Are ex-security officials entitled to retain the high privileges of the offices they held, if they descend into cable-TV hatred and hostility?
Former CIA chief Mike Hayden, in attacking Trump for separating families of detained illegal immigrants at the border, tweeted a photo of the train tracks leading into Auschwitz.
"Other governments have separated mothers and children" was Hayden's caption. CARTOONS | Robert Ariail View Cartoon
Is that fair criticism from an ex-CIA director?
Thursday, The New York Times decried Trump's accusation that the media are "the enemy of the people."
"Insisting that truths you don't like are 'fake news' is dangerous to the lifeblood of democracy. And calling journalists 'the enemy of the people' is dangerous, period," said the Times.
Fair enough, but is it not dangerous for a free press to be using First Amendment rights to endlessly bash a president as a racist, fascist, sexist, neo-Nazi, liar, tyrant and traitor?
The message of journalists who use such terms may be to convey their detestation of Trump. But what is the message received in the sick minds of people like that leftist who tried to massacre Republican congressmen practicing for their annual softball game with Democrats?
And does Trump not have a point when he says the Boston Globe-organized national attack on him, joined in by the Times and 300 other newspapers, was journalistic "collusion" against him?
If Trump believes that CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post are mortal enemies who want to see him ousted or impeached, is he wrong?
We are an irreconcilable us-against-them nation today, and given the rancor across the ideological, social and cultural chasm that divides us, it is hard to see how, even post-Trump, we can ever come together again.
Speaking at a New York LGBT gala in 2016, Hillary Clinton said: "You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables ... racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic ... Some of those folks ... are irredeemable, but ... they are not America."
When Clinton's reflections on Middle America made it into print, she amended her remarks. Just as Gov. Andrew Cuomo rushed to amend his comments yesterday when he blurted at a bill-signing ceremony:
"We're not going to make America great again. It was never that great." America was "never that great"?
Cuomo's press secretary hastened to explain, "When the president speaks about making America great again ... he ignores the pain so many endured and that we suffered from slavery, discrimination, segregation, sexism and marginalized women's contributions."
Clinton and Cuomo committed gaffes of the kind Michael Kinsley described as the blurting out of truths the speaker believes but desperately does not want a wider audience to know.
In San Francisco in 2008, Barack Obama committed such a gaffe.
Asked why blue-collar workers in industrial towns decimated by job losses were not responding to his message, Obama trashed these folks as the unhappy losers of our emerging brave new world:
"They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
These clingers to their Bibles, bigotries and guns are the people the mainstream media, 10 years later, deride and dismiss as "Trump's base."
What Clinton, Cuomo and Obama spilled out reveals what is really behind the cultural and ideological wars of America today.
Most media elites accept the historic indictment -- that before the Progressives came, this country was mired in racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia, and that its history had been a long catalog of crimes against indigenous peoples, Africans brought here in bondage, Mexicans whose lands we stole, migrants, and women and gays who were denied equality.
The people who cheer Trump believe the country they inherited from their fathers was a great, good and glorious country, and that the media who detest Trump also despise them.
For such as these, Trump cannot scourge the media often enough.
Not until the start of the Millennial Kingdom.
No.
We never have been together. The insurgent elements in our society will only lay low in the most extreme circumstances (three weeks after 9/11 comes to mind). Otherwise this is all the same as it ever was.
Rather than their policies what is driving the Left to the polls in phenomenally huge numbers is pure hatred ... deep, uncompromising hatred of anyone and anything that is not in lockstep with the Left’s totalitarian objectives. And the Right better know this at the midterm election in November.
There was no Weather Underground until fall of 1969.
They were a splinter group from the Communist front SDS.
It is erroneous to associate them with the 60s.
And they didn’t end their activities when the Viet Nam war ended. Ayers figured the revolution they wanted would require the murder of at least 25,000,000 Americans who would refuse re-education.
I think Bill Ayers is hiding under your bed. You should check.
Not before the national socialist democrat party is defeated, as in CWII. Then, maybe fifty years later, we might reunite.
There are too many of them for us to expect that 80 million of them are just going to pack up and leave. That’s never going to happen. Similarly, we are too numerous and control too much territory - and we’re too well armed - for them to ever realistically overcome.
Even if we fought it out and won.....do you really want a permanent 5th column in the body politic just waiting and always pushing for another chance to impose their policies on the rest of us by stealth, by propangandizing, by slanted media and leftist domination of Academia?
We’d be far better off going our separate ways peacefully. I simply want to be rid of them once and for all. the Northeast? Left Coasters? Chicago/Miami/Washington DC? Buh bye.
I’m with you....but that’s a pipe dream. I’m willing to sacrifice some real estate to be rid of them. They can keep the land where they are in the majority. We’ll keep the rest. Looking at a county by county election map from the last several elections, that gives you a good idea as to what areas should stay and what areas should go.
Naw he’s in plain sight mentoring presidents and indoctrinating school children.
Just how many persons do you think were ever in the Weather Underground anyhow?
If by “together” you mean one side capitulating and the other side always getting their way, I sure hope not.
No. Too many illegals flooding across the border who don’t give a damn about national sovereignty. They are also multiplying like rabbits.
It’s going to take a major catastrophe reducing the population into survival mode before the politics get squashed enough to “bring people together”.
I said to myself, after reading this article, that this guy has the left pegged 100%. Only then did I look to see who wrote it, then I understood why it was such a great article. Thanks for posting, Kaslin!
Pat Buchannan at his best.
One suggestion: replace the false concept “Progress”ives, with an accurate concept like, “Marxists”, “Communists”, “Fascists”.
That all ended around 1965
No
I don't know why the globalists are so hellbent on waging a war on Americans, but here we are. They want us dead. Prepare accordingly.
I believe that the socialist progressive controlled states, New York, Illinois, California, Washington, etc. are sowing the seeds of their own destruction by literally destroying their states. How much longer can California continue its Jerry Brown suicide until a majority or more either escape, or vote out these idiots?
I still have some hope that sanity might win out, but some sort of 21st Century version of a nation wide insurrection is looming. Will it be a crisis that can be resolved lawfully, or will it descend into chaos of leftist sedition, violence, and destruction? I am really beginning to worry.
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.