The CIA Takeover of the Democratic Party : Part 3 of 4

[Y_Participant 4591]

The CIA Takeover of the Democratic Party : Part 3 of 4 [1]
by Patrick Martin
March 8 2018

Y – I am posting this series because the Congressional mid-terms this year will change the balance of power if Republicans do not come out in force to vote their candidates.

The main reason is obvious – a majority to stonewall whatever is left of the Trump administration. I believe a real and present danger is also to be directed at the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The battle lines have been set and with continued false flags for gun ownership repeal – the end result is evident if Congress changes hands.

Patrick Martin researched and wrote an important series of articles on the crop of Democratic candidates for House races this year that I am reposting here ad-verbatim as Parts 2 to 4 of this series. His findings reveal a major shift “from being the party for the Pentagon and CIA to become the party of the Pentagon and CIA”.

Read on and come to your own conclusions! – Y

An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections.

The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history.

If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress.

They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress.

Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored “star” recruit.

There are 57 candidates for the Democratic nomination in 44 congressional districts who boast as their major credential their years of service in intelligence, in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, at the State Department, or some combination of all three.

They make up the largest single occupational group running in the Democratic primaries that began March 6 in Texas and extend through mid-September, selecting the candidates who will appear on the general election ballot on November 6.

First: The number of candidates who openly proclaim their role in the CIA or military intelligence. In years past, such activities would be considered confidential, if not scandalous for a figure seeking public office. Not only would the candidates want to disguise their connections to the spy apparatus, the CIA itself would insist on it, particularly for those who worked in operations rather than analysis, since exposure, even long after leaving the agency, could be portrayed as compromising “sources and methods.”

This is no longer the case. The 2016 candidates drawn frm the shadow world of espionage, drone murders and and other forms of assassination positively glory in their records. And the CIA and the Pentagon have clearly placed no obstacles in their way.

Agents – No longer secret

We’ve already reviewed the cases of Elissa Slotkin, running in Michigan’s 8th District, who served three tours with the CIA in Baghdad, and Gina Ortiz Jones, an Air Force intelligence officer in Iraq, running for the Democratic nomination in the 23rd District of Texas. There are many others.

Abigail Spanberger, seeking the Democratic nomination in a district in the suburbs of Richmond, Virginia, has the following declaration at the top of her campaign website: “After nearly a decade serving in the CIA, I’m running for Congress in Virginia’s 7th District to fight for opportunity, equality and security for all Americans. My previous service as a law enforcement officer, a CIA officer, and a community volunteer has taught me the value of listening. Indeed!

Jesse Colvin, running in the 1st District of Maryland, spent six years in Army intelligence, including four combat deployments to Afghanistan and a year near the Demilitarized Zone between North Korea and South Korea.

His biography continues: “…As a Ranger, my four combat deployments in Afghanistan took place within a Joint Special Operations Task Force. I led intelligence teams whose work facilitated capture/kill missions of Taliban, al-Qaeda and other terrorist leaders. I managed a lethal drone program. I ran human intelligence sources. Every day, my team and I made dozens of decisions whose outcomes carried life and death consequences…”

Jeffrey Beals, seeking the Democratic nomination in the 19th District of New York, is now a school teacher, but writes on his website, “After beginning my career as a CIA intelligence officer, I joined the State Department … I answered the call to help our country in Iraq in 2004 and became one of the longest serving US diplomats of the Iraq War. Fluent in Arabic, I faced down nsurgents to set up the first diplomatic talks between our ambassador…and was decorated by both the US Army and the State Department.

Unfortunately for Beals, his fundraising is dwarfed by that of another military-intelligence rival for the nomination Patrick Ryan, a West Point graduate with two tours of duty in Iraq, “including a tour as the lead intelligence officer for an infantry battalion of 1,000 soldiers and officers responsible for ground operations in Mosul,” according to his campaign website, seeking to challenge two-term Republican incumbent John Faso in the Hudson Valley district.

Jonathan Ebel, running in the 13th District of Illinois, served four years as a naval intelligence officer, including on the staff of the US European Command n Stuttgart, Germany during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He now teaches religion at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Then there is Shelly Chauncey, seeking the Democratic nomination in the 5th District of Pennsylvania, in the Philadelphia suburbs. Her website strikes a feminist note

“Shelly served her nation for more than a decade with the Central Intelligence Agency. She began her career as a secretary and worked her way up to become a counter-intelligence officer. Shelly served as an undercover officer with the CIA in Latin America, East Asia and throughout the United States, providing logistical and counter-intelligence support to operatives abroad.”

Another campaign website touches on the domestic operations of the US spy machine. Omar Siddiqui, running in California’s 48th District describes his background as follows: “On the front lines of national defense, Mr. Siddiqui serves as a private advisor and consultant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on issues of national security counter-terrorism and was formerly an advisor and community partner with the CIA.Mr. Siddiqui is presently director of special projects of the FBI National Citizens Academy Alumni Association…”

Commanders and Planners of the Iraq War

Barack Obama won the Democratic presidential nomination and the 2008 election in large measure by presenting himself as an opponent of the war in Iraq launched under George W. Bush. Once in office. However, he retained Bush’s defense secretary, former CIA Director Robert Gates, and continued the war for another three years, as well as escalating the long-running US war in Afghanistan.

It is noteworthy in this context that so many of the military-intelligence candidates for Democratic congressional nominations boast of their roles in the war in Iraq and even, in some cases, present it as the high point of their professional and even personal lives.

Dan McCready a Marine Corps veteran turned clean energy millionaire backed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 9th district of North Carolina.

The Iraq War veterans are either officers, giving them command responsibility in one of the great crimes of the 21st century, or served in special forces units like the Army Rangers and the Navy SEALs, engaging in covert operations that were among the bloodiest and most brutal of the war, or had high-level responsibility at the Pentagon or the NSC.

Daniel Helmer, running in Virginia’s 10th Congressional District against five other well-financed candidates—including former State Department official Alison Friedman, who has already topped the $1 million mark – says remarkably little about what he did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But Helmer boasts perhaps the most extensive list of endorsements by retired national security officials of any candidate in the country, including eight generals and admirals, two former deputy directors of the CIA, Avril Haines and David Cohen, and Michele Flournoy, former under secretary of defense for policy. What he did to earn their support is left to the imagination.

Richard Ojeda, elected as a West Virginia state senator in 2016, seeking the Democratic nomination in the 3rd Congressional District. covering the southern third of the state.

As the WSWS has reported Ojeda has based his political career on more than two decades in the US Army Airborne, including repeated tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. His last post was as executive director of Army recruiting in Beckley, seeking to convince youth in West Virginia and Virginia to become cannon fodder for the Pentagon.

Josh Butner, running in the 50th District of California against Republican Duncan Hunter, Jr., “served for 23 years in the United States Navy where he saw multiple combat deployments, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan.” The career Navy SEAL says almost nothing about what he actually did in the top military assassination unit, but that is to be expected.

Dan Feehan is running to succeed incumbent Democrat Walz in the 1st Congressional District of Minnesota after Walz announced his candidacy for governor of that state. Feehan served as an active duty soldier and completed two combat tours of duty as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He then joined the Obama administration, first as a White House aide, then as an acting assistant secretary of defense in the Pentagon.

Andy Kim, running in the 3rd District of New Jersey, has actually raised more money than the incumbent Republican, Tom MacArthur. Kim worked at the Pentagon and as a strategic adviser to generals David Petraeus and John Allen while they were in command of US forces in Afghanistan. He then moved to the National Security Council, where he was Obama’s director Iraq for two years.

Maura Sullivan, seeking the Democratic nomination in New Hampshire’s 2nd District, where incumbent Democrat Carol Shea-Porter is retiring, was a Marine Corps officer, rising to the rank of captain and deploying to Fallujah, Iraq, scene of some he bloodiest battles and most horrific US war crimes of that war. She too joined the Obama administration as a civilian administrator at both the Department of Veterans Affairs and Pentagon.

Jason Crow is running in Colorado’s 6th Congressional District against incumbent Republican Mike Coffman, where he was selected by the DCCC as one of its top candidates in the Red-to-Blue program. He is a veteran of the 82nd Airborne Division,
then joined the Army Rangers and served two tours in Afghanistan as part of the Joint Special Operations Task Force.

Matthew Morgan had a 20-year career in the Marine Corps ‘where I would deploy routinely overseas, culminating in several senior staff roles where I’d provide counsel to numerous military leaders, including the secretary of defense. Now he is the unopposed candidate for the Democratic nomination in Michigan’s 1st Congressional District, and is currently held by first-term Republican Jack Bergman.

End of Part 3

[Y : The list will continue in Part 4 with a conclusion – Y]

Citation:
[1] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/08/dems-m08.html

[It’sallbsParticipant]

Y_ wrote:

from being the party for the Pentagon and CIA to become the party of the Pentagon and CIA”.

That’s interesting, can you elaborate on why that distinction is important?

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[Y_Participant 4591]

I believe

…the party for The Pentagon and CIA means the appointees/party offer support for the activities of these agencies within the broader context of priorities and conflicts with other agencies (also being similarly supported).

…the party of The Pentagon and CIA means the appointees/party have no other loyalties or agenda but to support these agencies to the exclusion of any other goal.

Hope my ramblings make sense. The post is not finished by the way – i am having problems editing.

[Anonymous 14]

Yumbo, it’s both parties..

[Y_Participant 4591]

Anonymous wrote:

Yumbo, it’s both parties..

sorry you lost me.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22526]

The Deep State is creating lists of “alt-media” individuals: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-07/homeland-security-track-journalists-bloggers-and-other-media-influencers

These lists would not be made if the Deep State felt that censorship of the American people by social media was working as well as they hoped.

These lists have the makings of a political purge lists.

The only good news that this plan like so many other first requires disarmament of the American people, which is doubtful in the current political climate of domestic and foreign hostility towards the American people.

[It’sallbsParticipant]

Faust For Science wrote:

domestic and foreign hostility towards the American people.

There is no foreign hostility to the American people.

Russian people don’t have hostility towards American people.

It’s, this bulls~~~ people must stop buying into don’t unite behind a fake manufactured enemy.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22526]

It’sallbs wrote:

There is no foreign hostility to the American people.

Foreign invaders that illegally come into the U.S. to live off of and harm the American people.

Also, there are the globalist influences both foreign and domestic whose policies harm the American people.

[Y_Participant 4591]

Faust For Science wrote:

The Deep State is creating lists of “alt-media” individuals: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-07/homeland-security-track-journalists-bloggers-and-other-media-influencers

These lists would not be made if the Deep State felt that censorship of the American people by social media was working as well as they hoped.

Like I said they have a timeline – real journalists and websites are being locked down quickly. Protest marches and false flags for gun control on MSM every bloody day.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22526]

Y_ wrote:

Faust For Science wrote:

The Deep State is creating lists of “alt-media” individuals: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-07/homeland-security-track-journalists-bloggers-and-other-media-influencers

These lists would not be made if the Deep State felt that censorship of the American people by social media was working as well as they hoped.

Like I said they have a timeline – real journalists and websites are being locked down quickly. Protest marches and false flags for gun control on MSM every bloody day.

I do not disagree. I just point out they are moving to fast for their plans to work.

The speed a which they are going is being counterproductive and driving more people away from them and to owning firearms. Also, most of their messengers have spent decades insulting gun owners.

Instead of being wise and backing off, to let the political climate cool for a few years, they are stoking the political fires hotter on all sides.

[Anonymous 14]

The Left is always more an operation than the Right is, period. Long ago the powers that be knew they had to control people’s movements to direct them where they want them to go, however the Right, especially the far right like Libertarians are the only real pushback against Collectivism, this is what the Elite really fear, the masses refusing to be fleeced and used for special interests that would no longer matter if a country retreated away from Collectivism entirely.

If the entire U.S. was predominantly Far Right Libertarians getting what they want, which is nothing more than to be left alone, all forms of bulls~~~ would stop. Special Interest Wars, banker bailouts, FIAT money, Socialist Ponzi schemes… This is the very last thing the Elite want, masses refusing to be fleeced. THEN if you wanted to, outside the control of Government mandate, you could, as free and Sovereign individuals, create, fund, contribute to, fight for, whatever cause it is you want even if it were Socialist in nature… Man’s good will, even on the Christian Right would continue in many forms.

In order for the people’s will to be seen you first have to GET RID OF GOVERMENT MANDATE. Most of the Right and all of the Left do not quite understand this though, they just fight for THEIR form of Collectivism…

[Y_Participant 4591]

Faust For Science wrote:

I do not disagree. I just point out they are moving to fast for their plans to work.

The speed a which they are going is being counterproductive and driving more people away from them and to owning firearms. Also, most of their messengers have spent decades insulting gun owners.

Instead of being wise and backing off, to let the political climate cool for a few years, they are stoking the political fires hotter on all sides.

Yes I do agree. Thank you. However I do think they have a deadline for some reason or other. They are being forced to up their timetable.

For gun owners to be ready they need to know what is going on and get ready. Without the news from reliable people there could be a gun control exercise district by district without anyone really knowing what is going on.

That may be why the journalists are being tagged – for a quick takedown in person or their sites put offline. The current DDoS attacks have not stopped. Perhaps the one two weeks ago was a test. Mobile phone carriers can be taken down in the area of choice.

It will have to be done district by district to avoid a mass riot.

Information is key to gun owners reacting.

[Y_Participant 4591]

Anonymous wrote:

f the entire U.S. was predominantly Far Right Libertarians getting what they want, which is nothing more than to be left alone, all forms of bulls~~~ would stop. Special Interest Wars, banker bailouts, FIAT money, Socialist Ponzi schemes…

Thank you Sir for that. At the end they all serve the same masters – the banksters. The only good thing the right has done (so far) is to leave the guns in the hands of the people. When both parties take try to take that away then the end is very near.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22526]

Y_ wrote:

That may be why the journalists are being tagged – for a quick takedown in person or their sites put offline. The current DDoS attacks have not stopped. Perhaps the one two weeks ago was a test. Mobile phone carriers can be taken down in the area of choice.

Information of death squads (which is what disbarment squads will quickly become) going house to house would get out. Outside of large cities many rural places have dozens of ways to escape.

In some places a 4×4 truck can go off-road to escape.

Y_ wrote:

It will have to be done district by district to avoid a mass riot.

And whom is going to do the job? The local and state police will consider it suicide. It is a toss up what the military will do. And there are not enough federal agents to attempt such an action.

And once such an action takes places civil war/revolution situation. Outside of the fighting, shipping across the country becomes an issue, tax revenue becomes an issue, eventually the U.S. dollar is dropped and things get a whole lot worse for the establishment.

The foreign globalists whom would like for the American people to be disarmed do not grasp how large the U.S. is.

The U.S. mainland is roughly the size Europe. And except for around two dozen major cities, the U.S. population is very spread out. With most of the weapons in the hands of those in the small towns and rural areas. And population for small towns and rural areas together is roughly a hundred million people.

[Y_Participant 4591]

Faust For Science wrote:

And whom is going to do the job? The local and state police will consider it suicide. It is a toss up what the military will do. And there are not enough federal agents to attempt such an action.

I am sure they have people ready for this, I would assume they could do it if they needed to BUT they need a false flag or an excuse. One town already has made a ban – will there be others?

A revolution or a resistance requires planning and coordination. Just having guns alone will keep a standoff for that much time and no more. Who is doing this? The government is coordinated and they may use stupid locals as cannon fodder – I would not put this past them.

Either way the gun owners lose – are they going to shoot anyone? The US Army Special Forces can get called in – we know they are full of CIA so they may have a great day playing Rambo.

I have been in the field and I know what it is like. Unless there is an organised resistance you have no hope of keeping your guns.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22526]

Y_ wrote:

I am sure they have people ready for this, I would assume they could do it if they needed to BUT they need a false flag or an excuse. One town already has made a ban – will there be others?

A city passing a law to ban a constitutional right is a very dangerous road. The town law is already being challenge.

Y_ wrote:

A revolution or a resistance requires planning and coordination.

Not really. A general push of resistance that is leaderless is a far more dangerous. It will not be conventional armies. Also, the revolution can be as simple as a tax revolt.

These progressive have demanded multiple times the disarmament, censorship, and physical harm to nationalists in the same breath.

The question that is not asked is do people believe the American people trust the situation enough to disarm.

Y_ wrote:

Either way the gun owners lose – are they going to shoot anyone? The US Army Special Forces can get called in – we know they are full of CIA so they may have a great day playing Rambo.

Shooting the people funding the government and welfare systems will not work.

The same people in the U.S. that have the firearms are the producers of the nation. While the deep state uses the parasitic welfare populations of the large cities to control the political systems.

Y_ wrote:

I have been in the field and I know what it is like. Unless there is an organised resistance you have no hope of keeping your guns.

In the last 15 years, the U.S. military could not reign in a population a tenth of the U.S., over an area a thirtieth the size of the U.S.

The logistics are not there.

[harpo-my-“SON”Participant 2410]

It’sallbs wrote:There is no foreign hostility to the American people.

International bankers are hostile to our desire to be happy.
They create one product. Debt slavery.

I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.

[Author]

Posts