Personal Thoughts Leading to B.D. Wright Deep State Interview


Intro by John R. Houk

Intro © January 26, 2020

Frank Camp in a Daily Wire interview with a former CIA employee Bryan Dean Wright about the machination of an America Deep State. Wright self-describes himself as a lifelong Dem which for me has become a dirty word in the English language.

 

In the part one of the interview he describes Dems of his admiration in the past contrasted with present day Dems epitomized by AOC and Bernie Sanders. A point I can relate to because I grew up in a Dem Party family hailing from the Pacific Northwest just as Wright.

 

My Dem family’s devotion to Dems was due to their perception it was the Franklin Roosevelt Dems that saved Americans from starvation resulting from joblessness of the Great Depression. (I have since learned my family’s perception was probably misplaced of actual facts were more public in 1930s, 40s, 50s and right into the 60s. BUT that’s another story.) The Dem Senators of my childhood and early teen years were Henry (Scoop) Jackson and Warren Magnuson. Both Jackson and Magnuson were old fashioned Americans more concerned about benefitting the State of Washington they represented than the USA at large. Jackson in his day was considered a Liberal yet extremely Anti-Communist to the point of committing the U.S. Military to confront Communist expansionism. In essence Jackson was a motivated Anti-Communist Hawk more than he was a Liberal. It is this personal memory of Jackson I have that convinces me the Jackson of yesteryear would have deserted the Democratic Party of today because of that political Party’s lurch toward Marxist Socialism.

 

WELL … Back to Pacific Northwest exposer of the Deep State Dem Bryan Dean Wright. Wright is going out on limb exposing how the Deep State is operating ergo I half-way suspect a tragic accident, mysterious suicide or unexplained homicide might be in his future. I pray not.

 

Below is a cross post of The Daily Wire interview that was posted on 1/25 and 1/26/20.

 

JRH 1/26/20 (Hat Tip NWO Report)

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee.

BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protestor restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

*********************************

INTERVIEW (Part I): Former CIA Officer Explains The Shocking Details And Dangers Of The ‘Deep State’

 

By  Frank Camp

January 25, 2020

The Daily Wire

 

Bryan Dean Wright – Photo by Molly Condit

 

Over the last several years, the term “Deep State” has been used frequently by both President Trump, during speeches and on social media, as well as by some Trump-supporting pundits. President Trump and the commentators who support him often use the term to describe a group of bureaucratic insiders who want the president out of office.

 

These individuals represent a loosely-connected web of unelected bureaucrats, often left over from previous administrations, who allegedly utilize their intel and reach in order to disrupt the agenda of the president and his allies.

 

But what exactly is the Deep State? Who exactly are the Deep State players? What damage can they do? And what can be done to stop them?

 

On Wednesday, I had the opportunity to speak with Bryan Dean Wright, a former CIA officer who now serves as a contract instructor for the military. Wright, a self-described “lifelong Democrat,” was not only able to answer my questions about the Deep State, but provide incredible insight into this not-so-well-understood world of leakers and bad actors.

 

In part one of this interview, Wright discusses his own background in the CIA, the origins of what we would call the modern “Deep State,” the bad actors operating from the inside, the damage they have done, and much more.

 

DW: What was your former job at the CIA?

WRIGHT: I first served as an operations officer. These are the folks that, in short, go abroad to recruit spies and steal secrets. I did that for a number of years, then transitioned to the private sector and did some work in New York. I went back into the agency after a hiatus and served as what’s called a targeting officer. That role finds the people and organizations that can fill in the gaps of our understanding of particular adversaries, specifically their leadership and their plans and intentions. I developed targeting packages of how to get in front of those people and recruit them as clandestine sources.

DW: Why did you decide to leave the agency?

WRIGHT: The original reason back in the mid-2000s was because my brother needed to go into rehab for his alcohol addiction, and unfortunately my family didn’t have the money to send him. So, I had to go in the private sector and earn it. Once I was able to do that – after my brother achieved his sobriety – I got back into the agency.

And then in December of 2015, I left for the second and final time. The reason I left then was more out of sorrow and anger for what I saw happening. And it really gets to the issue of the “Deep State.” I met with a bunch of people that were tied-in to some of our covert action operations – I was reviewing and auditing them – and these senior executives weren’t taking it seriously or tried to hinder my efforts. A lot of people didn’t want to have accountability for their failures. Or, secondarily, they didn’t want to have to go back to the National Security Council or even the President or Vice President and say, “Actually, what we’ve been telling you was wrong, or it wasn’t quite true.” And so I became very frustrated and I just didn’t see myself being complicit with that degree of unprofessionalism at a minimum or flat out treachery at worst. So, I transitioned out.

DW: What is your primary job now?

WRIGHT: I serve as a contract instructor for the military – and some of those details I can’t dive into at present – but that’s part of what I do. And I spend a lot of time writing and going on different TV outlets, Fox in particular, to talk in part about national security-related issues.

I also write and talk a lot about politics. As a lifelong Democrat, I share with my readers and audiences what I see as this horrific drift by the party away from what I grew up with in the Pacific Northwest: a moderate, sensible Democratic Party. For instance, I remember men like Tom Foley, former Speaker of the House, who was from rural Eastern Washington. Or a guy like Cecil Andrus, a sensible, no-nonsense Democratic Governor of Idaho. These folks are the Democrats who I grew up with, and my family was a part of. But that is no longer the party that we see. Instead, we see the party of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Tom Perez, and it’s these absolute bonkers elements that I don’t identify with, are horrifying, and I think ultimately will bring the entirety of the Democratic Party down. And if that’s what has to happen, well, I hope the Republicans can keep a light on for me.

DW: So, what is the “Deep State?” We hear it all the time in conservative media, especially on outlets like Fox News. But what is the “Deep State” really?

WRIGHT: To understand the Deep State, you have to understand a man named Aldrich Ames. He was a CIA officer who, in the 1980s, decided to commit treason and work for the Soviet Union, and his treachery cost the lives of many of our Soviet agents. When Ames was asked why he did it, his response was this, “I know what’s best for foreign policy and national security … and I’m going to act on that.” That’s the definition and the ethos of the Deep State. It’s an unelected group of men and women with profound powers of the surveillance state who use those powers to advance their own interests, whether it be personal or partisan.

And that last bit I think is important. Why do they do it? In the distant past, guys like Aldrich Ames, they’d leak to our enemies because of ego and for money. But in the recent past, like what we’ve seen with Former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former Director of the CIA John Brennan, they’re leaking to The New York Times or CNN because, yes ego and money, but clearly a sense of partisan warfare. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t discount their ego and monetary motivations. I mean, look, they’ve taken paid media contributorships and I’m sure it makes them feel very important. But what we’re seeing is more than that. It’s partisan, and it’s personal. I think that’s different and that’s frightening. I would say that, in essence, is the “Deep State,” and that is what’s driving Deep State actors today.

DW: This may be a bit of a redundant question, but who are the Deep State? Who would you identify as major Deep State actors?

WRIGHT: In the recent past, Comey, Brennan, Clapper are the most obvious, big names. But based on the IG reports, we’re also seeing more mid-level bureaucrats, like the Lisa Pages and the Peter Strzoks and the Bruce Ohrs. These are Deep Staters: folks who are unelected and frankly unaccountable to anyone, using their power and knowledge to satisfy a personal agenda, irrespective of the law. That’s certainly what we’ve seen in the IG reports regarding Crossfire Hurricane, and it’s clear that these bureaucrats had no problem executing their own partisan or personal agendas believing their relative anonymity would hide them from accountability.

I think that those individuals are just the ones we know about. And I think, God willing, Attorney General Bill Barr and United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut John Durham are going to flush out other actors and bring them to account, and lead to further clarity on if indeed the Comeys and Brennans and Clappers of the intelligence community can be brought forward on charges. That’s certainly the hope if the facts allow.

DW: In what malign activities specifically have members of this Deep State participated?

WRIGHT: Let’s start with Comey. We know that he was leaking to The New York Times, and he wasn’t leaking because he had any reasonable belief that President Trump was up to no good. I mean, the IG has shown conclusively that he was leaking to advance his own personal interests. In fact, [it] labeled Comey as a dangerous example to the tens of thousands of current and former FBI employees. So, that opens up this horrific floodgate of the Aldrich Ames ethos that, if you think that you know best for national security or foreign policy, that you, FBI employee, can damage whomever you’d like. You, Mr. FBI or CIA employee, who has access to secret human or signals intelligence – emails, phone calls – you get to decide what material should be leaked to kneecap politicians you don’t like. Oh, and you will face no consequences for it! That, I think, is the horrific legacy that Comey leaves behind.

And again, let’s emphasize something here: Comey knew early on that Trump was not going to be found guilty of having engaged in impropriety with the Russian government. Comey had participated with others in the intelligence community to investigate these allegations. He and the others knew, in early 2017 if not before, that there was nothing there. Think of this: if the intelligence community had any information in 2016 or 2017 that Trump was a Russian spy, they wouldn’t have sat on it. They would have immediately gotten it to Mueller or folks on Capitol Hill, and they would have rightfully brought that forward to the American people and removed the president. But that didn’t happen.

So, certainly Comey has a very clear record, demonstrated record, of doing a number of things that weren’t just atypical, but that were wrong. And again, I think that’s what AG Barr and John Durham are trying to fully flush out.

I think that the other characters – John Brennan especially, but also Comey and Clapper – used the dossier and Christopher Steele as pawns in a political game. Both Steele and his dossier were known to be unreliable in the fall of 2016. Indeed, by mid January 2017, Brennan was specifically on record as saying he gave the dossier no particular credence, according to The Wall Street Journal. Well, that’s amazing. Because they included that dossier in a brief to not only then President-elect Trump, but to then President Obama and Joe Biden and, of course, the principals on Capitol Hill. Why would they have done that? There was no legal or intelligence value. They knew Steele and the dossier were verified garbage. But they briefed it anyway. To lots of people.

As a former intelligence officer, I can tell you that this isn’t normal operating procedure. At all. You don’t brief an unvetted document like the dossier to the president-elect and tell him that he’s a corrupt Russian traitor. And you certainly wouldn’t do it if you had already done a degree of investigation and found that there was no veracity to any of the claims. I mean, hell, you don’t even have to be an intelligence officer to understand that.

But what Steele and his dossier lacked in legal or intelligence value, both more than made up for it in political value. And Brennan, Comey, and Clapper knew it. They knew how damaging it would be to Trump if America were to believe the dossier’s allegations. They just needed to give the news media a hook to run with the claims, which were widely known in Washington but went unreported because they were unverified. So their solution, it turns out, was to make themselves the media’s necessary hook. By their simple act of briefing the dossier to so many, it gave credence to the claims and that in fact the dossier existed. Naturally, the Resistance Media – which went all in against President Trump – was happy to distribute their propaganda.

Let me emphasize: the dossier had been refuted by the intelligence community after considerable investigation. There was no legal or intelligence value to briefing the dossier. In fact, the CIA at the time was calling it “internet rumor.” But Brennan, Comey, and Clapper clearly didn’t care. Why? Because they had an end goal: if they could get the media to report on this dossier, then that would be effectively the end of the Trump presidency, or certainly put the president on his heels for a couple of years. They would utterly kneecap him. At least that was their hope.

So, I think that that is the gravest example of Deep State treachery.

DW: To what extent does the media participate in enabling these Deep State actors to do what they want and feel they need to do, and how should that be approached?

WRIGHT: The most obvious and demonstrable connection between these Deep State actors and the media is that guys like Comey, Brennan, and Clapper now, to varying degrees, have paid contributorships with media outlets. Think of it: we know that they were leaking classified information to these outlets when they were government employees, and now they have jobs with them. I mean, my god, what does that tell other intelligence community professionals? What are the consequence for breaking the law? Because, as of today, my former colleagues can apparently leak based on their own personal or partisan agenda to the media, and then, in turn, can get a great, cushy job from that same media outlet when they quit or retire. That’s a horrifying example with profound consequences to our Republic because you’re incentivizing intelligence professionals to leak or kneecap people they don’t like. If that takes root, what in the hell will prevent us from becoming Pakistan or Egypt? These countries, by the way, are run by the intelligence or military communities, sprinkled with a veneer of democracy.

Is that what we are to become? Because that really is the end result of allowing a politicized intelligence community to go unchecked. And that’s why Barr and Durham’s work is so important. These people have to be held to account.

Now at the same time, it’s not just the media who are gaining from this. They’re also being manipulated by the Brennans, the Comeys, and the Clappers. In March of 2018, for example, The Daily Beast reported that Brennan and Clapper were doing a roadshow around the country to various elite groups and big money people, and they stopped by Hollywood. Brennan told them that Trump would not finish out the year (2018) as President of the United States; he would be removed because of his treacherous relationship with Vladimir Putin and the Russians.

Clapper was also there, and they were doing this to both create and then fan the flames of hysteria. Remember that their audience was made up of the Hollywood elites, the very individuals who control or contribute mightily to the public sphere, create narratives, create truth. So, it is not an accident that Brennan and Clapper would be there in Hollywood in March of 2018 spreading these lies. Again, they knew that the Trump/Russia narrative wasn’t true but, as with the dossier, they needed the media to continue to manipulate the American people to achieve their political end. And who better to have in their back pocket than those Hollywood executives who have our eyeballs and our ears, whether it be on movie screens or television screens. Brennan and Clapper needed them because they needed hysteria. And that’s precisely what they’ve been committed to. Virulently and unapologetically so.

DW: There are criticisms, mostly from the Left, that the “Deep State” is blamed for every bad thing that surrounds the Trump presidency and the administration. It’s almost like a joke to many people on the Left. “Oh, the Deep State! It must be the Deep State!” Is the idea of the Deep State in any way overblown? And if so, to what degree?

WRIGHT: You know, in 2017, when Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, was being interviewed by Rachel Maddow, she was telling him about Trump’s taking on the CIA or the intelligence community, and his response, then and now, was so illustrative and so jaw dropping.

If you recall, he said, “If you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday to get back at you.” So, Chuck Schumer recognizes that the Deep State is real, and that they will exact revenge at a time and a place and on people of their choosing.

Let’s pause for a second and really think about the modern Left’s response to the fact that the Deep State is real, and that these intelligence officials will decide our nation’s political winners and losers. Really consider Chuck Schumer’s flippant acceptance of it all. I can’t imagine a more horrifying thing for any person of any party to say ever – because think of the consequence of that. The modern American Left is basically saying, “You know, we love those Deep State guys. They’re real, and we love it because Orange Man Bad. And they’ll take this guy out for us. Because we just don’t like him.”

I mean, they’re incentivizing a bunch of people to continue to break the law because it fits their temporary, short-term partisan goals. Never mind the fact that they’re setting a brush fire to the Republic. I mean, it’s amazing to me knowing how many folks on the Left who have been so virulently opposed to the CIA and FBI, given some of the sins, unquestionable sins – starting in the 40s and ramping up through the Cold War in the 50s, through the 70s and 80s – to now see that our own “progressive” leadership is somehow winking and nudging with our good friends like John Brennan and the rest because they’re taking on Orange Man. So, this suggestion by the people on the Left, my fellow Democrats, who would say, “Well, that’s just silly. It’s a conspiracy…” Well, they need to take it up with Chuck Schumer because he thinks the Deep State is real, too. And he fears them.

DW: Is this type of behavior something that has gone on for a long time?

WRIGHT: The short answer is yes. There is a history of individuals who get this profound power when working for the FBI or the CIA or NSA and abuse it. I can tell you, I worked with individuals who used their abilities to tap phone calls and emails to look after ex-boyfriends or ex-spouses. And those individuals were eventually found out and rightfully fired. In other words, human frailty – or the part of the human condition that is indeed so frail as to be given profound powers and then use them for ill – that has always existed, and that will always exist. That’s why it’s so important to conduct oversight of law enforcement and intelligence, and indeed military communities.

The difference, though, from that unfortunate low level abuse of power is that the treachery of modern Deep State actors – Comey, Brennan, and Clapper – is that they wanted to overrule the American voters. They wanted to upend the free and fair election of Donald Trump. They wanted to choose a different leader to run the nation. Their purpose in leaking to the media was to take out a duly-elected president because they either didn’t like the guy or they wanted Hillary Clinton to win. Many of them, I suspect, liked Clinton because they knew that they were going to have positions of authority or influence in her administration.

That degree of audacity I think is new, and I think that it is incredibly dangerous. And the lack of focus on that treachery is one of the profound lost opportunities of our political class, particularly on the Left, of the past few years. They could have said, “The actions of Comey, Clapper, and Brennan were horrifically wrong and they should face justice. And, meanwhile, we oppose the president on X, Y, and Z policies.” That would have been the right thing to do. As an opposition party, you can do both of those things, but that’s not what the Left has done. That’s certainly not what Pelosi and Schumer and our friends Rep. Adam Schiff and Rep. Jerry Nadler are doing right now with the impeachment.

All of this has been 100% focused on bringing down the president from day one, instead of having a much more balanced, nuanced approach to his presidency. And I think, and frankly I hope, that that’s why the Democratic Party loses in 2020. I don’t know of any other way to get rid of the rot that is in Washington, and within the leadership of the Democratic Party. Because if a progressive wins – Sen. Elizabeth Warren or, God forbid, Sen. Bernie Sanders – or even if Joe Biden wins, the lesson for the Democratic leadership, the lesson for the media, will not be that their treachery was bad, but that it worked.

In part two of this interview, which will be released on Sunday, Wright talks about what the Deep State would look like if a Democrat wins in 2020, what can be done to root out these malign actors, what the media can do, the dangers of normalizing socialism, and more.

 

I’d like to thank Bryan Dean Wright for taking the time to speak with me about such an important issue. For more, you can follow Wright on Twitter, and check out his official website.

++++++++++++++++++++++

INTERVIEW (Part II): Former CIA Officer On What The ‘Deep State’ Looks Like If A Democrat Wins In 2020, And What Can Be Done To Recover

 

By Frank Camp

January 26, 2020

The Daily Wire

 

Bryan Dean Wright – Photo by Molly Condit

 

Over the last several years, the term “Deep State” has been used frequently by both President Trump, during speeches and on social media, as well as by some Trump-supporting pundits. President Trump and the commentators who support him often use the term to describe a group of bureaucratic insiders who want the president out of office.

 

These individuals represent a loosely-connected web of unelected bureaucrats, often left over from previous administrations, allegedly who utilize their intel and reach in order to disrupt the agenda of the president and his allies.

 

But what exactly is the Deep State? Who exactly are the Deep State players? What damage can they do? And what can be done to stop them?

 

On Wednesday, I had the opportunity to speak with Bryan Dean Wright, a former CIA officer who now serves as a contract instructor for the military. Wright, a self-described “lifelong Democrat,” was not only able to answer my questions about the Deep State, but provide incredible insight into this not-so-well-understood world of leakers and bad actors.

 

In part one of this interview, which you can read here, Wright discussed his own background in the CIA, the origins of what we would today call the “Deep State,” the bad actors operating from the inside, the damage they have done, and more.

 

In part two below, Wright talks about what the Deep State might look like if a Democrat wins 2020, what can be done to rein in the Deep State, what the media can do, as well as the way President Trump has brought this bureaucratic monster into the light.

 

DW: Do you believe that if a Democrat is elected in 2020, the Deep State actors will continue to disseminate information, but for the other side? Are there proportionate actors on both sides, or is it disproportionate leaking on one side?

WRIGHT: You are out of your mind if you think there aren’t Trump supporters within the intelligence community, and that if he loses in 2020, won’t be absolutely outraged that Trump was, in their eyes, taken down because of the media and because of the Deep State actors. And you’re equally foolish to think that they won’t use their knowledge and their influence to kneecap the next Democratic president – President Sanders, President Warren, President Biden. Of course there will be people in the conservative world who work in the intelligence community who will find ways to strike back, and that is something that I have been warning about for years. Once you start this process of politicizing the intelligence community, when does it stop? We are marching down a very dangerous road where each side is so hellbent to exact revenge, and we get these political blood feuds that are wildly difficult to stop.

So, I would not be surprised at all if there were attempts by Trump supporters within the intelligence community to strike back at a progressive or otherwise Democratic president in 2020 and beyond because if we are looking at the example of Comey, Clapper, and Brennan as of today, what consequences would they face? What consequences did James Comey face when he unquestionably leaked to The New York Times to force the appointment of special counsel? He leaked classified information. What were the consequences that James Comey has had to face? He got a professorship at William and Mary University teaching ethics, he’s gone on a nationwide book tour, and he has a movie coming out based on his life and times. I mean, are you f***ing kidding me? That’s the consequence that the intelligence community is now looking at if they leak classified information. So you tell me, are we setting up the Republic for a problem? The answer is absolutely yes.

DW: You mentioned AG Bill Barr several times, but what can be done at this point to reign in the Deep State? Not only by the government and people like the attorney general, but by everyone else who has some sort of power?

WRIGHT: Let’s start first with the CIA. Gina Haspel, who’s the CIA director, she can start change. She is in control of the culture of her senior intelligence service, her senior executives, and they are the ones who engage directly with her and the White House, the National Security Council, on a regular basis. She can make sure that these folks understand there are in fact consequences for their behavior, remind them of things like the Hatch Act, what they can and can’t do. She can also, if she has suspicions or wants to make an example of someone, pull those individuals in for re-investigations and have them polygraphed for connections to the press.

She also has that same ability with her mid-level or junior staff, to pull them in on an ongoing basis to remind them of the same things, like the Hatch Act, and that what is happening in the public sphere is wrong; that while they absolutely have an opportunity, a right, to engage in our political process, they certainly should not be emulating the behavior of James Comey. She can use her leadership and her platform to do that.

She can also work with the human resources folks when they’re bringing people on board, to talk about building a new culture within the CIA that reminds people that they are subservient to the President and ultimately subservient to the American people; that it is an honor and a privilege to work at the agency, and if they are found to be abusing the profound powers that they are given, they will be held to account.

Now, that becomes a much more difficult message to sell when James Comey gets away with it. And that’s why the work of Attorney General Barr and John Durham is so important. Gina Haspel has to have concrete examples of consequences for this Deep State treachery. There are other modest things you can do, like stripping security clearances of former professionals who leave and no longer use them on a daily basis, or a project basis – but that stuff is ultimately not as important as changing the culture for why intelligence professionals, law enforcement professionals should not be leaking, A) at all, and B) classified information, and that there will be consequences if they do.

DW: Is there anything the media can do? I mean, responsible media.

WRIGHT: One of the things that I think would be very helpful is if we understood the bias of a particular reporter or media outlet, and then grade that severity of bias with each story that’s aired or published. For instance, I’d love to hover my cursor over a reporter’s name and have a bubble pop up that rates likely bias, with links to examples of said bias. Yes, I recognize the tricky nature of what I’m suggesting – who ranks the bias? But I think there’s a market-based solution to be found.

Another way we consumers ought to flag biased or untrustworthy reporting is when a reporter or outlet uses unnamed sources. Given that Comey has now admitted to being an anonymous media source, it should tell Americans that they should be very suspicious about the motivations of these mysterious people making allegations. And, frankly, it says a lot about the lack of moral character by these sources. They should stand up and say the right thing on the record if they suspect fraud, waste, and abuse, for example. Because that’s how it’s supposed to be done. If you are within the intelligence community and you have problems with your leadership, even the president themself, there are ways that you address that, and it’s not leaking to the press.

So, I think because of our beautiful Constitution, we give our media a lot of leash to report on the facts. But without understanding the bias of the outlet and the reporter, we don’t know if we’re really getting facts, but rather spin. I believe that there’s some good work that could be done on this thorny issue, and on a self-regulating basis. I’m not sure that it’s the government’s role to do that, but nevertheless, a more honest accounting of bias, I think, would be a really critical step to restoring people’s belief and faith in the media. The goal is giving the American people a way to read or watch something and say, “Oh, that reporter is biased, and I’m going to discount this report or give it much less weight than I otherwise would have.”

DW: Which would require self-reflection by individual members of the media to assess their own biases.

WRIGHT: Yeah.

DW: I know that you’re a self-professed “lifelong Democrat,” but what is your political ideology, and has the Trump presidency and the seemingly steroidal Deep State shaped your opinions in a new way that perhaps you hadn’t thought of before?

WRIGHT: Well, I think that like many Americans, I was trepidatious about President Trump, certainly in 2015 and 2016, as the noise was getting louder that he would be a viable candidate and then indeed the President of the United States. But what I have seen over the past three years is that’s he’s playing a very important, a vital role in fact, of blowing up the status quo, of blowing up a system that fundamentally wasn’t working. I’ve come to appreciate that his presidency could be used by the people to create the kind of country, the kind of Republic, that we deserve, which is one that’s accountable to people, that actually gets stuff done, that doesn’t focus on partisanship as much. At least that is, I think, the promise that I have begun to see in President Trump.

And I certainly would say that his positions are reflective of most Democrats, certainly ten years ago. On the border issues, on immigration, he’s saying the exact same things the Democrats were saying not long ago. In 2008, if you looked at the DNC’s platform, Obama was not a hell of a lot different than President Trump on this issue.

So, I think that he represents a lot of common sense on a number of issues that I’ve come to appreciate. Most especially, I think that he’s exposed this Deep State garbage that would have never, ever been exposed under a President Clinton. James Comey would likely still be the FBI director. Think about that. All these others, the McCabes and the Brennans and the Comeys, would all still be in D.C. with their hands on the levers of power.

I think that Trump’s service to this country, of exposing that Deep State, may be one of his greatest legacies.

Depending on how the China issue shakes out, I think that he could be a monumental president regarding how we take on the Chinese. Again, we’ll see.

I’ve really appreciated his approach to the War on Terror. What he has done with Soleimani in Iran, for instance. Under Bush and Obama, Soleimani and the Iranians basically had us buffaloed into a corner, and we wouldn’t take them on because we feared World War III. Well, Trump just gave that a gigantic middle finger and reminded them that they are the junior partner in this relationship, and that we would be setting the agenda. That’s precisely what needed to happen for over 16 years under two different administrations from two different political parties, and Trump finally did the right thing.

And I will tell you, from people that I know who worked the Iran issue inside the intelligence community, they were absolutely elated with Trump’s decision to kill Soleimani.

So overall, I think that the president is doing much better than many of us may have been concerned about, and he deserves a very serious consideration of our vote in 2020.

As it relates to my own personal ideology or philosophy, I would like to say I’m an old school Democrat of the Kennedy/Foley ilk, a Democrat who understands that America was and remains exceptional, and that we have a critical role to play in the world, and that it’s a role that will be respected by our partners even when they don’t like it. It’s leadership through unabashed strength. Trump has restored some of that which was lost under Bush and Obama, contrary to the media hype that would tell you otherwise. I think that’s lost on the modern American Left.

On domestic policies, I think that I believe the same things that I did ten years ago, like the importance of controlled immigration, that we have to have borders. I don’t see that as something that is part of the modern Democratic Left. Trump’s brought that out in stark relief.

But this schism within the Democratic Party isn’t because of Trump. It’s a fight that’s been had over many decades, in fits and starts. We dealt with this desire to unreasonably expand the state, for example, back in the 60s and 70s. Meanwhile, I thought we had put the socialist genie back in the bottle and marginalized those radical leftist elements around that same time. But very clearly, as the DNC declares Ocasio-Cortez the future of the Democratic Party, I think these dark forces are at play again. And we have a huge problem – we being the party, and the nation. It’s a problem that would leave people like Jack Kennedy and Tom Foley rolling over in their graves.

I don’t know where people like me go if a progressive wins the Democratic nomination or the presidency. Polling shows that moderate and conservative Democrats make up anywhere from 35% to 50% of the party. I think our vote will be up for grabs. I think many of us will gravitate to a new Republican Party.

DW: Is there something that you would want our readers to know that you and I haven’t touched on, or perhaps that you think is important that hasn’t been really talked about in the various interviews in which you’ve engaged?

WRIGHT: I don’t think that most Americans understand what the socialist movement in this country is up to. I think many people understand that socialism is bad, although a shocking number of Democrats, particularly younger voters, don’t think it’s a bad thing at all. Still, people don’t appreciate appreciate what Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are doing with the Democratic Party, and I don’t think that most people appreciate why that’s bad, not just for the Democratic Party, but for the country. And ultimately the world.

Let me explain.

Our Republic requires multiple parties to hold each other to account. We have to have multiple voices at the table to challenge each other, to question each other. Our Republic thrives or falls based on that broad contribution and debate, and right now, the Democratic Party is becoming a movement that doesn’t warrant consideration. The reason is its embrace of socialists and their wicked ideology.

The Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders movement – Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA – started many years ago, of course. But their plans really morphed and solidified in 2012, as the DSA put forward a strategy document that basically said to its members, “Look, as socialists, we know that we can’t win in this country running as the Socialist Party. We have to rebrand ourselves. That means we register as Democrats, we run as Democrats, and then push the party so far to the Left as fast as we can that the party fissures into progressives vs. moderates and conservatives. We will then break off, taking with us the bulk of the party, the base. Then and only then can we revive the Socialist Party. Because then we won’t be scary anymore. We will have normalized the socialist agenda.” It’s an agenda, of course, that has been rightfully smeared by its decades of mass death and destruction in every country that has adopted it. So, no wonder they’re trying to rebrand it.

That’s where we’re at. And that’s what Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie are doing. So, when you hear them talk about “free stuff” – education, housing, health care, jobs – know that they’re rebranding themselves with unserious policy proposals that they can’t possibly afford not because they’re being serious, but only trying to make the Socialist Party less scary.

It’s all in the 2012 DSA strategy document, all available on the DSA website for anyone to read. I wish more Americans took the time to review it, understand it, and grasp the treachery of Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders. They’re using the Democratic Party as though it’s a host to be invaded and occupied by a socialist virus. The only aim is to strip the Democratic Party down to nothing, destroy it, and then leave with the voters who would serve their revived Socialist Party.

If that were to happen, think of the consequences not just for the Democratic Party or even America. What would happen to the world? What would happen to humanity if, somehow, the United States were to succumb to socialism?

Who would step into that vacuum of global leadership that for so long has defended liberty and freedom? The clear answer is China, a country that persecutes its people, that embraces murderous concentration camps for the Uighur people. That is the government that would be controlling humanity’s future.

That is what’s at stake. That’s what happens to liberty, to freedom, if the United States, imperfect as we are, is no longer on the scene because we embrace socialism.

And for those who argue that Russia might step up, count me skeptical. With an economy the size of Italy and a leadership that enjoys oppression as much as the Chinese, these are not the people we want to lead humanity.

So, if the Democratic Party falls to the socialist wing with all their horrific values, and the United States is handicapped and is no longer able to play the role that it does in the world, imperfect as we may be, we will jeopardize all the progress that we have fought so hard for, certainly since World War II, to create a more just and a more peaceful world.

That’s really what is at stake for me as I watch the Democratic Party fall into the socialist trap, as I watch Chuck and Nancy and the DNC embrace Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders as the future of the Democratic Party. I watch in horror as progressives in the media fawn over Ocasio-Cortez. People like Rachel Maddow and Joy Behar package her as some fun, dance-on-the-roof kind of girl that’s just a lovely representation of womanhood or being black or brown.

If that bologna salesmanship convinces enough Americans that socialism isn’t so bad after all, and we start going down that path, then we will lose everything that we have fought for over the past 100 years. So we have to get this right. We have to self-correct – as a Democratic Party, as a country – because so much is at stake.

 

I’d like to thank Bryan Dean Wright for taking the time to speak with me about such a monumental issue. For more information, you can follow Wright on Twitter, or check out his official website.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protestor restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

________________________________

Personal Thoughts Leading to B.D. Wright Deep State Interview

Intro by John R. Houk

Intro © January 26, 2020

___________________________

INTERVIEW (Part I & II): Former CIA Officer On What The ‘Deep State’ Looks Like If A Democrat Wins In 2020, And What Can Be Done To Recover

 

© Copyright 2020, The Daily Wire

 

Standing with Sources and more FDR Criticism – PT Two


Herbert Romerstein

John R. Houk

© August 14, 2014

 

This is where I continue from Part One. I will get to the Marxist infiltration of the FDR Administration in more detail, but I still need to address the Conservative source that I sense Leftists will gripe as Right Wing propaganda.

 

I had to explain using Jonah Goldberg as a source because he was the source DTN used to compare FDR New Deal actions with totalitarian nations Germany, Italy and Japan which operated on a Fascist paradigm of Corporate Nationalistic Socialism. Then I went to M. Stanton Evans as a source of some of the revelations of Soviet-Marxist infiltration Roosevelt’s U.S. Government.

 

For me Evans is the expert on Soviet infiltration, but as I discovered in Part One, Ronald Radosh is the go-to-guy for all things Cold War involving the former USSR. Radosh criticizes Evans’ 2007 book, “Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies”. And Radosh is fairly critical of Evans’ scholastic work. Evans responds to Radosh’s criticism of his scholarly work with just as much vigor in a response. So unless you read the primary sources for yourself you are left with the decision – Whom do you believe?

 

Trust me, both Radosh and Evans have plenty of fellow Conservatives that agree with each one of them. The irony is that both of them agree on one thing; viz. that there was Marxist-Soviet infiltration in the U.S. Government. Their disagreement is largely based on each other’s interpretation of the primary sources to the degree of infiltration and as to who was an actual infiltrator and who was character assassinated by Senator Joe McCarthy. Radosh sticks to the vilification of McCarthy and Evans takes the path that McCarthy’s image needs to be redeemed from vilification.

 

I first became acquainted with “Blacklisted” via Ann Coulter in her review that I included in an old SlantRight.com post I entitled “The Redemption of Joe McCarthy”. Since the days of 2007 Evans has written a kind of update or sequel to “Blacklisted” along with the former head of the U.S. Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation – Herbert Romerstein. This book was published in late 2012 and is entitled, “Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government”.

 

So how credible is Herbert Romerstein? Romerstein passed away in May 2013. To get a feel for just how significant his knowledge base I read two obituaries. One from Wes Vernon on Renew America and the other from Cliff Kincade at Accuracy in Media (AIM).

 

 

… His expertise earned him high intelligence and counter-subversion posts in the legislative and executive branches of government. His positions included being a lead investigator for the House Committee on Un-American Activities (later the House Committee on Internal Security), and the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence. His encyclopedic knowledge was also shared in testimony before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee and the Subversive Activities Control Board.

 

He had an understanding of the Cold War that was so voluminous it would be a challenge to find anyone who can match it and carry on its work. Of course, much of that understanding has been building up over the years in his own personal library. Thankfully those works will be preserved by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. But how can one possibly duplicate the volumes of detailed material that Herb carried in his head? …

 

 

Herb – born in 1931 – joined the Communist Youth League, and then the Communist Party. In 1950 when the Korean War broke out, his nagging doubts about communism quickly became revulsion, and he joined the U.S. Army, fought the Communists on the battlefields of Asia, and returned home to wage lifelong war against them on the battlefield of ideas with an investigative fervor fixated on exposing their subversion of U.S. society and their mischief throughout the world.

 

 

Herb’s other volumes included The KGB Against the Main Enemy: How the Intelligence Service Operates in the U.S. (co-authored with Stanislav Levchenko); Soviet Active Measures and Propaganda: New Thinking in the Gorbachev Era; The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors, co-authored by Eric Breindel (where no relevant details in the record of FDR Svengali Harry Hopkins are spared – more on that below); and Stalin’s Secret Agents: the Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government co-authored with M. Stanton Evans. (This book provides shocking revelations on which the current series of our column is based.)

 

READ ENTIRETY (Herbert Romerstein (RIP): Part 7: Stalin’s Secret Agents (and an American who fought them for over 60 years until his dying breath); By Wes Vernon; Renew America; 5/16/13)

 

Five months before Barack Obama was elected to his first term as president, Herbert Romerstein and I finished a Washington, D.C. briefing on “The Stealth Candidate”—Barack Obama—and his communist connections. …

 

 

It’s true that Herb worked for the House Committee on Un-American Activities. He also worked for the House Internal Security Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, and headed the Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation and Active Measures of the United States Information Agency. He was part of the Reagan Revolution that safeguarded our freedom and turned back the Soviet Union and its proxies in the 1980s. As a result of his research in the archives of the Communist International in Moscow, which were briefly opened for outside inspection after the Soviet collapse, Herb ascertained that Harry Bridges of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union had been a secret member of the Communist Party USA. Bridges had always denied party membership.

 

 

Herb’s passing has left the anti-communist cause without a walking encyclopedia of knowledge about the conflict between communism and freedom. His archives have been acquired by the Hoover Institution. Milbank and other reporters would rather see them burned.

 

Some may not know that this fierce anti-communist was once a communist himself. Herb was in the tradition of Whittaker Chambers, the ex-communist who exposed Alger Hiss. His books included The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage, co-authored with Eric Breindel, and Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government, co-authored with veteran journalist M. Stanton Evans. It documents how hundreds of Soviet agents infiltrated the U.S. government during and after the World War II period.

 

 

Herb’s masterful report, “From Henry Wallace to William Ayers – the Communist and ‘Progressive’ Movements,” analyzes how Henry Wallace’s Third Party Movement in 1948—the Progressive Party—was under total Communist Party control, and he explains how the “New Left” of the 1960s and 70s included Communists involved in such groups as Students for a Democratic Society and its terrorist offspring, the Weather Underground. Some of them would later become members of “Progressives for Obama.”

 

The problems in Congress did not escape Herb’s attention and will be the subject of a forthcoming book from Trevor Loudon. In addition to exposing Ted Kennedy’s collaboration with the KGB against the Reagan Administration, Herb filled in some of the most important details about the communist background of Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).

 

Herb’s interest in the Barbara Lee story actually began in 1984, when Herb was selected, along with Michael Ledeen, to analyze documents captured on Grenada after the U.S. liberation of that island from communists. The result was Grenada documents: an overview and selection, an extraordinary compilation of documents on how a communist regime operates.

 

Some of the documents demonstrated that … READ ENTIRETY (The Wit and Wisdom of Herbert Romerstein; By Cliff Kincaid; AIM; 5/13/13)

 

The once reputable Kirkus Reviews has harsh words in reviewing “Stalin’s Secret Agents” by Evans and Romerstein:

 

 

… Evans and Romerstein discuss the roles of Alger Hiss and Armand Hammer, and they cite an impressive array of sources in both English and Russian. However, as has been their practice for decades, the authors equate presence at an event—e.g., Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill at Yalta—with the covert wielding of tremendous influence. That Hiss, Hammer and others accused of treason by Evans and Romerstein could have achieved the results for which they are blamed falls into the realm of speculation, no matter the breadth of research. Their speculation is interesting, and some may be true, but their seeming inability to distinguish between factual evidence and assumption weakens the book. …

 

This treatment of an important topic is tainted by excesses of preconception and ideology. (Kirkus Reviews: “STALIN’S SECRET AGENTS: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government”)

 

The original Kirkus Reviews had its beginning by its founder Virginia Kirkus in the early 1930s originally as a book reviewer for Librarians. This lineage ended in 2009. I don’t know the story of who picked up the rights to the brand name but the Kirkus Reviews was resurrected in 2010 as an online book reviewer. The blog The Passive Voice exposes the current Kirkus Reviews as a mere shell of its former integrity. PG excerpts from an article at Indies Unlimited. PG provides a link but seems to have removed the original article or perhaps changed its url address. When I did a search on Indies Unlimited I discovered their outlook must have changed about Kirkus Reviews because now the only related posts seem to be pertaining to glowing relationship based on interviews with the current Kirkus Reviews Senior Editor Karen Schechner. Regardless of the change of attitudes by Indies Unlimited you should read the excerpts from PG. I excerpt PG’s feelings about Kirkus Reviews which can be found at the of the Indies Unlimited original excerpts (How’s that for repetitive and confusing name-usage?):

 

PG says Old Kirkus had some credibility. In his unflinchingly humble opinion, for indies, New Kirkus is pretty much a vanity review publisher.

 

The article in Indies Unlimited estimates Kirkus has a circulation of about 3,000. That’s fewer people than come to The Passive Voice on most days.

 

… (Kirkus Reviews: A Disparity Apparent; Passive Voice; 2/1/14)

 

The point being when it comes to political reviews Kirkus Reviews seems to concur with Leftist generalizations than praising the original documentation for what it is. The Kirkus Reviews of Evans and Romerstein’s expose on the FDR and to a certain extant the Truman Administration simultaneously uses the words “breadth of research” its culminating sentence: “This treatment of an important topic is tainted by excesses of preconception and ideology.” Wow, talking about bias in preconception and ideology. There is criticism without actual critical citation.

 

End Part Two

 

JRH 8/14/14

Please Support NCCR

 

Standing with Sources and more FDR Criticism – PT One


Stalin-FDR sitting side-by-side

John R. Houk

© August 13, 2013

 

I have been on a general quest to examine the impeachable offenses of past Presidents from the 20th century to the present. So far I have posted on Theodore Roosevelt to Warren Harding followed by Calvin Coolidge to Franklin Roosevelt.

 

In looking at FDR I focused primarily on the impeachable potential related to the New Deal still hailed under the mythology as digging the USA out of the Great Depression. I showed that the numbers do not match the mythology. Most realistic Economists show that the American prosperity returned to the USA largely to the war production involved in building a military to confront a two-theater war against Nazi Germany (Europe and N. Africa) and Imperial Japan (Pacific and Asia).

 

I was thinking after I posted on FDR that there are other nefarious actions that I believe under the U.S. Constitution could have been impeachable. BUT I sincerely doubt such info was made public even by people who knew and even in the present Democrats would pooh-pooh the documented evidence as Conservative sour grapes meant to smear a man under hero worship in American history.

 

The nefarious actions I did not get to in writing of FDR potential impeachable offensives is the degree that Marxism had infiltrated his Administration. But before I get to the Marxist-FDR issue I feel the need to address one of the sources in the last post that looked at FDR.

 

I did allude that the Presidential powers enjoyed by FDR were near dictatorial. The primary source for the dictatorial accusation about FDR comes from Jonah Goldberg. As a Conservative I like Jonah Goldberg. Here is a short profile from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI):

 

Research Areas:

 

·         U.S. politics and culture

 

·         The Progressive movement

 

·         The Conservative movement

 

·        Media

 

 

A bestselling author and columnist, Jonah Goldberg’s nationally syndicated column appears regularly in scores of newspapers across the United States. He is also a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, a member of the board of contributors to USA Today, a contributor to Fox News, a contributing editor to National Review, and the founding editor of National Review Online. He was named by the Atlantic magazine as one of the top 50 political commentators in America. In 2011 he was named the Robert J. Novak Journalist of the Year at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He has written on politics, media, and culture for a wide variety of publications and has appeared on numerous television and radio programs. Prior to joining National Review, he was a founding producer for Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg on PBS and wrote and produced several other PBS documentaries. He is the recipient of the prestigious Lowell Thomas Award. He is the author of two New York Times bestsellers, The Tyranny of Clichés (Sentinel HC, 2012) and Liberal Fascism (Doubleday, 2008).  At AEI, Mr. Goldberg writes about political and cultural issues for American.com and the Enterprise Blog.

 

Experience

 

·         Contributing editor, National Review, 1998 – present

 

·         Founding editor, editor-at-large, National Review Online, 1998 – present

 

·         Columnist, 1999-present

 

·         Senior Producer, Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg, 1994 – 98

 

·         Research assistant, American Enterprise Institute, 1992 – 94

 

Education

 

B.A., Goucher College

 

All in all as a Conservative I find these credentials quite respectable. It would be even nicer if Goldberg was able to add a Masters and a Ph.D. to his résumé. Lacking the academic credentials it has been a boon for Progressives when they notice that either Goldberg or a publicist (or maybe both) have inflated his honors. The use of false honors admittedly tarnish books and articles in their credibility in scholarship.

 

Here are a couple examples from Left Wing online rags that have taken the full opportunity to impugn Jonah Goldberg:

 

Jonah Goldberg profile picture including glowing profile

clip_image001

 

On the dust jacket of his new book, “The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas,” best-selling conservative author and commentator Jonah Goldberg is described as having “twice been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.”

 

In fact, as Goldberg acknowledged on Tuesday, he has never been a Pulitzer nominee, but is merely one of thousands of entrants.

 

When this bit of résumé inflation was pointed out by a reporter for msnbc.com, Goldberg said he hadn’t meant to mislead anyone and removed the Pulitzer claim from his bio at National Review Online. …

 

His publisher, Penguin Group (USA), said the error was unintentional and it would remove the Pulitzer word from his book jacket when it’s time for the first reprint, “just like any other innocent mistake brought to our attention.” …

 

What’s surprising in Goldberg’s case is that he has been called out for the same résumé padding before, when his previous book was published.

 

There is more character destroying if you choose to read entirety (Conservative author Jonah Goldberg drops claim of two Pulitzer nominations; By Bill Dedman, Investigative Reporter; NBC News; 5/9/12 2:36 AM)

 

Then there is Slate in 2008 castigating Goldberg’s book, “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning”: 

 

Why did Jonah Goldberg write Liberal Fascism? To find out, you must wade through 391 pages of tendentious scholarship. A mighty jackbooted procession—Herbert Croly, John Dewey, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Herbert Marcuse, John F. Kennedy, Saul Alinsky, Ralph Nader, Hillary Clinton—goose-steps across the page to illustrate Goldberg’s apparent belief that, with the exception of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations and everything published in National Review (where Goldberg is contributing editor), every word previously written or spoken in favor of mobilizing the citizenry was either proto-fascist, fascist, or heavily influenced by fascism. …

 

 

Liberal Fascism, then, is a howl of rage disguised as intellectual history. Some mean liberals called Goldberg hurtful names, so he’s responding with 400 pages that boil down to: I know you are, but what am I?

 

 

Goldberg’s argument begins with the observation that well into the 1930s, the American progressive movement had more admiration than scorn for Benito Mussolini, who coined the words fascist and totalitarian, and even for Adolf Hitler. This isn’t news to anyone with even a glancing familiarity with American history. Goldberg further argues that fascism initially evolved from and positioned itself as a muscular brand of socialism (hence Nazi, an abbreviation for “National Socialist German Workers Party”). Also true, and also known to most educated people.

 

 

…  Here Goldberg is, for instance, trying very hard not to call Franklin Roosevelt a fascist:

 

This is not to say that the New Deal was evil or Hitlerian. But the New Deal was a product of the impulses and ideas of its era. And these ideas and impulses are impossible to separate from the fascist moment in Western civilization. … Franklin Rosevelt (sic) was no fascist, at least not in the sense that he thought of himself in this way. But many of his ideas and policies were indistinguishable from fascism. And today we live with the fruits of fascism, and we call them liberal.

 

Thirty-five pages later, Goldberg can hold back no longer. “[I]t seems impossible to deny that the New Deal was objectively fascistic,” he crows, imposing without irony a Marxist analysis.

 

The rest of Goldberg’s argument unfolds as follows: Wilson begat FDR, who begat contemporary liberalism. The only reason the United States didn’t remain a fascist country like Italy or Germany or Spain was “American exceptionalism,” i.e., the public’s resistance to tyranny over the long term. But Democratic presidents from Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy to Lyndon Johnson to Bill Clinton continued either to impose fascism or to bring the country terrifyingly close to it. To demonstrate this, Goldberg is obliged to render an ever-more-flexible definition of the word fascist.

 

Was Bill Clinton a fascist president? Well, he certainly believed in the primacy of emotion and the supremacy of his own intellect. … But I think if we are going to call him a fascist, it must be in the sense that he was a sponge for the ideas and emotions of liberalism. To say that he was a fascist is to credit him with more ideology and principle than justified. He was the sort of president liberal fascism could only produce during unexciting times.

 

 

By this point, Goldberg’s reasoning has progressed from unconvincing to incoherent. Modern liberalism, he argues, is linked to Nazism because both contain a cult of the organic (Hitler was a vegetarian) and both embrace sexual freedom (Himmler ordered his men “to father as many children as possible without marrying” in order to achieve the Aryan ideal). Eventually, Goldberg backs himself into asserting, in effect, that any government that does more than prevent abortions and provide for the common defense is inherently fascist. …

 

Character Assassination in entirety (Am I a Fascist? Jonah Goldberg’s tendentious history of liberalism; By Timothy Noah; Slate; 1/28/08 7:49 AM)

 

Timothy Noah’s criticism isn’t based on dented credentials, but rather Left Wing rage about equating the history of American Liberalism with the seeds of fascism. Noah’s rage is exposed as mere character assassination by,

 

Goldberg’s argument begins with the observation that well into the 1930s, the American progressive movement had more admiration than scorn for Benito Mussolini, who coined the words fascist and totalitarian, and even for Adolf Hitler. This isn’t news to anyone with even a glancing familiarity with American history. Goldberg further argues that fascism initially evolved from and positioned itself as a muscular brand of socialism (hence Nazi, an abbreviation for “National Socialist German Workers Party”). Also true, and also known to most educated people.” (Bold Emphasis mine)

 

Out of Noah’s own mouth (or I guess keyboard): Noah is full of crap in criticizing Goldberg.

 

So Goldberg connected the dots to the historical phenomena of using fascist ideology as a global symptom to reverse global economic global depression. Just as fascism in its essence is connected to Socialism, it needs to be pointed out that at least influential people in the FDR Administration had an affinity to Soviet inspired Marxism as a utopian longer term solution for a transformed human society.

 

Check out this excerpt from the admittedly Conservative Human Events posting a book review to M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein’s book entitled, “Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government”.

 

How did this massive penetration and policy twisting occur? Deception, Evans mentioned at a recent lecture, succeeds best when people want to be deceived. Franklin Roosevelt’s willful blindness to Stalin’s malignant goals, aggravated by the President’s health problems, was clearly a major cause. FDR saw what he wanted to see: that Josef Stalin liked him and would cooperate in preserving a peaceful and just world. That mindset went hand-in-hand with a New Deal bureaucracy chock-a-block with Soviet agents, Communist party members and ardent Stalinist sympathizers, including two FDR confidants, Lauchlin Currie and Harry Hopkins, FDR’s most trusted friend who for several years lived at the White House. (INFILTRATION, INTRIGUE AND COMMUNISTS; By Wes Vernon; Human Events; 1/11/2013 02:10 PM)

 

Before I look at the Soviet agents and sympathizers this book review mentions, it is probably important to get ahead of the typical Leftist accusation of using Right Wing nut jobs as a credible source (as if Left Wing nut jobs are a credible source).

 

M. Stanton Evans

 

In writing “Stalin’s Secret Agents” Stanton used primary sources. Something Leftists won’t mention in criticizing Stanton. Rather than criticizing original source material Leftists typically fall back on vilifying one’s intellectual character if they are a part of the Conservative Right. In another book review of Evan’s book mentioned above Isabel Mittelstadt writes:

 

Evans stressed the importance of using primary sources, explaining to the audience that secondary sources – such as the Internet – are often just “recycled [information] that people have not researched themselves.”  The authors’ reliance on primary sources in developing the research for their book gives readers a strong sense of credibility.

 

The conclusions Evans reached from conducting this thorough research brought him to draw parallels between Communist infiltration during World War II and problems he sees in today’s politics. (Clear & Present Dangers; By Isabel Mittelstadt; Accuracy in Academia; 6/25/13)

 

Here is the typical criticism Evans receives at the hands of Left Wingers. In this case about his book “Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and his Fight Against America’s Enemies” written originally in 2007:

 

Ronald Radosh, a historian and expert on the Cold War spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, states that “rather than a biography, Evans has written a defense counsel’s brief for his client, whom he seeks to defend against all the slanders made about McCarthy by his political enemies.” He praises Evans’ “extensive research”, and his exposure of the political agendas of McCarthy’s main opponents and their unwillingness to look more closely into Soviet penetration. He also commends Evans for correcting the view that all of McCarthy’s victims were innocent. Radosh severely criticises McCarthy’s failure to distinguish between communists and anti-communist liberals, and between those expressing communist views and those working as Soviet agents, and criticises Evans for glossing over this. Radosh concludes:[3]

 

Evans’s book falls far short of what it might have done to correct the record about the era. His own exaggerations and unwarranted leaps parallel those made by McCarthy. It is unlikely that his hope to change history’s verdict will become a reality as a result of the publication of this book.

 

Reviewing the book for The New York Times, Pulitzer Prize-winning American historian David Oshinsky was harshly critical, calling Evans’ primary thesis a “remarkable fantasy,” asserting that Evans has uncovered no fresh evidence and arguing that the evidence supports the historical consensus that Communist spy networks in the United States had largely been dismantled by the time McCarthy started his campaign and that McCarthy was “a bit player in the battle against Communist subversion, a latecomer who turned a vital crusade into a political mud bath… The fiercely negative judgments of those who lived through the McCarthy era are widely accepted today for good reason: they ring true.”[1]

 

Kirkus Reviews called the book “[a] revisionist biography”, which although a “detailed account” is “marred by ideological blinders” and fit “[f]or true believers only”,[2] Publishers Weekly describing Evans as “given to conspiracy thinking”[4] and Reason magazine describing it as “revisionist” and “a breathless defense of McCarthy.”[5] (Blacklisted by HistoryReviews; from Wikipedia; last modified on 7/29/14 at 08:50)

 

In a book review for the same book Wes Vernon writes the Evans response to such criticism:

 

Generally, the media that trashed the Evans book did so either from a wealth of ignorance or willingness to gloss over the book’s irrefutable documentation.

 

As Evans tells AIM, “the negative reviews in almost all cases conform to a common pattern” of error on three points in particular:

 

1—“Failure to come to grips” with such issues as the bogus quote imputed to McCarthy of “205” communists in the State Department, the case of Annie Lee Moss, and the real security dangers at Fort Monmouth. Considering that Evans’ style in the 643-page book is to avoid name-calling while methodically laying out the evidence,  his description of critics as failing to “come to grips” with reality may be his polite way of saying (correctly in our judgment) that where the facts did not fit the critics’ biases, the facts were simply ignored. One cannot be a failure at something unless one first tries to succeed.

 

2—Misrepresenting what the author had to say about Owen Lattimore, McCarthy’s George Marshall speech, and the sources of McCarthy’s information. As Evans says, “Some of these distortions are so far afield from my actual views as to suggest the reviewer hasn’t read the book (the most charitable explanation that I can think of).”

 

3—In lieu of facts, there were those who resorted to the ad hominem attack. “By far the worst” of these was an “utterly false” accusation by Ronald Radosh. (Mainstream Media Try to Burn a Book; By Wes Vernon; Accuracy in Media; 6/24/08)

 

 

The lesson is read the original sources before engaging in vilification. On the other hand a few Conservatives notably of the background toward which I often gravitate toward (i.e. Neoconservatives) have been critical of M. Stanton Evans. Notably former Left Wingers turned Conservative Ronald Radosh and David Horowitz. Actually in Horowitz’s case the criticism lay in another journalist-writer Diana West who publish a similar indictment about Marxist infiltration into the U.S. Government (American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character). Radosh’s academic credentials are quite impressive. David Solway writing on PJMedia provides an even tempered outlook in the Diana West vs. Radosh-Horowitz disagreement on scholastic analysis:

 

 

It began when David Horowitz at FrontPage Magazine scrubbed Mark Tapson’s favorable account of the book and replaced it with Ron Radosh’s intemperate and distressingly ad hominem demolition masking as a “review.” Indeed, Radosh’s logomachic intervention read more like a personal vendetta than a scrupulous assessment. As a seasoned writer and veteran debater, Radosh should have known better. From that point on, a war of words was launched and the psychodrama shows no signs of tapering off. West published her Rebuttal and was heatedly defended by the notable historian Andrew Bostom and by many of the talkbackers to Horowitz’s own site. Meanwhile Horowitz and Radosh, and even the orotund Conrad Black, continued to pummel both book and author.

 

 

I can only say that Diana West’s thesis is surely deserving of scholarly consideration, whether pro or con. Whether one agrees with her conclusions or not, one must recognize that her argument is meticulously researched and abundantly footnoted. It seems to me that David Horowitz was wrong to remove a review that he had originally vetted and, furthermore, to substitute a largely personal imprecation in its stead rather than, say, to post a countervailing review and let the reader decide. Whatever his motive, the decision leaves an editorial stench that is not easily dissipated.

 

READ ENTIRETY (Revisiting the Diana West Controversy: The ongoing implosion of the conservative ethos; By David Solway; PJMedia; 9/16/13 12:01 am)

 

Since West’s book American Betrayal broaches the same subject matter that many of the well-researched and documented works of M. Stanton Evans, I had to include that here pertaining to source criticism.

 

End Part One

 

JRH 8/13/14

Please Support NCCR

The New Marxist Infiltration


Taking USA back from Hammer-Sickle-Swastika

John R. Houk

© April 1, 2013

 

There was a time in America that being a Communist or Marxist sympathizer was an expression of un-American treason. Senator Joseph McCarthy was initially looked upon as an American hero for exposing Soviet-Communism in the U.S. government. After McCarthy’s vigilance began to spill-over into the First Amendment protected Right to believe in Marxist ideology outside of the direct manipulation of the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), then Liberal Democrats and Center-Left Republican began an agenda to smear the character and agenda of Senator Joe McCarthy. McCarthy was publically transformed from an American hero into an American witch hunter. Witch hunting of course is viewed as a profession of creating lies to convict people of crimes that really do not exist.

 

For example in the ‘real world’ there is no such thing as witches with supernatural powers to wiggle their noses and speak a few Latin words and create some evil ex nihilo. McCarthy’s agenda was painted as finding Communist spies ex nihilo from influential people that believed in the principles of Karl Marx or flirted with the idea Communist utopianism in their youth out of a dissatisfaction of a Free Market society favoring the opportunity of individuals utilizing hard work for prosperity while the less entrepreneurial and oft time poor people seemed stuck in lower income working class misery.

 

In defense of a Free Market society that experiences the Liberty guaranteed with a Bill of Rights; whether there is Marxist society or a Free Market society there will always be people stuck in low income working class situations. The reality is the low income people in a Free Market society usually have a better life than the Liberty-Less low income people of a Marxist-Socialist society. The innovative prosperity of the few more often provides a better income for the poor in a Free Market world than for the income of the poor in a Marxist-Socialist world.  Scarcity reigns for the poor of Marxist-Socialism and abundance reigns for the poor of Free Market Capitalism.

 

Painting McCarthy as a Communist witch hunter was the beginning of the slow acceptance of stealth Marxism in American society. Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU – See Also HERE and HERE) used their Marxist sympathies to aid in the eradication of Christian morals in America which has paved the way to removing prayer from schools, making abortion-murder on demand as a birth control method normal, validating ungodly homosexuality as normal rather than as an abomination toward God, using the tax code to prevent Ministers of the Gospel from endorsing godly political candidates for Office and now the pervasive anti-Christian of entrenched Liberals has emboldened more attacks on Christianity in America.

 

Prayer at public sports events (as in Public Schools and Colleges) or City Council meetings is being attacked with the threat of litigation that Public Schools and small to medium sized cities cannot afford to litigate. In these cases Marxist ideals are infused into our Free Market society ironically because the financial clout of Leftist-minded organizations and individuals can out-fund the local Public Schools or the Local Governments. It is the use of the Free Market to destroy the Free Market Liberty society.

 

It is time to publicly rehabilitate the image of Joe McCarthy where he was correct and to criticize him where he was incorrect on a First Amendment basis. It was evil for the old Soviet Union to infiltrate our government to bring down the U.S. Constitutional government from within. It was wrong for McCarthy to brand people as a threat to the nation because of a mere belief in Marxism. As much as Marxism is against the Liberty principles of initiated by America’s Founding Fathers, it is a First Amendment Right to believe in Marxist principles.

 

And yet when dedicated Marxists utilize Liberty to terminate Liberty via deception to purposefully eradicate the Constitution, we who still believe in Liberty must begin to take a stand even if Marxists have convinced society it is politically incorrect to take public stands that contradict stealth Marxist principles.

 

For example preventing Christianity influencing government is our Constitutional Right. Marxists may take the words of Thomas Jefferson that he wrote to Danbury Baptists that the government has no Right to enfranchise or disenfranchise a Church in the Federal Government; those words are not in the Constitution. Not only that, but Jefferson was not one of the principle framers of the Constitution.

 

Another example is the use of a Left-minded Judiciary to redefine the Constitution as a Living parchment in which it can be interpreted according to what the Left find culturally relevant in the present. This kind of Judicial fiat creates Law unconstitutionally. The Constitution that frames the three branches of government that exist with checks and balances under the concept that not any government branch has absolute power limits the Judiciary to only interpreting Law and NOT Bench-Legislating Law.

 

The Constitution insures that a duly elected Congress and the sovereign States make the Law with the President signing off or vetoing legislation and with the duly elected Congress having the expanded privilege to override a Presidential veto. The sovereign State’s Right in this Constitutional process is the required percentage to ratify Constitutional Amendments that Amends a section of the Constitution or adds to the Constitution. In which the Judiciary has no power to terminate a State approved Amendment.

 

Marxist utopians such as our President Obama and the Dems intend to use the Living Constitution deception to terminate portions of the Constitution and current Amendments to mean something not Originally Intended (See Also HERE) as the Law.

 

And this is where the accusation that our President is a Manchurian Candidate comes into play:

 

The Manchurian Candidate (1959), by Richard Condon, is a political thriller novel about the son of a prominent US political family who is brainwashed into being an unwitting assassin for a Communist conspiracy.

 

The novel has been adapted twice into a feature film by the same title, in 1962 and again in 2004. (Wikipedia)

 

I am not such a Conspiracy Theorist that I believe President Obama is a brainwashed individual from a Communist nation. The international vision of Soviet-Communism collapsed at the dissolution of the USSR into separate sovereign nations shedding off the hegemony of a Russian dominated Communist government. The only other Communist Super Power that still exists is more interested in its National Interests that the global domination of Maoist-Marxist world. The People’s Republic of China (Red China) is interested in regional hegemony and confronting other powers that may conflict with those regional National Interests. For Red China that may include a wary eye on Russia as much as on the USA. It is only when Russia’s and China’s National Interest intersect in keeping the USA at bay do Russia and China appear as friends against the USA.

 

I am such a Conspiracy Theorist that President Obama is involved in some sort of nefarious Marxism to change American culture to seem closer to Marxist utopianism rather than our Founding Fathers’ concept of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness based on a combination of Christian Morality and Greco-Roman political thought.

 

Whether or not Obama’s Marxist-Socialist utopianism is based on the individual precepts he developed from the Marxist influence of family and mentors OR from a network of stealth Marxist Global Elitists is something I cannot put my finger on. Whether Obama’s change agenda is individual or networked is irrelevant. That which is relevant is Obama has a Gramsci-like agenda to transform America away from its roots into a Communist utopia in the near future or to create a foundation for future Marxist-Elitist to build on.

 

That is what makes President Barack Hussein Obama a Manchuria Candidate.

 

VIDEO: The Manchurian President

 

The inspiration for these thoughts is an article by Kris Zane found at Western Center for Journalism (WCJ) entitled – you got it – The Manchurian Candidate.

 

JRH 4/1/13

Please Support NCCR

Fantastic Story of Mikhail Kryzhanovsky


Mikhail Kryzhanovsky

 

 

John R. Houk

© August 26, 2011

 

Here is a dandy Conspiracy Theory that I am guessing you probably never heard of. It is the case of former Russian and Ukrainian super spy Mikhail Kryzhanovsky. After Kryzhanovsky’s days as a KGB (Russian) and SBU (Ukrainian) spy he then hooked up with the CIA and the FBI as part of a nefarious plan to remold America into a Marxist-Socialist State.

 

Kryzhanovsky even has written a book detailing he worked for President Bill Clinton to architect an espionage plan to implement the CIA-FBI plan which has led to President Barack Hussein Obama as a kind of a Manchurian Candidate who is tasked by Russia to continue the Marxist-Socialist plan to transform America.

 

I found a post at Greg Goss’s Blog that pretty summarizes all the links provided to me by my Conspiracy Theory expert Tony Newbill. The Goss summary is actually attributed Kryzhanovsky that begins with a brief history of the last days of Hitler’s Gestapo through the present day covering just about every conspiracy imaginable and even inventing a few I have never heard of. Kryzhanovsky’s book is entitled “White House special handbook: how to rule the world in the 21st century”:

 

This Handbook was originally written at the request of the Central Intelligence Agency (or was it?), says Kryzhanovsky, a master of deception who claims 30 years’ experience in the intelligence services of the USSR – and of the United States. Now his handbook is being published, with added chapters for the benefit of the broader public, so that people worldwide can learn from his insightful deconstruction of the cynical power plays by which the world is ruled today. Here is the book the President of the United States turns to the first day he steps through the door to the Oval Office and closes only as he walks out for the last time. In fact, the strategies and mindset recommended in these pages are essential tools for capturing the Presidency, much less wielding it. The author swears it’s not a parody – and indeed, if it is, then life imitates art, for the international scene today is either a madhouse or the product of extraordinarily cynical techniques such as these, applied with cold cunning, by our nation’s leaders. Which is it? This book gives a systematic rundown of the powers of the President, and the practical techniques of political influence, espionage, and special operations. A rational, results-based handbook, it is destined to be a secret favorite of politicians, special services agents, CEOs and corporate boards – and those who have to work with them – for the next hundred years to come. * Mykhaylo Kryzhanovsky was born in 1958 in Ukraine. He graduated from Chernovtsy University (BS in languages) and received an extraordinary specialized education at Ivano-Frankovsk University of Social Studies, military college, the KGB counter-espionage school and the KGB IntelligenceInstitute (sic). He was involved in secret operations since 1978, and later served as a USSR intelligence officer, and a member of “Nabat” (the Bell), the KGB’s top secret anti-terror group. He was a senior intelligence officer and a top US government expert with the National Security Service of Ukraine (NSS). His outstanding record of producing up to 20 top-secret government intelligence reports (coded telegrams) a year made him the most productive spy in KGB history, and he reckons that his 30-year espionage career in Russia and the USA makes him one of the top spies alive today. In 1992 as an NSS officer he managed an illegal espionage station in Moscow, Russia, and planned to substitute a stand-in or double for Russian President Boris Yeltsin, who was the greatest threat to Ukraine at the time. There was a leak, and Yeltsin impelled Ukrainian President Kravchuk to sign a secret agreement ending mutual espionage. Fearing that he was about to be liquidated, in 1995 Kryzhanovsky came to the United States. Needless to say, he was warmly greeted in Langley, VA. Another KGB officer, Vladimir Putin, a former FSB (Russian counter-espionage service) chief, used his plan and substituted a double for Yeltsin in 2000. (Algora Publishing, 2007 – Political Science – 255 pages. Available at all reputable sellers; however the above link is to a Google eBook)

 

Frankly the assertions are a bit fantastical for me. This is what I’m going to do here: I am going to begin with some edited tidbits of Tony Newbill in which I will include some of his links. Then I will follow that with Greg Goss compilation attributed to Mikhail Kryzhanovsky.

 

Then you can decide what is valid and not valid.

 

JRH 8/26/11

***********************************

Tony Newbill Thoughts and Links

 

About Mikhail Kryzhanovsky as KGB agent:

 

When you get on the page click the “More” word and it will open up into a letter, read the letter [SlantRight Editor: This will lead to a comment section where will several Newbill comments]:

 

http://connect.freedomworks.org/node/78937

 

[Newbill provides a link to an eBook service that misleadingly says it’s a free download but takes you to a place that charges about $5.00 for download rights. Thus below will be the Google eBook link that provides sample pages of Kryzhanovsky’s book]

 

Here is a handbook by the agent who is making the claims and he wants an Interview:

 

http://tinyurl.com/68lem2j

 

What do you think about this stuff??? I mean this is serious stuff this seems like it should call for an Investigation into a Lot of people, the guy making the claims at least.

 

http://tinyurl.com/3ba24do

 

If this stuff is TRUE then The First thing we the people need to DO is END the FEDERAL RESERVE NOW!!!!  STOP ALL FUNDING from going towards any of these OPERATORS of this Kind of Activity!!!!

 

Mikhail Kryzhanovsky. “Barack Obama and KGB”

 

http://tinyurl.com/3s3czpa

 

Mikhail Kryzhanovsky, KGB. ”Barack Obama and the ‘Millennium Hilton’ conspiracy

 

http://tinyurl.com/45x4nwv

 

So is this Kryzhanovsky fella implying he was the mysterious second shooter that the Warren Commission said never existed? And further is Kryzhanovsky saying he was involved in an assassination plot against Obama to the point of benefitting Hillary? Interesting stuff but I have to weigh the validity.

 

_________________________________

KGB OPERATION “BARACK OBAMA”

 

By Mikhail Kryzhanovsky

Posted by Greg Goss

July 25, 2011

Greg Goss’s Blog

 

This is in the FWIW department. I found it interesting at the very least.
I found it here
http://www2.wnct.com/ugc/snap/news/kgb-operation-barack-obama/2746/ posted by “Tom” This is a CBS affiliate…

 

KGB OPERATION “BARACK OBAMA”
by Mikhail Kryzhanovsky

 

About the author

 

·       30 years of international espionage experience

·       KGB Counterintelligence School

·       KGB Intelligence Institute

·       a former KGB intelligence officer

·       a former KGB “Nabat” anti-terror group sniper

·       a former SBU (Ukrainian Security Service) illegal intelligence officer

·       a former CIA/FBI “Filament”

·       The author of the White House Special Handbook, Algora, New York, 2007

·       The author of the US National Security System, 2011

·       unemployed

·       prof7prof@yahoo.com

·       347-494-4235

·       New York

 

There are no more Democrats and Republicans in America – there are Patriots and Communists. Sorry, I helped Communists, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, to destroy the country. I still have “carte blanche” to kill anybody to keep White House and Congress under CIA control, and CIA wants me back no matter what.


There’s war between CIA and KGB for the White House. Sorry, my fellow Americans, you don’t elect your President any more – CIA and KGB take care of it.


And there’s coming total collapse of America by 2016.

 

Part 1. OSS Operation “President Roosevelt”

October 1995


I discussed with CIA agents Gestapo methods. Actually, I wanted to find Gestapo Chief Mueller, who disappeared in May, 1945. CIA agents got very angry: “We don’t recommend you to do this. Stop it!”

 

I want international Jewish community to ask the White House, what does it mean?


Note. “The head of the Jewish section of the Gestapo (IVB), and the man directly responsible for carrying out the mass extermination program against the Jews by Gestapo, Obersturmannfuerer Eichman, estimated in his report to Himmler that 2,000,000 Jews had been killed by shooting mainly by the Eintzatz Groups. This did not include the estimated 4,000,000 sent by the Gestapo for extermination in annihilation camps – The International Military Tribunal , Nurnberg, 1946, Volume II, Chapter XV, p.282”
June 13, 1942


The Office of Strategic Services was established by a Presidential military order issued by President Roosevelt.
1942 – 1945


Gestapo Chief Heinrich Mueller was recruited and worked for OSS. At OSS order he planned and executed the operation to poison the US President Franklin Roosevelt. He was last seen in the Führerbunker in Berlin on May 1, 1945, the day after Hitler’s suicide. The CIA’s file on Muller was released under the Freedom of Information. Act in 2001, and documents several unsuccessful attempts by U.S. agencies to find Mueller. The U.S. National Archives commentary on the file concludes: “Though inconclusive on Muller’s ultimate fate, the file is very clear on one point. The CIA and its predecessors (OSS) did not know Muller’s whereabouts at any point after the war. The CIA was never in contact with Mueller.”


April 12, 1945


On the afternoon of April 12, Roosevelt said, “I have a terrific pain in the back of my head.” He then slumped forward in his chair, unconscious, and was carried into his bedroom. The president’s attending cardiologist, Dr. Bruenn, diagnosed a massive cerebral hemorrhage (stroke). At 3:35 pm Roosevelt died. Three American presidents – Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy rejected Roosevelt family’s request for autopsy – they knew who killed the President, they knew about Mueller and nobody wanted to be next.


June 4, 1961


During a short brake in Vienna Summit between John Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschhev, Kennedy’s Press Secretary Pier Sallinger, introduced to the President Soviet journalist Valentin Zorin who asked why Kennedy refused the autopsy of Roosevelt’s body. Kennedy got angry: “I’ll OK the autopsy and there might be traces of a poison. It won’t bring Roosevelt back but what people would think about the country where they poison presidents like rats?”

 

Part 2. CIA Operation “John Kennedy”

 

September 18, 1947


The National Security Act of 1947 established the CIA. The agency conducts covert operations and paramilitary actions, and exerts foreign political influence through its Special Activities Division.


August 5, 1962


CIA agents killed Marilyn Monroe (staged suicide – “acute barbiturate poisoning”) who got information on planned JFK assassination and desperately tried to contact him or his brother, Robert Kennedy.


November 22, 1963


President John Kennedy was assassinated at 12:30 p.m.in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas. There was no “huge conspiracy – there was a “passive sabotage” operation. CIA Director John McCone, FBI Director Edgar Hoover and Secret Service Director James Rowley made a deal not to touch Lee Harvey Oswald until operation is over.


June 5, 1968


After winning the California primary election for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, Senator Robert Kennedy was shot as he walked through the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel. Sirhan Sirhan, a 24-year-old Palestinian immigrant, was convicted of Kennedy’s murder and is serving a life sentence for the crime. Robert Kennedy promised a full investigation of his brother’s assassination in case he was elected.


November, 1980


The Reagan transition team for the CIA reported the following:


“The fundamental problem confronting American security is the current dangerous condition of the Central Intelligence Agency and of national intelligence collection generally. The failure of American intelligence collection has been at the heart of faulty defense planning and misdirected foreign policy.”


The team pointed out to the following intelligence failures:


– the general and continuing failure to predict the actual size and scope of the Soviet military effort and military sector of the Russian GNP

 

– the consistent gross misstatement of Soviet global objectives

 

– the wholesale failure to understand or attempt to counteract Soviet disinformation and propaganda

 

– the general failure to explain the characteristics of Soviet conventional weapon systems and vessels — for example the new Russian guided missile cruises

 

– the wholesale failure to understand and predict the nature of the so-called wars of national liberation in Africa and Central and South America

 

– the consistent miscalculation regarding the effect of and general apology for massive technology transfer from West to the East

 

– the apparent internal failure of counterintelligence generally.

 

The team went on to observe. “The unhealthy symbiosis between the CIA and the Department of State is the chief underlying cause of the security position of the United States. The next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency … will be told repeatedly by virtually everyone in policy positions at the Agency that the CIA is a highly professional, non-political agency that produces ‘objective’ intelligence. Those assertions are arrant nonsense. In part out of mutual drive for individual and corporate self-preservation, the CIA has become an elitist organization which engenders unshakable loyalty among its staff. The National Intelligence Estimate process is itself a bureaucratic game. These failures are of such enormity, that they cannot help but suggest to any objective observer that the agency itself is compromised to an unprecedented extent and that its paralysis is attributable to causes more sinister than incompetence.”


1995


John Kennedy Jr who said once that his father’s death investigation was the most important thing of his life, approached Princess Diana Spencer for an interview for his “George” magazine. They met at New York Carlyle Hotel where JFK dated Marilyn Monroe – a holy place for John Kennedy Jr where he would never have “hot sex” and “try cocaine” with Diana . It was a business meeting, an “investigation” meeting. In 1995 CIA wanted me to kill somebody very important – it could be Diana and John Kennedy Jr.


August 31, 1997


CIA used my instructions on staged car accidents to kill Princess Diana. Diana was fatally injured in a car crash in the Pont de l’Alma road tunnel in Paris, which also caused the death of her boyfriend, Dodi Fayed. Billionaire Mohammed al-Fayed, Dodi’s father, recruited a “mole” inside CIA, somebody who knew the Agency had a file on Diana. He didn’t get it of course through Washington, DC District Court and the mistake was – he had to recruit somebody with straight access to archives. If Diana left a notice on her talks with John Kennedy Jr for her sons, they might be next CIA victims. I can tell Mohammed al-Fayed what’s in Diana’s file for free – surveillance documents, a video tape of the Carlyle Hotel meeting, a plan to stage the car accident, a file on me if I had to do the job.


July 16, 1999


CIA killed John Kennedy Jr in a staged plane crash. Kennedy along with his wife Carolyn and sister-in-law Lauren were reported missing when the Piper Saratoga II HP he was piloting failed to arrive at its planned destination, the Martha’s Vineyard Airport in Vineyard Haven, Massachusetts. A search immediately commenced to locate the trio, ending on July 21 when their bodies were discovered and returned to land. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the plane had crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off Martha’s Vineyard and the probable cause was pilot error: “Kennedy’s failure to maintain control of the airplane during a descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation.” Kennedy was not qualified to fly a plane by “instruments only,” though the crash occurred in conditions not legally requiring it. Their ashes were scattered from the Navy ship USS Briscoe off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard.

 

JFK’s assassination was planned by a very professional expert. It might be Gestapo Müller who, unlike other assassins, had a very good reason to keep his mouth shut. That’s why Congress wants to keep 40,000 documents on JFK case classified for another 20 years.

Part 3. KGB Operation “Bill Clinton”.

 

December 31, 1969


Oxford student and anti-war activist Bill Clinton came to Moscow through Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland for 5-days vacation at expensive “National” Hotel. The only person he knew in Moscow was Anik “Nikki” Alexis, a daughter of a French diplomat. Clinton recalls, “One night I took a bus out to Lumumba University to have dinner with Nikki” .On the bus back home, Clinton says, there was only one other passenger, Oleg Rakito, who “spoke better English than I did” and “asked me lots of questions and told me he worked for the government, virtually admitting he was assigned to keep an eye on me”.


The story is all fake. First, foreigners who can afford “National” don’t use public transportation on January -30 C night. Second, KGB officer might reveal his identity to a foreigner if he’s recruiting him only. Third, Bill Clinton was recruited, otherwise he would have left Moscow immediately and in panic. Instead, he enjoyed the rest of his vacation and went to Czechoslovakia, another socialist country. In 1969 Bill Clinton was 23 – perfect age – KGB tried to recruit young foreigners (students of Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Oxford) between ages 21-26 because


a) you brainwash them much easier and faster than adults

 

b) you build their careers the way you want

 

Bill Clinton shared the story with Hillary, of course. KGB, not Hillary Clinton, made Bill Clinton Arkansas Governor and then – US President.


July 20, 1993


Russians killed Vincent Foster, a Deputy White House Counsel (staged suicide, a gunshot in the mouth) who got information about Bill Clinton’s Russian connections from his lover Hillary Clinton. Foster tried to blackmail Bill Clinton – no re-election , Vincent Foster will run for President in 1994 with full support of the Democratic party. Big mistake.


Bill Clinton tried to move America towards socialism through health care reform plan. His effort ultimately died, though Obama finished the job. Much more important –


1997


Russia, totalitarian, 100% corrupted country with dying economy and dictator Boris Yeltsin (“Czar Boris”) on top, joined the G7, a group of seven major industrialized democracies. It was all KGB source Bill Clinton’s huge effort which had no explanation at all – now you have it.

 

Part 4. SBU Operation “Kremlin”.

 

September 1991- June 1992

 

As SBU (Ukrainian Security) illegal spy under cover of political analyst, I worked in Moscow trying to get into Russian President Boris Yeltsin “inner circle” and influence his decisions, extremely anti-Ukrainian at the time. I met people who knew Yeltsin well, like Russian Parliament Constitutional Committee Chairman Rumyantsev and one of Yeltsin’s photographers, who asked me to work for him. In February 1992 , I could kill Yeltsin if ordered so by Ukrainian President Kravchuk. As a former KGB “Nabat” (anti-terror) group sniper I knew perfectly well how they protected Yeltsin. I could use “Stechkin” silenced handgun or SVD sniper rifle.


Operation was in progress until there was a leak and Yeltsin got information about it. In 1992 Russia and Ukraine signed a Treaty to stop mutual espionage. President Kravchuk ordered to kill me as a witness of his dirty politics. I moved to Poland and then, in 1995, to USA.

 

Part 5. KGB Operation “John Deutch”

.

Deutch was born in Belgium to a Russian father and he was the only Russian CIA Director. He was appointed CIA Director by President Clinton and stayed in Langley in 1995-1996. He ordered my recruitment , he is a Russian “mole,” and he’s safe because Bill Clinton obstructed the investigation and pardoned this enemy of state in 2001.


Three signs are enough to triangulate a “mole” and here they are for Mr. Deutch:


1. Two days after Deutch retired from the CIA, on December 16, 1996, technical personnel discovered at his house highly classified information stored on his unclassified computer, loaded from his agency computer. He refused to explain why he violated strict security rules.

 

First, Director of Central Intelligence doesn’t need highly classified data on his home computer, because he is a bureaucrat, not an analyst. Second, here we have a trick — the Internet-connected computer is accessible by anyone with some technical knowledge and you don’t have to send anything — Russians will read secret information right from your home computer.

 

2. In 1997 the CIA began a formal security investigation. It was determined that his computer was often connected to Internet with no security, and that Deutch was known to leave memory cards with classified data lying in his car. Deutch used his influence to stop further investigation and the CIA took no action until 1999, when it suspended his security clearances. He admitted finally the security breach and merely apologized.

 

3. In 1999 the Defense Department started its own investigation, and it appeared that in 1993 Deutch, as Defense Undersecretary, used unsecured computers at home and his America Online (!) account to access classified defense information. As Deputy Defense Secretary, he declined departmental requests in 1994 to allow security systems to be installed in his residence.

 

4. In 2000 Senator Charles Grassley asked the Justice Department to look into the case. There was no investigation.

 

In 2001 President Clinton, KGB secret source, pardoned Deutch. There were no comments.

 

Part 6. CIA/FBI “Millennium Hilton” Conspiracy

 

September 1, 1995


I was recruited at “Millennium Hilton”, NYC as CIA “Filament” by CIA agents Bill and Joe. Later I met Frank from FBI National Security Division and had to work for two agencies.


Next was a joint CIA-FBI conspiracy. They decided to “copy” “Kremlin” operation I had to spy on the U.S. Congress and work with Congress Librarian James Billington who knew me as a political scientist through his Moscow representative, and could introduce to Senators and Representatives. I had to influence the White House and created “The Professional” system – special instructions for Bill Clinton on successful election and re-election campaigns, strategic planning and top decisions making, national security, foreign policy and diplomacy, propaganda, economy, war and special operations.


Like James Bond in Hollywood movies, I had a unique CIA status, “carte blanche” (“stay in USA as long as you want and do whatever you think is necessary”) and understood that control over the White House and the U.S. Congress, not national security, was the CIA/FBI top priority. Besides, they were interested in effective interrogation, tortures and murders methods – I gave them instructions and that was a big help in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan. I visited Washington, DC, met people there and estimated the White House and U.S. Congress security.


CIA also had “a very important job up to my “high professional skills as a sniper” but I didn’t want to kill politicians. They’ve pressed him very hard in return.


June 2001


Three months before 9/11 tragedy happened, I warned American President George W. Bush and Senator Hillary Clinton on CIA anti-American activity, national security collapse and my personal situation. Hillary Clinton refused to mess with CIA. I had to blackmail her and remind her that I helped Bill Clinton to win re-elections – she helped my family after that. ( Later she said :”KGB agent has no soul” – you may think it was about Russian leader Putin, but it was actually about me).


September 2002


White House sent a request to the Dept. of Justice, where FBI Director R. Mueller blocked it because I was a “joint” CIA-FBI project. Senator Chuck Schumer’s (D) Office explained to me that “American national security is not Senator’s business”.


June 8, 2010


US Office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald (his predecessor, Ken Starr, brought Bill Clinton to impeachment).


“Mr. Kryzhanovsky, You allege that Mr. Leon Panetta violated the Hatch Act through his role in the “Millennium Hilton” operation. We reviewed this matter, and as explained below, we are closing our file without further action. The Hatch Act prohibits government employees from engaging in political activity while on duty. Your allegation that Mr. Panetta is involved in a CIA-FBI conspiracy, which you call the “Millennium Hilton” operation, even if true, is not activity that falls within the prohibitions of the Hatch Act. Therefore, we are closing the above referenced file. Erica S. Hamrick”


February 6, 2011


“Mr. Kryzhanovsky: The New York City Commission on Human Rights does not have jurisdiction over the agencies you take issue with. Talk to Attorney General, the CIA, The US Congress. Cliff Mulqueen, Deputy Commissioner/General Counsel, New York City Commission on Human Rights”.


President Obama and Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary keep silence.

 

Part 7. CIA operation “9/11

 

I can tell how I would plan special operation like this one. I’m sure the CIA followed the same scheme (and used their own satellites for technical support).


1. Objectives.

al-Qaeda to be blamed, Iraq to be invaded, oil to be taken.

2. Preparation.

CIA undercover explained to bin-Laden unusual plan to attack America. The plan approved, terrorists sent to USA.

Another group of terrorists, no links to al-Qaeda, was allowed to pack Twin Towers with explosives. Right after the terrorists were killed, their bodies burnt.

3. Action.

On September 11, 2001, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists boarded 4 jets. Right after that they were secretly arrested, taken away and killed. Their bodies burnt.


After 4 jets took off, their pilots were ordered emergency landing one of the military bases where crews and passengers boarded another jet packed with explosives. It exploded in the air and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. Two other empty jets with explosives crashed into Twin Towers.


Cruise missile hit Pentagon.


Osama bin-Laden was sure he did it.

 

After bin-Laden’s death al-Qaeda has to prove its strength one more time and attack two more American symbols – Capitol or the White House. Wait.

 

Part 8. KGB Operation “Barack Obama”

 

August 4, 1961


Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.


If there’s something very wrong with someone’s birth certificate and if there’s an indication that this someone used a birth certificate of a newborn child (Virginia Sunahara) who died at birth or soon after birth, we have to talk about the methods Russian intelligence (SVR, a former KGB) and its illegal espionage department. We have to talk about one of the stages of the illegal spy “documentation process” – using birth certificates to get legal documents in USA – SS#, driver license, passport.


Now, let’s reconstruct Obama’s biography as I see it with my 30 years of espionage experience.


Illegal spy cover story works best if it’s a mix of actual and fake facts. “Obama” (let’s call him John Smith) was a child of a student from Kenya who studied in Moscow and dated a Russian girl. Such kids in Russia were often unwanted by both partners and were raised and educated at a special school. Like Obama, John Smith was born in 1961 and, like him, graduated from high school in 1979. KGB paid attention to a very smart young man. Lieutenant Smith was Intelligence Institute student in 1979-1981 (it’s in Moscow, not far from “Cosmos” Hotel – there are couple of buildings in the area and I got intelligence education myself in one of them back in 1987).


Then a decision was made to train him individually as illegal intelligence officer .The “dacha” (Russian for small villa) not far from Moscow, provides an ideally isolated territory for training. Two or three instructors live there to immerse the candidate completely and supervise him all the time. From the first day the candidate becomes accustomed to the circumstances in which he will be living and working in USA for many years. He wears American clothes, eats the food, he’s thinking, acting and living like 100% American. From the first day of his training he is supplied with newspapers and magazines, he’s watching movies and TV shows. The instructors ask the candidate the most difficult questions imaginable with regard to what has been read and seen. After a number of years of such training, the future illegal knows everything about America, espionage technology and speaks perfect English (by the way, “Obama” once made a very interesting mistake – he said “leave the Agency” instead of “lead the Agency” – watch “Barack Obama 2012 :KGB technology 2008
on YouTube. In espionage business, we say :” One mistake in pronunciation, and the enemy puts a lead dot at the end of the sentence”).


At the same time, in 1979-1981, Barack Obama studied at Occidental College in Los Angeles where he became a socialist ready to transform the nation by redistributing wealth. KGB station in Washington, DC which was constantly looking for future secret sources at American universities and colleges, got information about young socialist. They sent his picture and info to Moscow where some resemblance was discovered between a college student from Los Angeles and a future illegal spy John Smith.


1981


Obama travelled to Indonesia to visit his mother and sister Maya, and visited the families of college friends in India and Pakistan for 3 weeks. Then something happened in India, a good friend to Soviet Union and a perfect place to recruit foreigners. He was recruited and he disappeared. John Smith aka Barack Obama came back to the United States – change of agents, one of regular illegal espionage methods


In 1982 Obama’s father died in a car accident in Nairobi, his mother lived in Indonesia and might be just avoided or ignored by her “son” (Don Johnson, Dunham co-worker said “Obama was distancing himself from her”). Russians approached Ann Dunham under a “false flag” ( National Security Agency or CIA) and explained that her son had to stay abroad for a secret mission for some time. They told her that she had to be ready to accept another person as her own son. For operation like that, espionage agencies often recruit close relatives and allow them to meet their son (daughter) from time to time outside USA. Money talks, there’s nothing unusual, though for Dunham the pressure and depression was too big – she died in 1995 of cancer at 52.


Time changes people, so “Obama” had to stay away from his friends and do not show up in public too much.


1981


He transferred to Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science and where nobody could remember him at all, and graduated with a B.A. in 1983. Fake “Obama” declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify a single fellow student. co-worker, roommate or friend from those years. Wall Street Journal editorial in September 2008, titled “Obama’s Lost Years” noted that Fox News contacted 400 of Obama’s classmates at Columbia and found no one who even remembered him. “Mostly, my years at Columbia were an intense period of study,” Obama told Columbia College Today in a 2005 alumnus interview. “I didn’t socialize that much. I was like a monk”.


Perfect cover up ! Columbia has refused to release any records regarding Obama’s attendance, including his application to attend, his grades, and his financial aid records, if any exist. Only one person could order Columbia to shut up – CIA Director Leon Panetta. Why? See next part.


1983-1985


He worked at the Business International Corporation and at the New York Public Interest Research Group. He worked in Chicago as community organizer in 1985-1988.


1988


He travelled to Europe to meet his KGB handlers and get new instructions. He had a choice – a safe variant (to make a political career in one of African countries), and a risky one of staying in America – KGB wanted him to be Martin Luther King #2 . But it appeared he could get much more which was Oval Office. It was decided he could stay in USA longer and it was a success : Illinois Senator (1997-2004) and U.S. Senator (2005-2008).


August 5-7, 2005


“Obama” visited Russia (together with Senator R. Lugar) and met secretly his SVR (former KGB intelligence) handlers to discuss his prospectives for the U.S. presidency. It appeared that U.S. Senator Barack “Obama” was getting out of control and Russians decided to teach him a lesson. Here’s what happened. Sen. Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat, were detained for three hours on August 7 at an airport in Russia’s city of Perm. “We are not certain as to why or the particular activity that caused that delay,” Lugar said. He said U.S. Embassy officials informed the senators that “an official at the Foreign Ministry has issued an apology this morning.”


No one from the Russian Foreign Ministry could be reached immediately. The U.S Embassy could not immediately confirm the information. Russia’s Federal Security Service, however, defended the plane’s delay, saying it was because the Perm airport isn’t part of an Open Skies Agreement, which allows certain planes to bypass inspections. The FSB, the agency that succeeded the Soviet-era KGB, said it could only comment on the report within a week’s time. Maksim Zhalayev, deputy head of the border control service at Perm’s airport, accused the senators of refusing to follow border guards’ orders, telling Russia’s Ekho Moskvy radio that was the reason behind the delay. U.S. Embassy officials said the flight was a U.S. military flight, and therefore should have had diplomatic status. Lugar’s spokesman, Andy Fisher, said that Russian officials had initially refused to allow the plane to take off, and insisted on boarding it. “They did not. The border patrol finally got orders to let us go,” Fisher said. The senators and their aides spent three days in Russia visiting sites where warheads are stored before destruction under the U.S.-funded Comprehensive Threat Reduction program.


February 10, 2007


“Obama” announced his candidacy for President of the United States.


July 2, 2008


“Obama” made a statement: “We can’t rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We got to have a civilian national security force that just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded”. Many Americans, including Congressman Paul Braun, think that Obama wants to establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship, but I know that he means KGB with its structure and methods – just as I explained in my White House Special Handbook. ( My friend from Washington, DC read this book of instructions and called me right away : “I don’t understand , who is the President of America – Obama or you?” I said: “Obama, of course. He’s just a good student, and I’m just a good teacher”).


November 4, 2008


He won the race and became the first Russian illegal spy to be elected the U.S. President. The Congressional Research Service, a public policy arm of Congress, officially admits no one in the government ever vetted Obama’s constitutional eligibility.


November 18, 2008


After his victory , President “Barack Obama”, the most powerful man in the world, lost sense of reality and ignored his Russian intelligence boss (Mikhail Fradkov) instructions – he had his own vision on how to rule and destroy America .Russians were not going to lose control over the White House and American President. They explained to Obama, that it’s OK, but he had to work together with Bill Clinton, a “big friend of Russia” and his people. Bill Clinton was instructed what to do and in November 2008 Obama had to divide the power – he appointed Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State, Rahm Emanuel (Clinton’s Chief Political Adviser) – the White House Chief of Staff and Leon Panetta (Clinton’s Chief of Staff) – CIA Director.


October 2, 2010


He managed to fire Rahm Emanuel (I’ll tell you why) and after that Russians humiliated him one more time – in April 28, 2011, he was forced to nominate Panetta to replace Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. If confirmed (in July , 2011), Panetta would end all operations and withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq – that’s another Russian intelligence order. Obama, actually, lost half of his power by giving two key Cabinet positions to Clinton’s team – that’s how Russians punished their illegal spy for his independence.

 

Still, he’s good. He’s destroying America – it’s called “socialist intervention into the US economy”. Actually, rising unemployment and inflation, budget deficit at every state and city is another Obama’s trick, planned by Russian intelligence – he’s pushing big states like Texas, New York and California to a “boiling point” after which they might take serious steps towards independence – the beginning of America’s death. Also, while Bill Clinton saved one Russian “mole” John Deutch, Obama saved 10 (ten) Russian illegal spies sending them back to Russia in 2010 without any investigation – severe blow to American national security and priceless gift to SVR, Russian intelligence.


April, 2011


“Barack Obama” announced his intention to seek re-election in 2012. He’s into immigration reform which is a socialist intervention into American society – he’ll turn 12 million poor illegal Latinos into US citizens-revolutionaries. In 2012 they’ll get green cards, by 2016 they’ll get citizenship and bring here all their family members (grandparents, parents, brothers, sisters, brides and grooms) – around 50-60 million unemployed poorly educated people. And that will be the death of America, the end of American Constitution and the birth of a totalitarian “Obama – forever ” Communist regime.


All his foreign policy actions work for Russia and not USA – withdrawal from Afghanistan, withdrawal from Iraq (that’s a huge gift for Iran, Russia’s best friend), anti-Israel policy (a gift for Palestinian terrorists – Russia’s best friends, most of whom were trained in Soviet Union).

 

“Birth certificate” story made Obama very angry, but actually he’s in panic. Russians are in panic too – it was a 100% surprise for them. They didn’t plan initially that Obama might get the Oval Office and his enemies would put his fake biography and documents under microscope. Russians could ask Donald Trump to stop his own investigation (Trump met Russian leader Putin and stated that America needs a president like him), but he will run for president in 2012 and he has to press Obama (Trump says “no”, but polls say “yes”).


Now “Obama” has to make a choice together with his Russian boss Mikhail Fradkov, SVR Director:


1) resign or just disappear and go back to Russia

2) commit suicide or wait until Hillary Clinton’s clan kills him with my help, though I can tell Robert Mueller, Leon Panetta and Mark Sullivan one more time – I’m not coming back, I will not kill “Barack Obama” or anybody else, stop calling me and sending agents to get me back

3) continue his re-election campaign and presidential activity no matter what.

Now it all depends on Obama’s “big boss” Russian leader Putin. If Putin wants “Obama” to stay and win re-election, Communist Russia may loan him enough money to cut present 9.2% unemployment in half. NOBODY can beat Obama in 2012 after that.

4) fight Hillary Clinton’s mafia, cut off any attempts to investigate his biography.

I don’t think his fight will be a success – he’s too scared. Bill Clinton knows that Obama is a fake. Leon Panetta knows Obama is a fake – that’s why he, nobody from nowhere, will soon rule Pentagon. Robert Mueller who has to be in jail since 9/11 tragedy knows perfectly well who Obama is – that’s why Obama extended his 10-year term that expires in September, 2001. He pushed the Congress to violate the law (10-year FBI Director’s term was established by Congress following the controversial 48-year tenure of Edgar Hoover).

5) There’s also “one-way ticket” possibility, if Russian intelligence makes a decision to “neutralize” “Obama” (staged car accident, etc) to avoid huge international scandal.
KGB “issued” already “one-way ticket” to another “mole” – former CIA Director (1973-1976) William Colby who knew too much and wanted to talk. “Mole” John Deutch informed Russians about the problem and

April 27, 1996

Colby died in a strange “boating accident” near his home in Rock point, Maryland. His body was found underwater on May 6, 1996. He “died from drowning or hypothermia after collapsing from a heart attack or stroke and falling out of his canoe”.

6) It’s possible that Obama was not exchanged by John Smith but just recruited by Russian intelligence, brought to Moscow and trained there (“lost” Columbia years). The problem is – Obama can’t even insist on DNA test to prove his identity. He knows perfectly well that Barack Hussein Obama Sr. is not his biological father. Actually, his father is Frank Marshal Davis, a photographer and Obama’s mother lover.

 

Part 9. “Hillary Clinton” conspiracy

 

2012 is coming and there’s a player who’ll never give up and whom Russian intelligence service can’t stop. Hillary Clinton with a team of her own.


March, 2010


I’ve received an invitation for a dinner with President Obama and Speaker of the House Pelosi from DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) signed by Ian Sugar, Director of Development. Sugar explained that I pay $15,999 (credit card) and on May 13, 2010, at 6.00 PM I can come to St. Regis Hotel, New York . Now, guess who was the DCCC Chairman in 2005-2009 and who could advise Ian Sugar to send Kryzhanovsky, a former KGB sniper, an invitation to a dinner with Obama ? Rahm Emanuel. I didn’t go, instead I’ve put on YouTube my video “How to Kill President Obama’ to show vulnerability of Obama’s protection system.


October 12, 2010


I had a meeting with two Secret Service agents, John and Bratt (646-842-2107). It appeared, that 2 teams were hunting me all over New York City. I “was a very lucky guy” because John and Bratt (team #1) found me, not team # 2 which might “treat me much worse”. I said: “If you want to kill me, put sniper in a house across the street – I’m not scared”. They had no comments on that but they were very nervous about the video. We had a long discussion. I’ve asked them why they allow the White House press office to put Obama’s next day schedule on Internet with exact time and place of his trips – it gives a perfect possibility to kill him. They told me it was Rahm Emanuel’s order and they can do nothing though on October 2, 2010 Obama fired Emanuel and it was a small victory over Clintons. More interesting – they told me they wanted me to work for them too: “We know you as “Filament”, you work for CIA and we want you to work for us too under the same alias. We’ll pay you”. So, I’m still acting CIA agent and they’re still sure I’ll do political murders? And who’s the target – Obama ? That’s why Secret Service is nervous – they are in the game?


Later I’ve got information that team # 2 , two men and a woman armed with handguns, found my family in Brooklyn, interrogated them in a very rude manner, illegally searched the apartment, took PC and kept it for a month, and ordered my wife and son not to tell me about their visit in case I make a phone call. It looks like Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan didn’t make a final decision yet – to kill me or not.


That’s not the end.


January, 20 2011


I talked to FBI agent Eric Perry. He said my video made “high authorities, people on the very top are extremely nervous”. He didn’t explain if it was FBI Director Robert Mueller, the White House Chief of Staff or Obama himself. He asked me to delete the video from YouTube. Why FBI is so nervous, they are in the game?


Like with JFK assassination, you don’t need huge conspiracy – it’s enough if CIA Director Panetta, FBI Director Mueller and Secret Service Director Sullivan make a deal – simple, right , Mrs. Hillary Clinton ? I still keep your letters where you promise any help. I don’t ask for help, though I’m unemployed and homeless now.


I ask you not to kill “Barack Obama”, even if he’s a fake President and you know it, and he’s your personal enemy. You can make a deal – he’ll resign and go back to Russia, and you take the Oval Office, nice and quiet.


No matter what people might think and say, Obama is a spy – my 30 years of experience, my knowledge of espionage business, my intuition, his behavior, his aggressive style, his manner to talk and treat people (he’s never asking – he’s always ordering) – everything says he’s my brother in arms, Russian intelligence officer, and he was trained to be the U.S. President. Tell Panetta, Mueller and Sullivan to leave him alone. No bullet, no staged car accident, no ‘heart attack”, please.

 

Part 10. What I want.

 

1. US Congress full investigation into my case.

 

2. American citizenship.

 

3. Compensation for 10 years of sufferings, poverty and homelessness. I’ll spend the money to build up a private national security agency to protect America.

 

4. CIA has to be terminated. FBI and Secret Service – reformed.

 

Obama’s pro- Russian U.S. National Security Strategy:

 

1. “Our focus on Afghanistan as part of commitment to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qa’ida”.

 

Lie. Obama is going to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

 

2. “We must pursue a strategy of global leadership”.

 

Lie. Obama’s helping Russia by pushing America to collapse.

 

3. “Key centers of influence – China, India, Russia”.

 

Lie. USA is Obama’s center of influence.

 

4. “We will pursue engagement with hostile nations [Iran and North Korea] to test their intentions”.

 

Lie. Iran is threat to us , because Obama’s “leadership” isn’t a threat to Iran and North Korea.

 

5. “Peace between Israel and his neighbors”.

 

Lie. National security of Israel will be seriously damaged by Obama’s “peaceful process”.

 

6. “We must maintain our military conventional superiority, while enhancing its capacity to defeat assymetric threats”.

 

Lie. Army can’t fight assymetric threats like guerrilla, it’s all about intelligence special ops.

 

7. “Our intelligence and homeland security efforts must be integrated with our security policies, and those of our allies”.

 

Lie. France and Germany are into industrial espionage in America – Obama wants to share our top secrets with them.

 

8. “Analysts, agents and officers who protect us must have access to all relevant intelligence throughout the government”.

 

A very dangerous trick – imagine Russian recruit a “mole” with access to all relevant information?

===============================================

“Barack Obama 2012 : KGB technology 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvG4nLRn4PI

 

“A Man Behind Obama – KGB Mikhail Kryzhanovsky”

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksQU0D-D2_Y

 

2012 Conspiracy to Kill Obama: CIA-FBI-Secret Service. Mikhail Kryzhanovsky
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNdAa9Ql5lw

 

“KGB Operation “Barack Obama”. Mikhail Kryzhanovsky

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=263tJvOZITc