Intro by John R. Houk
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:
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’
January 25, 2020
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
January 26, 2020
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
