Inalienable Security Clearances

In one of the strongest moves yet by President Trump (and hopefully the first of many), former CIA Director John Brennan - who has broken all protocol of former intel chiefs by calling for the political overthrow of the elected government - had his security clearance revoked. Trump's many enemies have, predictably, denounced the move as tyrannical. There are two sides to the matter. On the one hand, Brennan is an enemy of the state and certainly deserves to be relieved of his privilege to state secrets. Anything else from the sitting government would be quite negligent. On the other hand, we believe that selectively enforced rules are not rules at all, but tools of tyranny. Trump should not be singling out political adversaries for special treatment, as much as they may deserve it. We expect this action to be part of a much larger program to revoke security clearances that are no longer necessary, especially from officials working to undermine the elected government.

That all said, you really have to hear the ACLU's take on this.

The First Amendment does not permit the president to revoke security clearances to punish his critics. John Brennan’s record is full of grave missteps, and we have been unsparing in our criticism of his defense of the CIA torture program and his role in unlawful lethal strikes abroad. But Trump’s revocation of Brennan’s clearance, and his threats to revoke the clearances of other former officials for the sole reason that they have criticized his conduct and policies, amount to unconstitutional retaliation. They are also part of a broader pattern of seeking to silence or marginalize critics, which includes forcing staff to sign unconstitutional non-disclosure agreements.

Accessing the statement on their website requires viewing an ad asking you to donate to help fight Trump's attack on civil liberties. Then you are confronted with that first sentence: The First Amendment does not permit the president to revoke security clearances to punish his critics. How the ACLU made that their leading sentence just boggles the mind. The rest fits in with what we've already described as a reasonable counter-argument. A counter-argument, mind you, that is easily overpowered by the fact that Brennan is a key player in a coup to overthrow a federal election. But nowhere is it reasonable to call a security clearance a First Amendment issue. Between that and the TDS-pandering fundraising - from the ACLU! - it is quite incredible. It's not that we should be surprised that the ACLU is neither politically impartial nor principled. Of course they're loony left-wing fanatics. The thing is that they're supposed to pretend to be apolitical. They at least have to extend the possibility of plausible deniability. Yet they are fundraising to "stop" the president, and labeling his actions as First Amendment violations without even trying to substantiate the bold assertion.

As usual, the left are at all times scrambling for any blunt object to throw in the direction of the president, and anything resembling a valid appeal to reason is merely incidental. The ACLU is just jumping on the same bandwagon as the rest: pandering to the leftoids to acquire fame and funds. For those of us in it for the long haul, this is good news, whatever the outcome for Trump. These swamp creatures stay alive by maintaining plausible deniability, by propagating illusions. All pretense of principle over petty politics is long gone. Sure, these places are doing fine for now (but not great, looking at MSM ratings). TDS fuels the lefty organizations. But what about when he's gone? After years of gratuitous partisanship, do they think they'll just return back to the normal game? (Trick question...they aren't thinking.) The leftist capacity for selective memory knows no bounds, but still, I have to think that once Trump has moved along, these outfits that have undermined their own legitimacy in their zeal for the zeitgeist, they'll just deflate away.

As far as Brennan goes, well, which do you think is the more likely scenario. That this was petty, impulsive, uncalibrated vengeance? Or that this is part of the Trump playbook? Sure, you or I, mere mortals, might make our strongest case against Brennan when firing him, to provide justification. Trump doesn't do that. He holds his cards tight, and lures his enemies into weak positions. He'll make Brennan a martyr on purpose, so all the left circles around him, right before the rug gets pulled out from underneath them all. We've seen this enough times. I'll be looking forward to the next scene of Act Brennan.