Thursday, February 4, 2021

Chuck Schumer Used Violent Rhetoric To Sic A Mob On Two Supreme Court Justices

One year ago, Schumer incited a mob on the steps of the Supreme Court 
in order to bully justices to rule in Democrats' favor.



When Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., spoke against the constitutionality of the Democrats’ impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, he reminded his colleagues that Democrat elected officials had recently told their followers to attack Republicans. If Trump was to be impeached for asking followers to “peacefully and patriotically” make their voices heard by members of Congress on Jan. 6, what to do with Democrats’ more incendiary rhetoric and actions, he wondered.

Sen. Kamala Harris solicited funds to bail out the rioters who destroyed Minneapolis during 2020’s “Summer of Rage.” Rep. Maxine Waters called on Democrats to seek out Republicans in public places and “create a crowd” and “push back” on them to let them know “they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” 

The Bernie Sanders supporter who nearly killed House Republican Whip Steve Scalise at a baseball field in Virginia said he was motivated to kill for “health care” after Sanders and other Democrats had said the Republican health care plan was to kill many Americans. Sen. Cory Booker told his supporters at one gathering in D.C. to “Please don’t just come here today and then go home. Go to the Hill today. Get up and, please, get up in the face of some congresspeople.”

One example Paul left out of his excellent speech is even more relevant to next week’s impeachment. Less than one year ago, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York led a mob on the steps of the Supreme Court while a case was being heard and tried to thwart the natural deliberation of justices by violently threatening two of them to rule in favor of his and other Democrats’ preferred outcome.

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” Schumer threatened the two most recently confirmed justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

The threat was so alarming that even leftist activists such as Laurence Tribe condemned it. Schumer received a rare, same-day rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who said, “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.” 

Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell condemned Schumer’s remarks as “astonishingly reckless and completely irresponsible.” However, Sen. Josh Hawley’s efforts to censure Schumer for his violent threats were scuttled.

The Washington Post write-up of Schumer’s threats focused instead on Republican opposition to them. “GOP seizes on Schumer’s remarks” read the headline.

Schumer’s threats came just 17 months after the Supreme Court had been besieged and attacked by abortion activists upset at Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Like the Jan. 6 event, the October 2018 siege also involved Vice President Mike Pence being condemned by protesters. As he walked down the steps of the U.S. Senate following the vote to confirm Kavanaugh, the crowd greeted him with chants of “shame!”

Across the street, hordes of protesters broke through a police barricade and attempted to beat down the 13-ton bronze doors of the court. Protesters included a topless woman with a Hitler mustache and another woman who scaled the Contemplation of Justice statue in front of the court and sat in her lap to the cheers of other protesters. 

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, who attended Kavanaugh’s immediate swearing in, were hit with water bottles and tomatoes when their car left the court afterward. Some 164 people were arrested in that protest.

For all the concern about disruptions to the constitutional processes regarding Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, there was far less concern from corporate media and others on the left when Democrat mobs completely disrupted the constitutional proceedings for confirming a Supreme Court justice in 2018.

The Center for Popular Democracy brought 600 protesters to Washington, staging a demonstration in and around the Capitol. On August 1, 2018, following the group’s rally, 74 protesters were arrested when they blocked the Senate hallways to prevent Kavanaugh from meeting with U.S. senators.

Kavanaugh’s first day of hearings included 63 interruptions from Senate Democrats and more than 70 arrests of protesters. The protesters had been flown in by Planned Parenthood Action Fund from across the country. 

Winnie Wong, a senior advisor to the Women’s March, explained their carefully coordinated messages. Members going into the hearing room were given “a script where we suggest certain messaging that may resonate more.” The storytellers’ travel and accommodations were paid for, as were their legal aid and bail if they were arrested, which was generally the goal.

Later in the hearings, the organizers of the protesters—the Women’s March and the Center for Popular Democracy— were warning activists that being arrested three times might lead to a night in jail. The group raised sums of more than six figures to finance the protests. “This is well-organized and scripted,” said Wong, “This isn’t chaos.”

Protesters also occupied senators’ offices, managed to shut down the Capitol building, and trapped senators in elevators. All of this was done to disrupt the constitutional process for confirming a justice.

“We were planning to shut down the Capitol Building but the authorities were so scared of this #WomensWave that they shut it down for us,” read a tweet from one activist group:

Particularly by the standard adopted by the media and Democrats for the second impeachment of Trump, Schumer bears responsibility for the protests and riots at the Supreme Court and in Senate office buildings, as well as the attempt to destroy the life and family and reputation of Kavanaugh. Within 23 minutes of Kavanaugh’s nomination, Schumer said, “I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have.”

His destruction, during the Gorsuch confirmation process, of the filibuster for Supreme Court justices contributed to the heated rhetoric in the Kavanaugh battle. His refusal to treat the nomination as legitimate included a prohibition on Democrat meetings with Kavanaugh.

Schumer didn’t trust Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein to handle the political machinations he felt were needed. He organized the barrage of interruptions from other senators that led to the hostility and chaos of the first day of hearings.

Sen. Christopher Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, later told Politico, “It was important that we lay down a marker that this is not a normal hearing.” Sen. Dick Durbin said they wanted to “single out the hearing as something unusual.” Sen. John Cornyn was appalled by the spectacle. He decried the “mob rule” that was disrupting the hearings.

Schumer also said Kavanaugh had no presumption of innocence. He believed outrageous conspiracy theories. For instance, when Michael Avenatti’s client Julie Swetnick claimed — with no evidence in support and plenty of evidence in opposition — that Kavanaugh was a serial gang rapist who had roamed the streets of suburban Maryland for his prey, Schumer demanded the allegations be accepted as true and that Kavanaugh’s nomination be pulled.

Democrats’ argument in favor of Trump’s impeachment is that even though he told his protesters to be peaceful, his refusal to accept the 2020 election incited a mob. What to do, then, with a Senate majority leader who issued a violent threat against Supreme Court justices after a multi-year campaign to undermine confidence in Supreme Court confirmation processes?

What to do with the many senators who brought the mobs into hearing rooms and Senate buildings in order to destroy the confirmation process? What to do with the mob’s many attacks on Kavanaugh and his family?

And how to take seriously a Senate that never held Kavanaugh’s false accusers to account, never censured the now-majority leader for issuing violent threats while a court case was being heard, and never held Democrats accountable for assisting the mobs who attempted to shut down their proceedings?


If You Think The Riots Are Bad Now, Wait Until America Goes Bankrupt In A Few Years

Medicare is functionally insolvent, people are getting way more from entitlements than they paid in, and Congress has been spending like drunken sailors for decades with no signs of stopping.



Two data points explain the current debate in Washington on more rounds of COVID spending. The Biden administration’s repeated statements that “the risk is not…going too small, but…going not big enough” reflects a position Joe Biden publicly articulated while serving in the Obama administration a dozen years ago:


As to the cumulative effects of these policies, the budget resolution itself tells the tale, with its projected estimates of the total national debt over the coming decade:

(5) PUBLIC DEBT.—Pursuant to section 4 301(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 632(a)(5)), the appropriate levels of the public debt are as follows:

Fiscal year 2021: $29,943,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2022: $31,647,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2023: $32,911,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2024: $34,102,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2025: $35,262,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2026: $36,311,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2027: $37,261,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2028: $38,443,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2029: $39,652,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2030: $41,068,000,000,000.

To provide some sense of perspective, the most recent gross domestic product estimates show the size of the American economy at $21.5 trillion on an annual basis. In other words, our total national debt (including IOUs placed in the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds) already exceeds the size of our economy. A decade from now—after an additional $13.6 trillion in deficits under the Democrat budget—our debt will approach twice the size of our economy now.

Contra Biden circa 2009, that’s not “spending money to keep from going bankrupt”—that’s already bankrupt.

Dishonesty with the American People

Without a doubt, many American families and small businesses are hurting due to the pandemic, and the lockdowns associated with it. These individuals and businesses deserve some level of assistance to overcome the government-mandated lockdowns, reopen their establishments, and get on with their lives. 

But a spending spree that would give $5,000 in “stimulus” payments to a family of five making $250,000, or Obamacare subsidies to households earning $300,000, far exceeds the reasonable or even rational limits of federal aid. Rather, it epitomizes a myth that politicians of both parties have perpetuated for far too long: That the American people can have more government than we can afford.

Mitch Daniels, the former Indiana Republican governor and Office of Management and Budget director now heading Purdue University, eloquently made this case in the Washington Post last week:

I conclude, reluctantly and dejectedly, that it’s time to face the unpleasant facts. The past decade demonstrates amply that our political process is not capable of the kind of decisions that are necessary. The temptation to savage anyone proposing safety-net reform (the sine qua non of any serious fiscal rescue, really the only issue that matters) remains electorally irresistible and invariably effective.

Because politicians believe they can profit by attacking anyone who proposes changes to entitlements—e.g., Paul Ryan throwing grandma off a cliff—leaders in both parties have abandoned any attempts at reform, such that we may have passed a fiscal “point of no return.”

Three Inconvenient Truths

Daniels cited the “noble lies” that politicians have used over the years to avoid making necessary but unpopular fiscal choices. To correct three of the most popular misnomers: 

No. 1: You Haven’t “Earned” Your Medicare Benefits: According to the Urban Institute (not exactly a home for firebrand conservatives), a single male making average wages who retired in 2020 paid in a total of $81,000 in Medicare taxes over his working life, but will receive a total of $229,000 in Medicare subsidies. Those gaps will continue to grow over time, such that a retiree in 2060—someone just starting his or her working life at present—will pay $133,000 in Medicare taxes, but receive $573,000 in benefits.

No. 2: Medicare Is Functionally Insolvent: Not least because of No. 1 above, Medicare has already exhausted its trust fund. In 2009, the program’s last trustees report before Obamacare’s enactment showed an insolvency date of 2017. In other words, for (at least) the past four years, Medicare has stayed afloat only because the tax increases and Medicare reductions included in Obamacare have been used to both fund that law and address Medicare’s solvency—an illogical budgetary gimmick born of government trust fund accounting.

This fiscal sleight-of-hand not only didn’t really improve Medicare’s fiscal condition, it also encouraged politicians to ignore the program’s underlying problems to this day. It also reinforces the pernicious Democratic policies that would raid Medicare to pay for other spending, whether the current “stimulus” bill or a single-payer health care system.

No. 3: Tax Cuts Don’t (Fully) Pay for Themselves: Yes, lowering tax rates, particularly on capital gains and investment, can unlock productivity gains in the economy that generate additional revenue. But that additional revenue only offsets part of the fiscal impact of tax relief, which is why conservatives must also work to reduce our unsustainable spending levels.

Politicians Reaping Americans the Whirlwind 

Also last week, former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., took a tone similar to Daniels’s. In discussing Obamacare repeal in 2013 and the aftermath of last year’s election, Cantor in both cases blamed “an unwillingness to speak truth to power”—for politicians to tell their constituents facts their constituents didn’t want to hear.

Notably, Cantor’s exhortation for elected leaders to speak the truth didn’t include anything about the unrealistic and unsustainable fiscal promises politicians have made to their constituents for decades. In some respects, Cantor epitomized that problem, by his own admission nixing the chance of an entitlement “grand bargain” between then-House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and President Obama.

The rioting and violence at the Capitol a few weeks ago was both a horrific and tragic event in American history. Yet I fear the tumult throughout 2020 may pale in comparison to the not-too-distant future, when the American people finally realize their leaders have systematically lied to them for decades. To paraphrase the Book of Hosea, Congress and presidents have sown the wind—but on our current fiscal course, we all stand to reap the whirlwind.


Progressive families....and Transgender DOMINATED Sports....the silent cry....Good-bye SCHOLARships


 Will Biden supporters and to all things Marx.....those with children, those with female children...those who aspire to win college scholarships

 

 Remind your LIBERAL friends, when their daughter loses to a man in "sports"...that one example of escape reality, but never consequences...accept the truth, or swallow the consequence

Guilt ridden,  naive, affluent people, all the co-opted language, displacing status quo with perversion of reality...

Cultural Marxism, Homosexual agenda, Pink Swastika, AND so much more.

So, what happened to the American traits of confidence, pride, and accountability?

The roots of Western cultural decay are very deep, having first sprouted a century ago. It began with a loose clan of ideologues inside Europe’s communist movement. Today, it is known as the Frankfurt School, and its ideals have perverted American society.

https://comunistmanifesto101.blogspot.com/2016/02/cultural-marxism-homosexual-agenda-pink.html

 

 

Liberalism, Re-Defining Nature....How then, can they be Respected in their "truth"

https://presumptivephilospher.blogspot.com/2016/04/liberalism-re-defining-naturehow-then.html 

 

Hundreds per KEY WORD great MEME's from a MEME whisperer




Hundreds by key word per link....
for your quiver AS needed...




https://tonysawesomememes.blogspot.com/2017/07/tonys-memeskey-word-lies-truth-etc.html

Word Feminism/women/etc 

https://tonysawesomememes.blogspot.com/2021/01/tonys-awesome-memes-key-word.html

Key word Trump
https://tonysawesomememes.blogspot.com/2017/07/exconservative-great-memes-key-word.html

Key word Media
https://tonysawesomememes.blogspot.com/2017/07/exconservative-great-memes-key-word_4.html

Key Word - Muslim, Islam
https://tonysawesomememes.blogspot.com/2017/07/exconservative-great-memes-key-word_7.html

Key word, CNNhttps://tonysawesomememes.blogspot.com/2018/01/exconservatives-awesome-memes-key.html
https://tonysawesomememes.blogspot.com/2017/08/key-word-racism-race-black-colorex.html


Key word HOMOSEXUAL
https://tonysawesomememes.blogspot.com/2017/07/godmademan-devolved-to-liberal-then.html

https://tonysawesomememes.blogspot.com/2017/07/exconservative-awesome-memes-key-word.html
Key word - Black, Race, black privilege, etc

https://tonysawesomememes.blogspot.com/2017/07/exconservatives-awesome-memeskey-word.html

Key word, OBAMA
https://tonysawesomememes.blogspot.com/2017/07/ex-conservatives-awesome-memes-key-word.html


Key word - Clinton
https://tonysawesomememes.blogspot.com/2017/07/exconservatives-awesome-memes-key.html

Key word - Communism
https://tonysawesomememes.blogspot.com/2018/04/exconservative-awesome-memeskey-word_21.html

Metaphors and MEME's ....Why the Left is Triggered when We the People USE them

  A visual metaphor is the representation of a person, place, thing, or idea by means of a visual image that suggests a particular association or point of similarity. It's also known as pictorial metaphor and analogical juxtaposition.

https://comunistmanifesto101.blogspot.com/2019/07/metaphors-and-memes-why-left-is.html

https://comunistmanifesto101.blogspot.com/2019/07/metaphors-and-memes-why-left-is.html

Democrats Fear Democracy

 Democrats Fear Democracy

Every now and then insight strikes like a bolt from the blue, and suddenly everything is clear. That’s how it hit me on a recent rainy morning: Democrats have no faith in the democratic process. They seem to believe, with the late, great H. L. Mencken, that “Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance,” and that “As democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” And Democrats say, “Never again!”

This explains why the second impeachment of Donald Trump is so important to Democrats: they’re terrified the idiot electorate will vote the Bad Orange Man into office again. He must be disqualified, banned from holding elective office! They don’t like to acknowledge it, but even after all the dubious absentee and mail-in ballots were counted and recounted, Biden’s win was a squeaker, not a landslide. Extraordinary measures were required in the $470 million Georgia runoff to nudge the Senate to the tipping point, and Republicans actually gained seats in the House. So obviously voters can’t be trusted to do the right thing in the future. If you’re not sure you can win the game fair and square, get your opponent disqualified.

This theory also fits with a host of other issues on which the Democratic party’s distrust of voters and lack of faith in their own powers of persuasion shine through. Unwilling to wait for states and their voters to legalize abortion and gay marriage, they short-circuited the democratic process through the Supreme Court. For a more contemporary example, look no further than the Oval Office. In his opening weeks as president, Biden has signed a flotilla of executive orders, completely bypassing the legislative process the Constitution ordained for the adoption of laws.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not necessarily questioning the ends so much as the means. Sure, the president has the power to issue executive orders, but the Constitution wasn’t designed to enable the chief executive to rule by fiat. In The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power Under the Constitution, Professor Michael McConnell provides a compelling account of how the presidency was crafted to facilitate decisive action while restraining tyrannical impulses. But in the main our lawmaking process is founded on notions of rough-and-tumble competition in the marketplace of ideas in both legislative chambers, not muzzling or bypassing the opposition.

For comparison, imagine if Coca Cola had gone to court to get Pepsi banned from supermarket shelves instead of just trying to drown them in advertising and sales. (Actually, that’s what drives a lot of antitrust cases, but let’s not get sidetracked.)

Fear of the democratic process and open debate also explains their growing hostility to free speech, about which my hero Glenn Greenwaldwrites so eloquently. Greenwald cautions that tech giants are censoring unpopular viewpoints: he had his own personal run-in with Platform Power when the Intercept — which he largely created — suppressed an article he wrote that was critical of the Bidens, père et fils. Another one of my favorite writers, Matt Taibbi, marvels that even as public confidence in journalists sinks to new depths, their unwillingness either to listen to critics or tolerate dissent is converting a sounding board to an echo-chamber:

Competing voices and critics who’ll keep your newsroom at least theoretically honest are important, which is why the mass-deletions of alternative media accounts are so upsetting: it hugely enhances the likelihood of errors and cheap caricatures, as well as the belief in one’s infallibility. The fact that pundits and reporters are leading the charge for an ever-purer monoculture is beyond creepy.

Incorrect thinking must be banned and its speakers reviled, silenced, canceled, disinvited! As Peter Berkowitz observes in his excellent RealClearPolitics column,

A healthy liberal democracy thrives on diversity of opinions. Hashing matters out in public frequently gets messy and often makes a hash of matters. But the gains that come from putting competing opinions to the test of open discussion with fellow citizens representing a range of perspectives and parties offset the inconveniences and unlovely aspects of democratic give-and-take.

The suppression of debate through the vilification and suppression of one’s opponents is a rejection of capitalist principles founded on the free and open competition. Free speech is essential to a free society, but far too many today are calling for censorship and suppression of “wrong thinking.” Jordan Peterson’s new book must not see print because he objected to pronoun laws! Free-and-fair election questioners must be drummed out of polite society!

Don’t these folks remember that it wasn’t so long ago that many of the views they espouse were in the minority, and but for the Constitution’s protection of those minority views through the freedoms of speech and assembly they would have been the ones being censored?

Political players are supposed to win the game by convincing voters that theirs is the better program, not by hobbling the opposing team. A rigged fight isn’t very interesting (except, perhaps, in professional wrestling). We should insist that capitalism’s competition principles be applied to the marketplace of ideas as well as things.

Betsy Dorminey is an attorney in Georgia and an entrepreneur in Vermont. Her columns have appeared in the Vermont Digger, The American SpectatorWestern JournalTownhall, and the Hill. She is the Vermont State director of The Capitalist League.


Johnny F-Bomb

In his new memoir, ‘Undaunted,’ former CIA Director John Brennan offers a self-portrait of a blustering desk jockey with severe anger-management issues



Former CIA Director John O. Brennan is an angry man, and his anger mismanagement issues emerge not in the preface to his memoir but in its title, which reads Undaunted: My Fight Against America’s Enemies, at Home and Abroad. The CIA is an executive branch organization focused on foreign intelligence, intentionally headquartered across the Potomac in McLean, Virginia, separated from the White House, State Department, Congress, and all the other policy and partisan bodies. So, who are a CIA director’s domestic enemies—terrorist sleeper cells? Russian illegals? Shady companies aiding Iran’s nuclear procurement efforts? These would be valid targets for joint FBI-CIA attention, and probably anger too.

Four hundred pages later, the reader finds that Brennan’s list contains none of these but it is long, and he exhausts his thesaurus of abusive language against them: Arlen Specter, Richard Grenell, Devin Nunes, Lindsey Graham, Donald Rumsfeld, Michael Pompeo, Trey Gowdy, Michael Scheuer, and Gina Haspel (on and off; she didn’t invite him to CIA holiday parties), and the CIA’s Directorate of Operations generally. Pride of place goes, of course, to Donald Trump. Before Brennan has even met the newly elected Trump, but is en route to brief him in early January 2017, he records that the “mere thought” of the meeting “jarred my very soul.” Brennan’s meetings with, say, Yasser Arafat evince no such dread, and in fact are recounted pretty jauntily.

Brennan’s outbursts are a consistent theme in this memoir. They are often blamed on his “Irish temper,” as if his rage is something external, like an unruly Irish setter that jumps on strangers. Trump is “evil despicable, and vile,” with bad qualities—“incompetence, dishonesty, and cravenness,” especially when Andrew McCabe was fired from the FBI, on St. Patrick’s Day no less, when “my Irish dander was more easily ruffled.”

They often come at a cost: In late 2006, a hot-tempered draft op-ed piece attacking President Bush, while never published, found its way to the White House and would cost Brennan the job of deputy DNI a year later. His famous anti-Trump meltdown when McCabe was fired cost him a gig at Booz Allen Hamilton, and his implausible threat of a lawsuit when his clearances were pulled cost him a consultancy contract with Kissinger Associates.

The matter of Brennan’s loss of his top-secret clearance is worth a quick diversion, because he devotes a full page of his preface to it as well as a six-page diatribe toward the end of the book. He repeatedly asserts that while in retirement he has been denied access to classified material, “my security clearances have never been revoked because there is no legal basis to do so.” You could charitably call this blarney, but coming from someone with more than 30 years in the federal government, including at the White House, you have to call it a blatant lie. Any U.S. president has absolute authority over who gets a clearance and over the revocation of a security clearance, just as he holds absolute declassification authority. No legal basis is needed to vacate a clearance just as there is no basis in the law for wanting one. Holders of clearances are frequently reminded that it is not a right, but a privilege, and a perishable one.

Overall, Brennan’s bad temper presents a striking contrast to his calm in noting the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut (without mentioning Hezbollah, which he elsewhere argues should have a greater role in the Lebanese government) and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing with his lengthy anecdote about how Sen. Specter sipped a Coke within view of a Saudi honor guard during the fasting month of Ramadan:

I felt like throttling him then and there and might have if Prince Turki had not suddenly appeared. … I had to satisfy myself by giving the Senator a brusque “goodbye” at the conclusion of our meeting with Prince Turki and by not spending any more time with him for the rest of the visit. Spector’s [sic] appalling performance … epitomized the Senate version of the Ugly American who is insensitive to social and political practices of foreign lands … Tragically, I have found in recent years that increasing nationalism, nativism, isolation, and xenophobia within too many segments of American society have made insensitivity such as Senator Spector’s all too prevalent, including at the highest levels of our government.
Down, boy!

Brennan’s memoir settles some of the myths that surrounded his career. He did vote for a communist candidate for president, Gus Hall, in 1976. He did not convert to Islam while serving in Saudi Arabia. How he washed out of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations (DO) soon after joining the agency, is murkier. In conversation with a reputedly alcoholic training officer at the “Farm,” he hears advice about running an agent that seems morally repugnant, and literally loses sleep over it. After bungling two simple assignments—light disguise and surveillance—he opted for the analytic rather than the operational career track. The chapter title here is a little misleading, as “Out of Operations” suggest he stopped doing ops, whereas he never started. In later years, as director, this brief exposure to DO training inclined him to try and break the ice with DO audiences by reminding them that he started out in the DO, and by all accounts it lowered the temperature in the room fast enough to raise an ice shelf between him and listeners with long careers as case officers and station chiefs.

His lifelong tension with the DO surfaces in his one anecdote about being a counterterrorism analyst, where he spars with a manager over a routine analytic line regarding how Hezbollah might retaliate after the Israeli strike that killed Abbas al-Musawi. By U.S. government standards, it was a routine momentary disagreement over one sentence. By Brennan standards, it is a Spartacus moment where he valiantly faces down a sputtering ops officer. The years go by, but we hear of the DO’s “antiquated culture,” “insularity, parochialism, and arrogance,” and one of Brennan’s nemeses, Dusty Foggo, would be an obstruction to Brennan’s peace of mind “in deference to his pals in the Directorate of Operations.”

A subsequent stint as CIA Director George Tenet’s chief of staff gave Brennan a position which, he notes, “serves as a negotiator, arbiter, counselor, complaint department, and ‘bad cop’ … when dealing with bureaucratic battles and disputes among senior officials.” It was the start of Brennan’s development as a formidable bureaucratic infighter. It was in this period that the Sept. 11 attacks occurred, and the unfolding events in the U.S. war with al-Qaida, including the capture of senior al-Qaida members, and their interrogation and debriefing, in some cases with the use of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs). Brennan claims to have had early misgivings about the entire program and to have shared them with Tenet, something Tenet denies, but we are offered a specific anecdote regarding Brennan’s revulsion reading a graphic, classified account of Abu Zubaydah’s waterboarding sessions. Brennan tells Tenet how disgusted he is.

Tenet [said] forcefully, “We sure as hell better not be doing anything that has not been explicitly authorized by DOJ.”
“That’s the problem, George,” I said. “We’re not.”
This dilemma, that the measures were legal but repellent and probably necessary, put Brennan in the position of condemning them without saying they never should have been used, but saying they should never be used again. It is similar to his discomfort with the DO’s mission to steal secrets—a phrase Tenet loved using and Brennan repudiated. The famous Irish temper does not emerge, though. Opposing the ethical failings of the espionage trade, Brennan instead tends to hoist that grand old flag, his “strict Catholic upbringing.”

It was Brennan’s nuance on EITs, particularly in a CBS interview where he conceded that the program had yielded useful information (an understatement) that riled up the “political left” and the media against his support for “torture” that cost Brennan the job of CIA director, which Obama had personally offered him. And here you have to switch the channel to Michael Hayden’s classic memoir, Playing to the Edge, for what came next:

John confided that one of [the transition team’s] directives was to make no news … John clearly wanted to replace me as head of CIA. But the blogosphere was exploding at the very thought … A little before Thanksgiving, John wrote a Shermanesque letter to the Washington Post withdrawing himself from a post with which the incoming team had never publicly associated him. He also took the opportunity to distance himself personally from previous CIA policies and practices.
In a subsequent transition meeting, Hayden ribs Brennan with a lighthearted comment—“Well, so much for keeping this low-key.” Brennan’s snappish response leads Hayden to record: “I tried to stay calm by silently counting to ten. Well, F--- you, John (one). Well, f--- you, John (two). Well, f--- you, John (three) … and so on till ten. We then resumed the meeting as if nothing had happened.”

If you have met the famously courteous, mild, and devout Michael Hayden, you know that it takes something extraordinarily Irish to drive him to ten F-bombs in a row. Brennan was proud enough of his Shermanesque letter to reproduce it in full in Undaunted.

The bureaucratic infighter did get the opportunity to stand up to the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC), later renamed the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC)—a Beltway success designed to uncover threats, but which would not do operations, meet with foreign liaison partners, or brief the president—all these remained in CIA’s realm. Even after half a dozen years of evolution, however, NCTC failed to catch the Nigerian underwear bomber who nearly blew up Northwest flight 253 landing in Detroit on Christmas Day, 2009. Building TTIC, however, further honed some of the bureaucratic and turf-fighting skills Brennan would use reorganizing the CIA a decade later. Getting the CIA, FBI, and a dozen other agencies to share their most sensitive data with each other was indeed a feat, and naturally involved shouting matches, notably with then-FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Brennan’s White House years, as President Obama’s assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, were enlivened by the Arab Spring, chaos in Syria and Libya, and the Iran nuclear deal. Brennan is admirably candid about the policy mess surrounding the Arab debacles, but with Iran it is different. Even given his general caution in counterterrorism methods and sentimental view of Islam, Brennan was uncannily soft on Iran, believing in the myth of regime “moderates” and preposterously taking at face value Iran’s commitment in the JCPOA never to “seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons.” For rationality, listen to Hayden, in his brief period as President Obama’s CIA director in early 2009, when asked how much enriched uranium the Iranians had:

Mr. President, I actually know that but … it almost doesn’t matter. There isn’t an electron or a neutron at Natanz that’s ever going to end up in a nuclear weapon. They’ll spin that uranium at some secret military facility beyond the eyes of the IAEA.
Hayden goes on to express polite skepticism about the JCPOA, and tells the reader: “And even with an accord in hand and honored, Iran remains the duplicitous, autocratic, terrorist-backing, Hezbollah-supporting, Hamas-funding, region-destabilizing, hegemony-seeking theocracy it has been,” adding, in a footnote, “They will cheat, of course.”

Six years later, Brennan was present in an NSC meeting where Obama instructed U.S. negotiators not to address Iran’s ballistic missile program (“which, absent weapons of mass destruction, has little utility,” Hayden had noted), because “‘The Iranians will immediately press for reciprocal reduction in missiles in Gulf Arab states,’ he said, ‘and good luck with those talks.’” In other words, to avoid complicating the negotiations, the ayatollahs got a free pass on their missiles.

Brennan remained consistently soft on Iran in retirement: He doubted the legality of the U.S. killing of Qassem Soleimani and furiously condemned the killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. As above, the Khobar Towers bombing rates the briefest of mentions. Brennan notes that Saudi Hezbollah carried out the attack, which killed 19 American service members, “at the direction of Iran,” but he leaves it there. The Irish temper is a no-show.

And this is what gives Undaunted its odd feel: the selective and disproportionate nature of the author’s anger. The DO might deserve some the brickbats that Brennan throws at it, yet there is no similar mention of the three other directorates. Maybe a strict Catholic upbringing prevents a memoirist from saying anything mean about an Islamic Republic that kills hundreds of Americans in Iraq, but Brennan sours quickly, and volubly, on his beloved Saudi Arabia when it kills one of its own journalists.

Saudi Arabia casts a long shadow in Undaunted. Brennan served only two overseas tours, and both were there. The first was at the U.S. Embassy in the then-diplomatic capital, Jeddah, recounted in the chapter entitled “John of Arabia,” and he would return 14 years later in a senior liaison capacity. He had an affinity for the place and is a shrewd analyst of the various Saudi security services that worked with components of the U.S. government. He built an exceptionally close relationship with Interior Minister Prince Muhammad bin Nayef (“MBN”), who was among the more than 100 princes arrested and permanently sidelined by Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman (“MBS”) in late 2017.

MBN’s end as a political force was the beginning of the end for “John of Arabia.” The definitive break came with the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in October 2018. Brennan describes the renowned Jew-hater (who denied that Jews had any history in “Palestine”) and former Saudi liaison to Osama bin Laden as “respected inside and outside the kingdom for his literary talent, political acumen, and principled opposition” to MBS. I suspect that the baby elephant in the room here was Khashoggi’s longtime service as a protégé of Prince Turki al-Faisal, Brennan’s counterpart in the Saudi intelligence world. And of course, “The subsequent failure of the Trump administration to hold the Saudi government to account … was one of the most egregious examples of unprincipled leadership I have ever witnessed.”

Obama’s second offer of the CIA directorship not only made Brennan the fifth director who had previously served as a CIA officer, it made for a couple of the more interesting chapters of his book. The agency’s Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation (RDI) program continued to stalk his career in the form of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s notorious “torture report,” and is the subject of the chapter “A Tortured Senate Report,” a rollicking account in which the bureaucratic infighter is pitted against the dark forces of black site practices, congressional spite, Feinstein, and even momentarily with Leon Panetta, Brennan’s friend and predecessor as CIA director, who made the controversial decision to share an ocean of operations files with the Senate. Add White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to the donnybrook, and you get the chapter with the most F-bombs.

Brennan’s major legacy at the agency was “Modernization,” which did away with geographical divisions to restructure headquarters components in mission centers, regional and functional. The plan integrated operations officers, analysts, targeters, and the other 60-odd professional agency disciplines. It created a new mission center for cyber. The models for Modernization were the CIA’s existing Counterterrorism Center, Crime and Narcotics Center, and Counterintelligence Center, highly effective entities that had already integrated the different career services.

An early casualty of the redo was Brennan’s deputy director for operations, Frank Archibald, who resisted the perceived encroachment against the espionage mission. In legend, Modernization created opportunities to elevate analysts into overseas positions traditionally held for operations officers, and may have been all the more unpalatable to some traditionalist DO officers because it was Brennan’s idea. In practice, it may have been inevitable or overdue.

On Russiagate, Brennan complements James Comey’s and Andrew McCabe’s accounts with the view from CIA. He touches the Steele dossier, but with a 10-foot pole, and strenuously denies rumors that he raised it in his famous August 2016 phone conversation with Harry Reid to brief the then-majority leader on Russian interference. He acknowledges that it was “salacious, unverified,” and “infamous” but makes no mention of its connection to the Clinton campaign or of the bureau’s view of Christopher Steele as untrustworthy. He goes into high dudgeon at the president’s public allegation that our intelligence agencies had leaked the dossier to the press, without noting that that was likely the FBI’s doing.

The final chapter (titled “Undaunted”) is a jeremiad against the Trump administration, chiefly focused on the loss of Brennan’s clearances, and it craters the book. The torrent of personal spite and lack of self-control make for a shaming, juvenile contrast to Hayden’s final chapter, which also documented tensions with a sitting president but in a way that is sly and fun to read. The high point of the final chapter of Leon Panetta’s memoir is his being given a rosary by Pope Benedict. I hope he loans it to Brennan.

US States Are Seizing More Power in...

 US States Are Seizing More Power in the Name of "Deregulating" Housing



Local zoning is not likely to garner much national attention, and in an ideal world, this is the way it should be. However, with state governments taking aim at local zoning restrictions, the issue has taken on greater importance. In recent years, the movement to limit single-family zoning restrictions has been championed by left liberals and libertarians alike. According to these libertarian supporters, antizoning laws represent simple deregulation. However, calling these laws deregulation is akin to calling the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) a free trade agreement. To the contrary, this trend has already led to the further erosion of private property rights in California with the passage of Assembly Bill 670.

Such is the power of AB 670 that it nullifies private restrictions on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that are deemed “unreasonable,” such as restrictions included by homeowner’s associations in their CC&Rs (covenants, conditions, and restrictions). Yet, the nullification of all such private restrictions is in direct conflict with the title-transfer theory of contracts. Murray Rothbard explains,

a person should be able to sell not only the full title of ownership to property, but also part of that property, retaining the rest for himself or others to whom he grants or sells that part of the title….Similarly valid and enforceable would be restrictive covenants to property in which, for example, a developer sells all the rights to a house and land to a purchaser, except for the right to build a house over a certain height or of other than a certain design.

It should be clear, then, that private restrictions prohibiting the construction of ADUs can be entirely consistent with private property rights. As such, any law that eliminates the possibility of these restrictions is untenable. The one caveat is that there must be some existing owner of the reserved right. In other words, the restriction simply can’t continue indefinitely against the wishes of all living owners of said property. Currently, some neighborhoods may require all homeowners to agree to their CC&Rs before moving in. Elsewhere Rothbard has outlined how this would work if all property were privately owned. Rothbard writes,

In a country, or a world, of totally private property, including streets, and private contractual neighborhoods consisting of property-owners, these owners can make any sort of neighborhood-contracts they wish. In practice, then, the country would be a truly “gorgeous mosaic,” (in the famous words of New York Mayor Dinkins), ranging from rowdy Greenwich Village-type contractual neighborhoods, to socially conservative homogeneous WASP neighborhoods. Remember that all deeds and covenants would once again be totally legal and enforceable, with no meddling government restrictions upon them. So that considering the drug question, if a proprietary neighborhood contracted that no one would use drugs, and Jones violated the contract and used them, the fellow community-contractors could simply enforce the contract and kick him out. Or, since no advance contract can allow for all conceivable circumstances, suppose that Smith became so personally obnoxious that his fellow neighborhood-owners wanted him ejected. They would then have to buy him out—probably on terms set contractually in advance in accordance with some “obnoxious” clause.

Under this anarcho-capitalist model, the issue is uncomplicated. If a prospective buyer finds one neighborhood’s restrictions intolerable, then they must either choose a more suitable neighborhood or acquire the restricted rights from the current owner. While reality is very different from the anarcho-capitalist model, the aforementioned scenario is still a realistic one and demonstrates that institutions such as HOAs and CC&Rs can provide the means to organize communities without the state.

Moreover, there are very good reasons private property owners may wish to exercise these rights and agree to restrictions on the type of housing that can be built. While neighborhoods provide economic benefits by lowering transaction costs and facilitating exchange, neighborhoods—like any investment—involve risk. One such risk is that because land is immobile, the value can easily increase or decrease based on the surrounding property. In our present case, homeowners may value their property more because it is in a neighborhood zoned for single-family residences only. Indeed, advocates of these measures argue that abolishing single-family requirements will lower the price of housing, and this is exactly what current property owners may wish to avoid with restrictive covenants.

Thus, by interfering with property subject to restrictive covenants, the State of California is removing the means by which homeowners can mitigate the risk of declining property values and help ensure they live among neighbors with similar preferences. Homeowners who paid dues to their HOA for years only to see the rules they paid for nullified by the state suffer an immediate loss. This loss may prove to be particularly devastating if their wealth is largely their home equity.

While zoning may seem like a relatively minor issue, preserving the liberty that still exists will require more of a focus on these local issues and less attention paid to national politics, where little can be done anyway. Otherwise, governments could quietly remove more decisions from the control of neighborhood property owners.

If supporters of these bills truly wish to see more choices in housing and neighborhoods as they claim, then we should share this aim. However, this must include the choice to make the neighborhood as restrictive or open as neighborhood property owners wish; we must never presume to know what’s best for any other neighborhood. This can only be accomplished by respecting all existing private property rights—including restricted property titles—and resisting all attempts to nullify these voluntary arrangements. Only then will we see conflicts minimized and individual liberty maximized.