Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel’s Confirmation Hearings

We recently began a discussion on the war against the corruption in US intelligence.  We spoke about the fact that for years now, there has been a notable and concerning trajectory in American intelligence: which is that it moved from operating under the auspices of the president of the United States, to becoming and industry or complex of semi-autonomous agencies that serve private interests disguised as American foreign policy – even though, at times, the actions of these agencies were consistent American foreign policy at the time. We also wrote concerning the fact that American intelligence has also become weaponised against Americans themselves – which meant that not only was American intelligence potentially failing to meet the requisite bar of transparency and accountability, but it was now also a liability to the people it was meant to serve. This was the backdrop against which we began to analyse the developments during the confirmation hearing of Tulsi Gabbard, and we will proceed to look also at that of Kash Patel – all in light of the war against corruption in US intelligence.
SENATOR BENNET’S REMARKS REVEAL DEMOCRATS ARE AVERSE TO SURVEILLANCE THEY SUPPORT
And now onto our main discussion, and Democrat Senator Michael Bennet asked Tulsi Gabbard if Edward Snowden was a traitor. Which is misguided. Edward Snowden served his country until he discovered that his country committed a crime against his fellow Americans. He, therefore, did not betray a worthy cause – no, he and Americans were betrayed by their government. And so, the Democrat really is the party of big government. Because what Senator Michael Bennet is trying to get Tulsi Gabbard to concede to is that the American government was entitled to spy on Americans and foreign citizens without being held accountable; and the fact that Edward Snowden exposed those gross violation of privacy and state power ought to be seen or categorised as treasonous betrayal. This from a nation whose birth came after it broke its shackles from an imperial power to found a nation based on an absolute recognition of God-given freedoms?
It’s almost perplexing when Senator Michael Bennet asks questions with the tone of someone who is presenting expository information, and yet what he tries unsuccessfully to paint as a condemnable stance, for instance on the proxy war – is factually inaccurate. What is happening in Ukraine is a proxy war between NATO and Russia, instigated by NATO. That is not Russian propaganda – it is fact!
Surely, democrats are impervious to irony! More so, because the democrat establishment has made it apparent that governments ironically, are quite averse to being surveilled – there is a detailed history that demonstrates this. First, governments sanctioned harsh treatment for spies and double agents during the world wars. Secondly, in the 1950s, the government relied on COINTELPRO, its domestic intelligence program, to neutralise domestic political dissidents. Those targeted by the FBI under COINTELPRO for its intimidation, surveillance and smear campaigns included: Martin Luther King Jr., Malcom X, the Black Panther Party, John Lennon, Billie Holiday, Emma Goldman, Aretha Franklin, and hundreds more. In more recent decades, the powers-that-be have expanded their reach to target anyone who opposes the government, regardless of their political leanings.
Thirdly, in 2010, Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks posted almost half a million documents obtained from the US Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning—mainly relating to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While much of the information was already in the public domain, Pres. Barack Obama’s administration criticised the leaks as a threat to U.S. national security. In November of that year, WikiLeaks began publishing an estimated 250,000 confidential US diplomatic cables. Those classified documents dated mostly from 2007 to 2010, but they included some dating back as far as 1966. Among the wide-ranging topics covered were behind-the-scenes efforts by the US to politically and economically isolate Iran, primarily in response to fears of Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. Reaction from governments around the world was swift, and many condemned the publication. Assange became the target of much of that ire, and some American politicians called for him to be pursued as a terrorist.
Then of course, there was the reaction to Edward Snowden’s leaks of files from the National Security Agency (NSA). Snowden will go down in history as one of America’s most consequential whistleblowers. He is responsible for handing over material from one of the world’s most secretive organisations – the NSA. This is what then President Obama had to say.
The reactions of the government officials and their respective administrations were consistent with governments being averse to being surveilled. First, the debate raged across time zones: from the US and Latin America to Europe and to Asia. Barack Obama cancelled a trip to Moscow in protest at Russian president Vladimir Putin’s protection of Snowden. Then Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff cancelled a state visit to Washington in protest at the US spying on her. Bolivian president Evo Morales’s plane was forced down in Vienna amid suspicion that Snowden was being smuggled out of Russia.  In Germany, a “livid” Angela Merkel accused the US of spying on her, igniting a furore that has seen the White House concede that new constraints on the NSA’s activities may be necessary. Meanwhile, in Britain, prime minister David Cameron accused the Guardian of damaging national security by publishing the revelations, warning that if it did not “demonstrate some social responsibility it would be very difficult for the government to stand back and not to act”.
But the intelligence agencies dismiss such claims, arguing that their programs are constitutional, and subject to rigorous congressional and judicial oversight. Secrecy, they say, is essential to meet their overriding aim of protecting the public from terrorist attacks. In fact, much of the NSA’s defence is that the public should be unconcerned, summed up by the dictum: “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” But civil liberties groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union warn that surveillance goes well beyond what Congress intended and what the US constitution allows.
However, beyond surveillance being used for more than what was declared, this response from the NSA was an insult to the American public and the world, because the NSA extended its jurisdiction to the world. Why was it an insult/ Because the NSA and the American government effectively placed themselves above the law by sanctioning themselves to infringe on the rights of others. Secondly, the very initiative of the survelling other;s is based on a “big-brother” complex (much like the one described by George Orwell) that is based on the assumption that the US government is a plausible institution of moral correctness and justified in asserting superiority of others.
THESE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS HAVE ALSO REVEALED PROBLEMS WITH THIS FORMALITY
The problem with confirmation hearings is that they aren’t a genuine process. It is Senators who already knew how they were going to vote the moment that president Trump was announced as the victor, simply trying to frustrate the progress that president Trump is making. They are not trying to get essential information or ask good questions that help them profile the candidate – in fact they speak over the candidates a lot of the time. Really, democrat senators try to use this process to articulate their narrative, and thus distract from crucial information or important discussions – you’d recall that Robert Kennedy Junior said that during day 1 of his confirmation hearing.
But at least the people at the WEF had the decency to concede to their loss as a result of Trump’s victory – because their agendas are diametrically opposed. Democrats, on the other hand, are still trying to pretend to be serving Americans, when all they are doing is attempting to frustrate the progress of the Trump Administration, following a deceive declaration by voters that they demand his leadership. It is the foreign policy, intelligence framework, healthcare approach, and economic recovery plans (and more) that have been articulated by president Trump that Americans have voted for.
It is, therefore, despicable that democrats would try to place themselves as a hindrance to this, while pretending that they too are serving Americans. So, yes, the problem with confirmation hearings is that democrats do NOT necessarily have the best interests of Americans in mind – a lot of them predetermined how they would vote the moment president Trump won the election. To exemplify this, kindly have a look at the exchange between Senator Warner and Tulsi Gabbard. You will note that he asks questions that he insists are crucial for Tulsi Gabbard to answer, but then proceeds not to allow her to answer them.
WHY DEMOCRATS DO NOT WANT TULSI GABBARD AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE DNI
This brings us, once again, to the question of why democrats do not want Tulsi Gabbard confirmed? And we ought to reiterate that her confirmation as the Director of National Intelligence has the potential to represent a significant shift in the functional tenets and moral grounding of America’s national intelligence. Proof of this is her utility of access to intelligence information (especially as a soldier) to champion calls for accountability. In fact, in 2017 she called out the CIA and Obama for funding Al-Qaeda and ISIS, and did so even in the recent hearing.
TULSI GABBARD IS A THREAT TO THE CORRUPTION OF INTELLIGENCE BODIES
Secondly, Tulsi Gabbard represents a threat to the corruption of intelligence bodies altogether. Now, for some context, in the US, during the covid pandemic and before the release of twitter and facebook files, it came out that there was a twitter blacklist used to even suppress distinguished scientists and medical practitioners. Individuals like Dr J. Bhattacharya, who has been on open critic of covid-era deception and a plaintiff in the Murthy v Missouri case opposing the censorship industrial complex in operation in the US – well he was on it, because it was specific people who promulgated an anti-censorship and covid propaganda messages that were put on this black list. All of this is to say there have been significant structural, functional and ethical problems with intelligence in the US. And what we’ve discussed here does not even begin to cover the essence of these problems – especially problems concerning the use of American intelligence against other nations and their citizens. One of such cases that we’ve addressed pertained to Julian Assange’s case, where CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, plotted to kidnap and assassinate the WikiLeaks founder for publishing documents that exposed that the Intelligence Community used taxpayer funds to install bugs in Americans’ Samsung television sets to invade their privacy.
Well, as you’d recall Tulsi Gabbard is actually no stranger to being targeted by intelligence bodies, having been on the receiving end of intelligence targets from the Biden-Harris administration. She was put in a terror list (called the quiet skies lists) after criticising the Biden-Harris administration. This tells us that she has empirical evidence of the issues in US intelligence.
But, of course, it is one thing for her to represent a threat to the corruption of the intelligence complex in the US, and it is another altogether for her to have knowledge of the issues in question, and be resolute in addressing them. Thankfully, her opening remarks at her confirmation hearing shed light on this. Kindly have a listen.
THE KASH PATEL HEARING: DEMOCRATS TRYING TO PREVENT RETRIBUTION
Now, onto Kash PAtel’s hearing, and when Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren asked RFK Jr if he would commit to not go against pharmaceutical companies, I thought that that was a new and jarring manifestation of  Democrats being willing to openly protect the co-called big corporations and complexes. I also thought that they would perhaps consider distancing themselves from that, be it in good conscience, or at least for public relations purpose – just so they can at least avoid making it obvious how grossly corrupt and misguided their priorities are.
But, when Michael Bennet asked Tulsi Gabbard if Edward Snowden was a traitor, and then Senator Richard Blumenthal asked Kash Papel if he would not go against FBI agents who really were involved in the weaponisation of the institutions of the US against the political rivals of the Democrat party, while protecting people like Hunter Biden, it became obvious that Democrats don’t even care anymore. All they want is what serves their individual interests, OR whatever Donald Trump does not want 0 that is the gist of what most Democrats advocate for. And not the best interests of Americans. Again: they are the party of the big government, big pharma and even a corrupt and unaccountable intelligence complex. We spent time discussing where this issue of a lack of accountability in American intelligence emanated from, and what it has cost Americans and foreign nations. And yet, in this very dispensation, Democrats would rather pander to and protect all of these corrupt institutions and complexes – AT THE EXPENSE OF THE BEST INTERESTS OF AMERICANS – than to concede that the status quo is riddled with problems that urgently need to be fixed, and stand behind the mandate that God and Americans have given to Donald Trump.
No, it’s not that those FBI agents deserve to be protected from Trump retribution; it is that they want them protected from retribution entirely! Ut, let’s take a moment to also appreciate Kash Patel’s response, because it really is essential. It depicts a respect for the functional institutions of the country, a commitment to accountability without weapoising those very institutions (especially when Kash Patel said that all FBI agents will be protected for political retribution) – but, he does not rule out accountability that is just. The reason why Senator Richard Blumenthal is not satisfied with what is an obviously good response is because he sees accountability as inherently the same as a political witch-hunt. But, the only reason he would defend what is obviously fallacious thinking is because that is what his party does. THEY weaponised the institutions of justice against president Trump in the guise of accountability, and so they assume that he and the people he appointed function at the same level as them.
Well, let’s then look at the evidence. Trump has certainly said that he is going against people who weaponised institutions of justice against him. But, he has made these remarks in light of holding them accountable for what was obviously corrupt behaviour, which is to say that Trump’s focus has been on institutional rot, and not so much individuals – which is not to say that he does not problematice or indicate an interest in prosecuting certain figures, rather it is that the emphasis he places is often on broader problems. In fact, even with respect to Hilalry Clinton (remember, he said she would be in jail), well when asked why he did not go after her in his first term, he expressed that he had no interest in weaponising the institutions of justice against her.
Clearly, the US is on a new path that places America and Americans first. The intelligence community in the US is not exempt. For long have the CIA, FBI and NSA (and others) have been weaponised against Americans, and even other nations. It is time that these bodies are subject to adequate accountability, and are re-oriented to serve their country without infringing on the inalienable rights of its country men. Well, we have surely prayed, and continue to pray. Therefore, in this glorious Year of Completeness, all satanic and globalist agendas are suspended; they will live in our world, and we will not live in a world curated by the intelligence complex, as we wrap up the Church age. And so, let us keep fighting the good fight of faith, because we have truly already won.
Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso