Monday, February 11, 2013

John Brennan .... the enemy within

How dangerous is John Brennan?  My instincts tell me this man is very dangerous to the USA and by extension, to Canada as well.  I don't believe the rumors going around that he has converted to Islam. However, I strongly believe that he is fully sympathetic to the Muslim cause.

You see, people like Brennan, rich influential people who make the  top strata of our society, never have to deal with the common Muslim hordes who have to be fended off  by us the common non-Muslim hordes  who make up the lower 70% of  any given Judeo-Christian nation.  People like Brennan, when they do come across Muslims, it's often at their jet set gatherings, and  those Muslims are the well educated top-notch secular and progressive Muslims who care more about vintage wines, antiques and artworks than they do or care about their dangerous cult.

Brennan, if appointed will be of the opinion that Israel's neighbours need to be equally armed to get everybody on equal footing with Israel's military might.  The military training of  Arabs by US private firms is something that this man would look on favorably.  There are countless rumours going around that such training is already happening in the guise of keeping Sunnis prepared just in case Iran attacks.  It's going to come back to haunt everybody responsible.  I don't know why I have a strong  suspicion that Brennan is one of the people responsible.

The reason for not confirming his appointment as given in the article below might be a technicality, but if nothing else this must be pounced upon to keep him from the top job at the CIA.  If this man gets the top job,  the Caliphate will climb up several floors at a skip and a jump.  That's a given.

Stephen F. Hayes writing at WeeklyStandard:
....Did John Brennan lie under oath?  The answer appears to be yes.

Here’s the backstory. Senator Marco Rubio asked Brennan about Harzi, who was detained in Tunisia and eventually released by the Tunisian government. When Rubio asked why the United States couldn’t prevent Harzi’s release by the Tunisians, Brennan responded that the United States must respect Tunisian law and traditions. “The Tunisians did not have a basis in their law to hold him.” And when Rubio pushed further, Brennan dismissed his concerns and made a claim that simply isn’t true.

“We didn’t have anything on him, either,” Brennan said. “If we did, we would have made a point to the Tunisians to turn him over to us, but we didn’t have that.”

We didn’t have anything on him?

First, Harzi had a history. He’d been detained by the Tunisian government for five years, from 2006 to 2011, on terrorism charges. Among other concerns, he was then seeking to join his brother, a midlevel operative in Al Qaeda in Iraq. Second, after the Benghazi attack Harzi was detained in Turkey, at least in part on the basis of intelligence provided to the Turks by the U.S. government. Third, Harzi was held in Tunisia for three months on the strength of intelligence the U.S. government collected about his involvement in the Benghazi attacks. According to the Daily Beast, that intelligence included real-time social media updates from Benghazi about the unfolding attack. Fourth, Harzi’s own lawyer says that the Tunisian courts are still monitoring Harzi because he remains charged with membership in a terrorist group.

If Brennan believes the U.S. government doesn’t have “anything” on Harzi, it’s hard to find others who share that assessment.......

......Brennan’s eagerness to downplay Ali Harzi should concern senators for another reason. It’s consistent with the Obama administration’s response to jihadist attacks and radical Islam more broadly. So when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up an airliner over Detroit, the president falsely claimed he was “an isolated extremist” long after it was clear that he was a committed jihadist with strong ties to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. And when Faisal Shahzad sought to blow up an SUV in Times Square, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano called it a “one-off” attack by an unaffiliated individual, ignoring claims of responsibility from the Pakistani Taliban......


  1. It is hard to believe that this guy converted. If he did, he has to automatically be a vile traitorous dog because for a devout Muslim, their first allegiance is to Islam.
    Hopefully is just some political slander.

    1. I don't think the story about his conversion is true.
      However, converted or not, he is one very dangerous bloke. As head of the CIA he will have the power to hire and fire and the infiltration of CIA by his beloved Muslims will reach the peak during his tenure, even if it is a 4-yr one.
      We just have to look at what has happened to the US Foreign Office to know that's what will happen to the CIA as well. Think UK Police Services, Detroit PS, Minneapolis PS and here in Canada many, many of our PS too. Once the rot starts, it's cannot be eradicated.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.