Should The FBI Be Abolished?

Three lies for the price of one?

In The American Spectator yesterday, Steven Baldwin asked a controversial question. Should we abolish the FBI? I think he makes a pretty good case that we should. It’s a long article, and my excerpts will look like looney assertions, they aren’t, read the link. Let’s get going.

For the last few years, the media has been dominated by a number of sensational stories: that Trump colluded with Russia to influence the presidential election; that the Trump team was wiretapped by Obama intelligence officials; that Hillary used a private email server to transmit classified information; that Hillary and the DNC colluded with Russian sources to compile a dossier on Trump, and finally, that Russia acquired 20% of America’s uranium supply during the same time period $145 million miraculously appeared in the Clinton Foundation’s bank account. It all stinks to high heaven but it’s created a confusing array of facts that has bewildered most Americans. They all know something is seriously wrong with their country even if they can’t pinpoint exactly what the problem is.

But there is a common denominator in all these scandals or alleged scandals, and that would be the FBI and the actions they took or didn’t take. […]

On top of all that, former FBI director Robert Mueller — now Special Counsel — is investigating Trump for collusion with Russia when the evidence is now revealing that the only party that colluded with the Russians to influence the 2016 campaign was the Democratic Party. But Mueller doesn’t have the integrity to widen his investigation to cover the Clinton/GPS Fusion/Russian dossier scandal but instead is spending millions on investigating alleged crimes by former Trump campaign workers that occurred years ago and had nothing to do with Trump, Russian collusion, or the 2016 election.

Lastly, when Mueller was FBI Director, he served on the board of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the agency that approved the sale of uranium to Russia by the Uranium One company only a short time after his own agency had arrested a Russian official attempting to bribe American uranium officials. But there is no record of Mueller warning his fellow CFIUS members about the illegal Russian efforts. It likewise begs logic to believe that Mueller knew nothing about the $145 million the Clinton Foundation received from Putin-connected sources shortly after the CFIUS vote. It is also inconceivable that Mueller, as FBI Director from 2001-2013, was not aware that the Clintons were using their foundation and Hillary’s Secretary of State position to operate a massive pay-to-play scam that went far beyond the Uranium One scandal. […]

However, it has become increasingly clear in recent years that this agency has become so politicized, so corrupt, and so large and bureaucratic that it may no longer be an effective agency. The time has come to discuss its abolition. […]

But note that the FBI did not come into existence until 132 years after the country declared its independence. This was because the founders never envisioned a federal role for law enforcement. It is not one of the “enumerated” duties of the federal government listed in the constitution.

There were reasons for that. Our founders were skeptical of a large federal government and, indeed, not even the “federalist” faction argued for a federal law enforcement role. The Constitution’s authors all assumed that most of the country’s governing would be carried out by state and local governments; the Federal government was created simply to take care of things that states were not well suited to do, such as maintaining a military, minting currency, and negotiating trade treaties. Indeed, for most of America’s first century, the highest law enforcement officer was the county sheriff.

Except for treason, the idea of federal crimes was not even mentioned in the Constitution. Our founders had a healthy fear of America turning into a tyrannical government such as those which existed all over the world at the time. They wanted to maximize freedom; hence the Bill of Rights. They assumed the creation of a federalized police force would make it far easier for the federal government to abuse the rights of its citizens.

Wise men, the founders. Consider

  • Prosecuting Opponents of World War 1.

  • COINTELPRO. This was the FBI’s covert internal security program in the 1950s and ’60s, created to “disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and neutralize” groups and individuals the government deemed to be enemies.

  • FBI Preparations for Martial Law.

  • The Ruby Ridge Murders.

  • The Waco Massacre.

  • Helping Bill Clinton Collect Dirt on his Enemies. Often referred to as “Filegate,” in 1993-94 […]

  • Project Megiddo. This was another shady FBI project, launched in 1999, created for the purpose of monitoring groups on the right […]

  • Use of Criminals as Undercover Agents.

  • Operation Vigilant Eagle. This FBI program initiated in 2009 targeted anti-government activists such as Tea Party activists and, alarmingly, veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars

  • Targeting Pro-Lifers. In 2010, The FBI held a joint training session on terrorism with Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation.

  • The IRS Scandal.

  • FBI Worked With the SPLC

  • Data Mining Innocent Americans.

  • Raids on Homes of Anti-Government Activists. Repeatedly, the FBI has raided homes on the flimsiest of evidence.

  • Fraudulent Forensics.

  • FBI High School Informer Network

  • The FBI Record on Fighting Terrorism. [Which is terrible]

And so many more.

Conservatives Should Quit Defending the FBI
The FBI has a long history of being used by various administrations to harass certain groups and individuals, or, conversely, to allow certain groups and individuals to commit crimes without fear of prosecution. The FBI is supposed to uphold the Constitution but instead has repeatedly violated the constitutional rights of Americans. This politicization has cost many Americans their lives and their freedoms. The abuse listed here is not comprehensive but it’s enough, one would think, to make conservatives think twice about defending this agency’s police state tactics.

This is what we are paying for. My recollection is that the reason J. Edgar Hoover got the name changed from the Bureau of Investigation was to shed the image of corruption which had grown up about it. He was, of course, a master of public relations (not to mention alleged blackmail). And so we were all sold this bill of goods that the G-men were a bunch of clean-cut, incorruptible, good guys. Maybe it was true once (I doubt it), it certainly is not anymore, as we have seen.

Much more at the link, but I think it is time to end this charade, as we should its cousin the Bureau of Alchohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which should go back to being a convenience store, for us, not Mexican drug runners. Enough is quite a lot more than enough.

Time to end the charade.

 

Advertisements

Antifa and ISIS, well why not?

Bring it on.

Ever wondered about these Antifa idiots and how they get funded? Yeah, me, too. Well, here’s a bit of history and perhaps some light. From The Federalist.

Despite antiseptic portrayals throughout American media, Antifa are more than “anti-fascists.” Antifa represent the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic and provide the violent complement to academic neo-Marxism. Like their philosophical comrades, Antifa seek to destroy the American emphasis on liberty under law and to impose a revival of one of history’s most repressive ideologies.

Antifa Is Anti-West and Anti-Capitalist

Bernd Langer, whose “80 Years of Anti-Fascist Action” was published by Germany’s Association for the Promotion of Anti-Fascist Literature, succinctly defined the rhetorical subterfuge. “Anti-fascism is a strategy rather than an ideology,” wrote Langer, a former Antifa member, for “an anti-capitalist form of struggle.”

Short for the German phrase, “Antifaschistische Aktion,” Antifa served as the paramilitary arm of the German Communist Party (KPD), which the Soviet Union funded. In other words, Antifa became the German Communists’ version of the Nazis’ brown-shirted SA.

The KPD made no secret of Antifa’s affiliation. A 1932 photo of KPD headquarters in Berlin prominently displayed the double-flagged Antifa emblem among other Communist symbols and slogans. In a photo from the 1932 Unity Congress of Antifa in Berlin, the double-flagged banner shared space with the hammer and sickle and with two large cartoons. One supported the KPD, the other mocked the SPD, Germany’s Social Democratic Party.

Today’s Antifa embrace those roots. During February’s protest in Berkeley, masked Antifa agitators caused nearly $100,000 in damage by starting fires, breaking windows, assaulting bystanders with pepper spray and flagpoles, painting graffiti on nearby businesses, and destroying automatic teller machines. “Refuse Fascism,” the group organizing Saturday’s protests, is controlled by the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, which seeks to create a Marxist United States through violent revolution.

Law and Order Are Among Antifa’s Enemies

Antifa’s goal to suppress “fascism” reflects the views of neo-Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse. “A policy of unequal treatment would protect radicalism on the Left against that on the Right,” Marcuse wrote in “Repressive Tolerance,” his 1965 essay. “Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left” extending “to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word.”

Just such wonderful folks, don’t you think, why I’d be quite pleased to introduce them to some of my friends, yeah, the ones with the Eagle on their button. Likely to be an interesting, if short, meeting.

In connected news from the birds of a feather, flock together file, a most interesting report from Warsclerotic.

A new book by a former editor in chief of The New York Times Magazine and best-selling author reveals for the first time an FBI field report about the collusion between American anti-Trump radicals and foreign ISIS/al-Qaeda operatives.

In his latest book, All Out War: The Plot to Destroy Trumpset to be released today, Edward Klein reveals to the public findings from an FBI investigation into the shocking ties between far-left radicals in America and Islamist extremists.

The FBI report was delivered to Acting Director Andrew McCabe on July 11, 2017. While certain names have been redacted, Klein reveals how the FBI followed a group of Americans anarchists/radicals who traveled to Germany to join their German counterpart Antifaschistische Aktion to protest Trump’s attendance at a meeting of G20 leaders and central bank governors.

Evidence gathered from a variety of intelligence sources showed the Americans took part in the violence there. “There is also evidence of meetings between these individuals and associates of ISIS…Making some sort of common cause with Americans who are determined to commit violence against the U.S. makes them potentially very useful to radical Islam,” writes Klein based on the report.

Klein notes that the FBI paid particular attention to a group of anarchists from Oakland, sister city to Berkeley, California, site of the campus of University of California at Berkeley and the scene of several violent protests.

“Now that the bureau has determined [ISIS/al-Qaeda] have followers in the radical U.S. resistance movement in the United States, it is clear there will be additional violence in the attacks on law enforcement and U.S. institutions, including banks,” he writes.

In an article written for the Daily Mail, Klein continues:

“Ties between three key leaders of the Oakland group [names redacted] met in Hamburg with a leader of the AQAP [Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula] and the AQIM [Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb], the report continued.

“The leader from AQAP is an Egyptian-born male [name redacted] who is known to be in charge of finances and recruiting for the group. There is evidence from informants that he is helping the Oakland group acquire the weapons they are seeking, primarily bomb-making equipment and toxic chemicals and gasses.

“One of the men from Oakland traveled to Syria to meet with ISIS; the purpose was for training in tactics, but was thought to be primarily a bonding visit to discuss possible massive disruptive attacks in the U.S.

“While in Hamburg, several of the Oakland-based criminals were photographed throwing Molotov cocktails and wielding iron bars, which have been their weapons of choice, though they are almost certainly on the verge of upping the caliber of their weaponry for use in the U.S.”

It is time to revise Paul Revere’s cry in the night, “Noise? You’ll have noise enough before long. The irregulars are coming out!”

There were reports a couple weeks ago that these fools had something planned for the anniversary of the election of Donald Trump. Well, that’s tomorrow, so keep your eyes open.

Heh!

Trump will do his best, I believe. Some wag the other day said it will be a short war, since one side has 3 trillion rounds of ammunition, and the other side can’t figure out which bathroom to use. Be that as it may, it’s time to…

Lock and Load.

WHY OBAMA REALLY SPIED ON TRUMP

Daniel Greenfield wrote in FrontPage Magazine a few days ago:

Last week, CNN revealed (and excused) one phase of the Obama spying operation on Trump. After lying about it on MSNBC, Susan Rice admitted unmasking the identities of Trump officials to Congress.

Rice was unmasking the names of Trump officials a month before leaving office. The targets may have included her own successor, General Flynn, who was forced out of office using leaked surveillance.

While Rice’s targets weren’t named, the CNN story listed a meeting with Flynn, Bannon and Kushner.

Bannon was Trump’s former campaign chief executive and a senior adviser. Kushner is a senior adviser. Those are exactly the people you spy on to get an insight into what your political opponents plan to do.

Now the latest CNN spin piece informs us that secret FISA orders were used to spy on the conversations of Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.  The surveillance was discontinued for lack of evidence and then renewed under a new warrant. This is part of a pattern of FISA abuses by Obama Inc. which never allowed minor matters like lack of evidence to dissuade them from new FISA requests.

Desperate Obama cronies had figured out that they could bypass many of the limitations on the conventional investigations of their political opponents by ‘laundering’ them through national security.

If any of Trump’s people were talking to non-Americans, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) could be used to spy on them. And then the redacted names of the Americans could be unmasked by Susan Rice, Samantha Power and other Obama allies. It was a technically legal Watergate.

If both CNN stories hold up, then Obama Inc. had spied on two Trump campaign leaders.

Furthermore the Obama espionage operation closely tracked Trump’s political progress. The first FISA request targeting Trump happened the month after he received the GOP nomination.  The second one came through in October: the traditional month of political surprises meant to upend an election.

Not really anything we didn’t know here, and if not proven (and it may never be) but this aligns with what we know, particularly of the people involved.

When the individual acts of surveillance are described as legal, that’s irrelevant. It’s the collective pattern of surveillance of the political opposition that exposes the criminal motive for them.

If Obama spied on two of Trump’s campaign leaders, that’s not a coincidence. It’s a pattern.

A criminal motive can be spotted by a consistent pattern of actions disguised by different pretexts. A dirty cop may lose two pieces of evidence from the same defendant while giving two different excuses. A shady accountant may explain two otherwise identical losses in two different ways. Both excuses are technically plausible. But it’s the pattern that makes the crime.

Manafort was spied on under the Russia pretext. Bannon may have been spied on over the UAE. That’s two different countries, two different people and two different pretexts.

But one single target. President Trump.

It’s the pattern that exposes the motive.

When we learn the whole truth (if we ever do), we will likely discover that Obama Inc. assembled a motley collection of different technically legal pretexts to spy on Trump’s team.

Each individual pretext might be technically defensible. But together they add up to the crime of the century.

Obama’s gamble was that the illegal surveillance would justify itself. If you spy on a bunch of people long enough, especially people in politics and business, some sort of illegality, actual or technical, is bound to turn up. That’s the same gamble anyone engaged in illegal surveillance makes.

Businessmen illegally tape conversations with former partners hoping that they’ll say something damning enough to justify the risk. That was what Obama and his allies were doing with Trump.

It’s a crime. And you can’t justify committing a crime by discovering a crime. […]

If the gamble fails, if no criminal case that amounts to anything more than the usual investigational gimmick charges like perjury (the Federal equivalent of ‘resisting arrest’ for a beat cop) develops, then Obama and his allies are on the hook for the domestic surveillance of their political opponents.

With nothing to show for it and no way to distract from it.

That’s the race against the clock that is happening right now. Either the investigation gets results. Or its perpetrators are left hanging in the wind. If McMaster is fired, which on purely statistical grounds he probably will be, and a Trump loyalist who wasn’t targeted by the surveillance operation becomes the next National Security Adviser and brings in Trump loyalists, as Flynn tried to do, then it’s over.

And the Dems finally get their Watergate. Except the star won’t be Trump, it will be Obama. Rice, Power, Lynch and the rest of the gang will be the new Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Mitchell.

Once Obama and his allies launched their domestic surveillance operation, they crossed the Rubicon. And there was no way back. They had to destroy President Trump or risk going to jail.

The more crimes they committed by spying on the opposition, the more urgently they needed to bring down Trump. The consequences of each crime that they had committed spurred them on to commit worse crimes to save themselves from going to jail. It’s the same old story when it comes to criminals.

Each act of illegal surveillance became more blatant. And when illegal surveillance couldn’t stop Trump’s victory, they had to double down on the illegal surveillance for a coup.

The more Obama spied on Trump, the more he had to keep doing it. This time it was bound to pay off.

Obama and his allies had violated the norms so often for their policy goals that they couldn’t afford to be replaced by anyone but one of their own. The more Obama relied on the imperial presidency of executive orders, the less he could afford to be replaced by anyone who would undo them.  The more his staffers lied and broke the law on everything from the government shutdown to the Iran nuke sellout, the more desperately they needed to pull out all the stops to keep Trump out of office. And the more they did it, the more they couldn’t afford not to do it. Abuse of power locks you into the loop familiar to all dictators. You can’t stop riding the tiger. Once you start, you can’t afford to stop.

I’m going to stop there, simply because of length, but you shouldn’t; follow that link and read it all. It’s a damning exposition of the old saw, |If one tells a lie one will always have to tell another to cover it”. That’s the great thing about telling the truth, you don’t have to remember what you said, on the other hand, an awful lot of people have talked their way into prison this way. I think if justice even close to prevails, I think there will be a new crop of residents at Club Fed.

Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch. And if it doesn’t, America, as we’ve known it since 1789, ends. It’s that important.

Mother of Parliaments

Hilary-BennYesterday, I spent a good part of the day watching the British debate on air strikes in Syria, it was a fascinating exercise. We get so used to the petty squabbling and personal attacks in Congress that we tend to say, “That’s as good as it gets.”

But it’s not, the debate yesterday was intelligent, heartfelt, passionate, reasonable, thoughtful, and persuasive. Even Alex Salmond of SNP had some good points. But there was one highlight that really stuck out. Hillary Benn, the Shadow foreign Secretary in the Labor party, gave an extraordinary speech in favor of the Tory government’s proposal to go into Syria, and being seemingly a plain-spoken man, he called ISIS what they are, Fascists, as he reiterated Labor’s record of opposing fascism, Our Democrats could use that lesson. Here it is

Best speech I’ve heard in years, most likely since either Reagan or Thatcher, just extraordinary.

That doesn’t mean that he, they, or us, don’t need a better plan than simply air strikes, it simply means that it is a start.


Meantime a bit about San Bernadino. Given that the one name was Syed Farook, most of us are going to assume what is was, and likely we’re right. But it’s a strange one as John Hinderaker of PowerLine noted

But it is a strange incident: why the Inland Regional Center? And the terrorist group, two men and a woman, may be consistent with a Muslim terror ring, but until now, haven’t female terrorists–suicide bombers or knife attackers, pretty much always–acted alone? Is there precedent for mixed gender Islamic terrorist teams? Maybe there is, but I can’t think of one.

* This case reportedly was broken because of a “tip.” That tip sent police officers to an address in Redlands where, shortly thereafter, the SUV that was being sought turned up. That led to the chase that culminated in the shootout between police and terrorists. Where did the tip come from? Maybe it was just a concerned citizen. Or else–this is pure speculation–maybe one or more of the perpetrators was already under some sort of surveillance as a potential terrorist. Maybe the tip came from the FBI or another law enforcement agency. Maybe there were actually a number of tips–the addresses of suspected terror sympathizers in the area–and this is the one that panned out.

More at the source, here: Thoughts on the San Bernardino Murders

I’d guess the tip did come from the FBI or similar, this has what I think are the characteristics of a blown operation, if so, wherever they were going was spared a much worse experience than this was, bad as it was.

Well, we started this post with an exceptional speech, relevant to the matter at hand, we’ll end it by noting that Obama before he could possibly know jack about it was cantering about on his favorite hobbyhorse, gun control. Too bad Hillary Benn isn’t president.

Thoughts on Boston; and the Stans

Ethnic Russians in former Soviet Union states ...

Ethnic Russians in former Soviet Union states in 1994 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

OK continuing on the central Asian theme, mostly, and it’s relation to us. As I have come to expect, Ooobie has some relevant, and pithy observations. Why do we as Americans tend to look down on the Russians? Sure, we won the cold war but it took a long time, and I’m not entirely sure that it wasn’t a case of they tried harder to lose. It seems as if our government people have a very dangerous case of hubris, either that or our intelligence agencies are either having a really good time, or have become politicized beyond repair. You pays your money and takes your choice, here. I’m not sure any of them are the predominate cause, nor am I convinced it really, in a tactical sense, matters. It is, deal with it.

Or is it that they just know as little of the area as I do? That’s possible, I suppose, although they couldn’t hardly know less than I do, unless knowing wrong stuff is negative knowledge. Cause I know next to nothing, that’s what these posts are all about, I’m taking what I can find of a crash course on the area after Boston, and I’m taking you, if you’re willing, with me. Because I see little point to having an opinion on something that I don’t understand.

So, here’s Ooobie:

Thoughts on the Unknowable

Just some musings on various topics today, after long days of watching obsessive coverage of the Boston bombings, their victims, and their perpetrators.

I’ve been shaking my head about the fact that Russian intelligence tried to warn Americans about the Jokers six months ago, but the FBI couldn’t find a thing on these guys. Apparently, there was so little reason for concern that they did not maintain surveillance, either. Or keep up with their social media antics. It wasn’t rocket science, it was simple due diligence.

There is an underlying problem here that I feel ought to be mentioned. It is called hubris. The Americans far more than the Europeans are contemptuous of Russia in all manner of ways, perhaps because the Europeans, from Sweden to Germany to Poland to France, have been tussling with the Russians in one West European-concocted war or another for centuries and they have yet to win one. We Americans especially suffer from arrogance in the military realm. We have shiny new lethal weapons of every variety and the latest design, and Russia is still burdened with an old-time Army and Navy, unable to invest the gazillions of dollars necessary both to modernize their economy and show off their weaponry in Kremlin parades. At least I guess that is the reason behind our sneering attitudes when it comes to things military and security. But Russia’s intelligence services are still excellent and given the neighborhood they live in, they have to be. As far as the military hardware, it’s true that Russia doesn’t have the money to turn out all kinds of new models of all kinds of new weapons, but it knows how to upgrade what they have and come up with new generation critical weaponry. It still knows how to focus its first-rate scientific community on such projects. Most significantly, they are not talking about unilateral nuclear disarmament, although they’d love to encourage the USA and its destructive president to go right ahead with such a project.

America, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, has ignored Russia’s warnings on various foreign policy conundrums. We have been condescending and all-knowing, playing Oliver Hardy to Stan Laurel, or Moe to Curly and Shemp. We have ignored Russia’s warnings about the folly of intervening in the Middle East and in North African countries for no clear reason other than to showcase our big bombers, leaving behind unstable governments and huge pools of actual and potential jihadists that nobody can keep under control. That was a luxury the US could once, briefly, afford — the terrorists were concentrating on Russia and Israel, not America. Not anymore.

Maybe you’re not aware of the fact that long before 9/11, when Al Qaeda was a destructive whirlwind in the second bloody Chechen war and the terrorism that ensued all around Russia, the Russians tried to warn the Americans about the group. But we Americans always know better. Thanks for the information, we’ll get back to you. Al Qaeda wasn’t a big problem for us. And then there came 9/11, and suddenly we were Al Qaeda experts. Now we send drones after the jihadists around the globe and are on to their every move, unless they are up to no good in the United States, in which case we are close to stupidly ignorant.

Continue reading Thoughts on the Unknowable | Ooobie on Everything.

I think I’ve got nearly enough information to have an opinion, so maybe will start talking about going forward soon.

%d bloggers like this: