Category Archives: FBI

“Too early” to say Pensacola Naval shooting was terrorism yet three Saudis apparently filmed the incident

Yesterday morning a Saudi national at Naval Air Station Pensacola opened fire and killed three people before being killed by law enforcement. The Saudi national, a member of the Royal Saudi Air Force, was receiving pilot training (are you kidding me?) at our military installation. His name was Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani (pictured above).

According to Breitbart, a total of six Saudis are being questioned about the incident. Three of those Saudi’s were caught filming the incident.

Yeah, no question about terrorism there AT ALL.

More from the NY Times:

“Six other Saudi nationals were detained for questioning near the scene of the shooting, including three who were seen filming the entire incident, according to a person briefed on the initial stages of the investigation.

It was not known whether the six Saudis detained were students in the classroom building, and there was no immediate indication that those filming the incident were connected to the gunman, the person said.”

Read their whole story here.

In my opinion, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to deduce that this was most likely an incident of terrorism.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Demorat Illinois State Sen. Martin Sandoval resigns amid corruption probe

How convenient the state senator dropped the resignation news the night before Thanksgiving weekend.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Elites’ contempt for America’s white middle class

In early March 2016, three months before the last Republican Party primary elections that sealed Trump’s ascendancy as the party’s presidential nominee, Politico Magazine contributing editor Michael Lind called Trump “the Perfect Populist”—”one with broader appeal to the right and the center than his predecessors in recent American political history—so much so it could put him in the White House”.

Lind was unusual among pundits in predicting Trump’s electoral victory, as according to polling data he did not have even an outside chance of winning. What catapulted Trump to the White House, to the enduring shock and disbelief of the Democratic Party, was his message of what Victor Davis Hanson in his book The Case for Trump identified as “middle-class populism”—a populism of “less government, doubt over overseas military commitments, fears of redistribution and globalization, and distrust of cultural elites.” Their distrust, Hanson maintains, fundamentally was a reaction, not a catalyst, to the elites’ contempt for the white middle class:

[S]corn for the white middle class . . . was widespread among many elites, and it ignited a Trump backlash . . . . The anger that Trump tapped had been a long time in coming. But few politicians knew it firsthand, much less saw it as merited or even useful in the political sense . . . . [Trump] had seen a critical preexisting and vast swath of potential voters in proverbial swing states who were . . . resentful over the disdain shown them by elites, especially the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. And they were irate at the winners of globalization who had somehow blamed them for being the global economy’s losers.

In other words, the elites’ contempt for the white middle and working classes predated the 2016 election.

Except in the cases of Obama and Hillary Clinton, the following account of contemptuous elites are from Hanson’s The Case for Trump.

To begin, eight years before the 2016 election, at a fundraising event in San Francisco on April 6, 2008, presidential hopeful Barack Obama condescendingly dismissed working-class voters in old industrial towns decimated by job losses as “bitter” people who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

For her part, at an LGBT fundraiser in Manhattan on September 9, 2016, Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton urged supporters to “stage an intervention” if they had friends who might vote Trump. She then dissed millions of Americans over whom she intended to rule as president. Clinton said, “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables’. The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.” After she lost the election to Trump and the “deplorables,” in a public speech in Mumbai, India on March 10, 2018, Clinton redoubled her contempt for Trump voters. She said, “So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward,” thereby implying that the 63 million Americans who had voted for Trump were demoralized, monotonous, listless, and degenerating.

Hillary Clinton’s aides were just as dismissive. In her book Chasing Hillary: Ten Years, Two Presidential Campaigns, and One Intact Glass Ceiling, New York Times reporter Amy Chozick described how Clinton’s inner circle looked down on Trump voters as fodder for their amusement: “The Deplorables always got a laugh, over living-room chats in the Hamptons, at dinner parties under the stars on Martha’s Vineyard, over passed hors d’oeuvres in Beverly Hills, and during sunset cocktails in Silicon Valley.”

Elites less prominent than Obama and Clinton similarly were contemptuous of Trump supporters. As examples, on August 12, 2016, FBI agent Peter Strzok texted to his paramour Lisa Page (both are married) that Trump voters stank: “Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support.” Another unidentified FBI employee texted an FBI attorney on the day after the 2016 election that “Trump’s supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS [pieces of sh*t].”

In a tweet on January 7, 2017, Melinda Byerley, founder of the Silicon Valley company Timeshare CMO, wrote: “One thing middle America could do is to realize that no educated person wants to live in a sh**hole with stupid people. Especially violent, racist, and/or misogynistic ones . . . . When corporations think about where to locate call centers, factories, development centers, etc., they also have to deal with the fact that those towns have nothing going for them. No infrastructure, just a few bars and a terrible school system.”

Some members of the media were just as disdainful. In a tweet on August 2018, Politico reporter Marc Caputo mocked the crowd at a Trump rally as toothless hicks: “If you put everyone’s mouths together in this video, you’d get a full set of teeth.” Although Caputo initialy apologized for and deleted the tweet, he later doubled down, calling Trump supporters “garbage people.”

Another journalist, tech writer and member of the New York Times’s editorial board Sarah Jeong, a graduate of Harvard Law School who is of Korean heritage, tweeted: “Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?”; “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men”; and “White people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”

Hillary Clinton wasn’t the only politician who regarded Trump voters with unconcealed contempt. On September 15, 2018, during a speech at the Human Rights Campaign’s annual dinner in Washington, D.C., former Vice President Joe Biden called the deplorables “virulent” “dregs of society”. He said: “Despite losing in the courts, and in the court of opinion, these forces of intolerance remain determined to undermine and roll back the progress you all have made. This time they—not you—have an ally in the White House. This time they have an ally. They’re a small percentage of the American people—virulent people, some of them the dregs of society.” Hanson points out that those “dregs of society” in 2016 numbered 63 million—46% of all Americans who voted.

Nor were Progressives the only elites who held the white middle and working classes in contempt. Republican “never Trumpers” were equally derisive.

In a March 2016 op-ed, National Review’s conservative social critic Kevin Williamson wrote: “The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible . . . . The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles.”

On February 8, 2017, on a panel at the American Enterprise Institute, Bill Kristol, founder of the Weekly Standard, said white, working-class Americans should be replaced by immigrants. Kristol said:

“Look, to be totally honest, if things are so bad as you say with the white working class, don’t you want to get new Americans in? Basically if you are in free society, a capitalist society, after two, three, four generations of hard work, everyone becomes kind of decadent, lazy, spoiled, whatever. Then, luckily, you have these waves of people coming in from Italy, Ireland, Russia, and now Mexico, who really want to work hard and really want to succeed, and really want their kids to live better lives than them, and aren’t sort of clipping coupons or hoping that they can hang on and, meanwhile, grew up as spoiled kids and so forth.”

Another “never Trumper” conservative who became a self-described “man without a party” after the 2016 election, expressed the same wish. In a June 18, 2018 op-ed, Washington Post columnist Max Boot wrote: “If only we could keep the hard-working Latin American newcomers and deport the contemptible Republican cowards—that would truly enhance America’s greatness.”

For his part, New York Times conservative columnist David Brooks, with the ragged teeth, echoed the same sentiments in a January 29, 2018 op-ed: “These rural places are often 95 percent white . . . . They are often marked by economic stagnation, social isolation, family breakdown and high opioid addiction . . . . It is a blunt fact of life that, these days, immigrants show more of these virtues than the native-born.”

Hanson points out that these Progressive and conservative “never Trump” elites not only are racist, they are hypocrites. Conveniently, the elites excused their crude stereotyping of white, middle America by insisting that racism against whites was not racism. While accusing the middle and working classes they deride for “white privilege,” the elites are blind to their own outsized privileges. In Hanson’s words:

Often the white elite signaled their disgust of the ‘white privilege’ of the disintegrating middle class as a means of exempting their own quite genuine white privilege of insider contacts, professional degrees, wealth, inheritance, and influence.

I am baffled by why the elites hold such virulent hatred and contempt for America’s white middle and working classes who have built this country. It is a phenomenon for psychiatric professionals to explain. Alas, being of the same privileged professional elite class, they probably are infected with the same virus.

Perhaps our readers can hazard some guesses to explain this phenomenon.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

“Pacific Islander” doctor arrested for performing unnecessary surgeries on women, including hysterectomies

Dr. Javaid Perwaiz

The good doctor that was arrested is Javaid Perwaiz, 69, of Chesapeake, Virginia. The USMS Norfolk arrested him on Friday and he was booked into the Western Tidewater Regional Jail.

The arresting record describes him as “Asian/Pacific Islander.”

The good doctor is neither of those descriptors – he’s originally from Pakistan.

According to WJLA, the doctor was charged with one count each of health care fraud and making false statements relating to health care matters.

This arrest all began because of a tip from an employee last year to the FBI. WJLA states that the doctor subjected Medicaid patients (four in total) to unwanted procedures including hysterectomies and tubal ligation.

Apparently the affidavit completed by the FBI states that in 2014 a woman learned that Perwaiz had removed her Fallopian tubes without her consent or knowledge.

Scott Daughtery of The Virginian-Pilot has an extensive story about this case including more details about the unwanted/unauthorized procedures. This includes the fact that the arrested doctor was performing so many procedures that hospital staff had a difficult time “keeping up.”

Read the whole scary story here.

From the arrested doctor’s web page:

“Dr. Perwaiz has practiced in the Chesapeake region for over 30 years, providing expert and individualized care to his patients. Personally following each and every patient throughout their pregnancy, he is available 24/7 to meet all of your requests and expectations.

Educated abroad, Dr. Perwaiz has practiced in the Chesapeake Region for over 30 years. He is dedicated to the promotion of healthcare to women from adolescence to menopause and beyond. His training and experience truly qualifies him as an expert in the care of low and high risk pregnancies. He has delivered thousands of healthy babies. His surgical skills are unparalleled, from laparoscopic surgery, cesarean section, hysterectomy, to more complicated gynecologic repair.“

Guess the doctor should have added this caveat to his web page: “Whether you want it or not.”

h/t PJ Media

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Admiral Mike Rogers & The Dog That Didn’t Bark

The phrase “the dog that didn’t bark” originates from a Sherlock Holmes story (“The Adventure of Silver Blaze”) – the indispensable clue coming in the form of something that would normally have occurred – but didn’t.

Which brings us to the relentless effort on the part of the Democrat Party (and its Deep State overlords) to remove President Trump from office, and thus undo the election of 2016. Since that time the Progressive forces visible to the public – the so-called mainstream media, the minions of the Democrat Party – have fed the public with allegations of “Russian collusion,” emoluments clause violations, 25th Amendment removal, and “obstruction of justice.” In spite of their all-out efforts, that poisonous Progressive tree has failed to produce impeachment fruit.

The Democrats’ motto appears to be: “if at first you don’t succeed, and second you don’t succeed, and third you don’t succeed, coup, coup, again.”

We now find ourselves being hauled out on to yet another limb of that tree – an “impeachment investigation” (a/k/a “impeachment inquiry”) borne of neither House vote nor due process – purportedly to investigate not “Russian collusion,” but “Ukrainian coercion.”

An obvious question becomes was there ever any good faith belief on the part of Democrats that President Trump had committed any bad acts, much less any serious enough to support a bona fide impeachment and removal from office?

Or has this all been an unprecedented, a downright evil attempt to remove a duly-elected President from office using trumped-up charges (pun intended) – a de facto attempt at pulling off a political coup to overthrow the rightful President of the United States?

It is submitted for your consideration that in answer to that question, “a dog that didn’t bark” provides the telltale clue.

Continue reading

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Nancy Pelosi’s Constitutional Process Crimes

Cross-posted from www.trevorloudon.com

“It’s a pun!” the King added in an offended tone, and everybody laughed, “Let the jury consider their verdict,” the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

“No, no!” said the Queen. “Sentence first — verdict afterwards.”

“Stuff and nonsense!” said Alice loudly. “The idea of having the sentence first!”

“Hold your tongue!” said the Queen, turning purple.

“I won’t!” said Alice.

“Off with her head!” the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

“Who cares for you?” said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) “You’re nothing but a pack of cards!”

– Alice in Wonderland (Lewis Carroll); Chapter XII, Alice’s Evidence

We need not recount here the myriad ways that Nancy Pelosi’s so-called “impeachment investigation” is a Constitutional travesty –  perusal of the non-“mainstream” media and White House Counsel Pat Cippolone’s  letter to the House more than suffice.

The “impeachment investigation” is structured as a Congressional hit-squad, not a bona fide inquiry; it makes even Stalin’s show trials look legitimate in comparison, for at least those were held in public – something the Lavrentiy Beria-resembling Adam Schiff dares not do.

During the Mueller circus we witnessed various folks being charged with “process crimes” totally unrelated to “Russian collusion” – apparently driven by Andrew Weissmann’s attempts to squeeze (false) implicating testimony (against Trump) from the targets, or his retribution if they didn’t succumb to said attempts.

It can be argued that the lack of due process, lack of fealty to procedural precedent, and overall lack integrity, means that by design this “impeachment inquiry” is itself  a series of “process crimes” against our Constitution, committed by those who have designed it, and those who are executing it.

Further, those who are “in the know” about what’s going on, and are in a position to do something about it, or at least to blow the whistle about it, are accomplices to these “process crimes.”

After all, if the Democrats were genuine in their professed belief that impeachable offenses were committed by President Trump – yet also remained loyal to the letter and spirit of our history and our Constitution – they would be sensitive to the serious portends of even commencing such an effort.

So if this was a legitimate effort the Democrats would have made sure that the design of, and conduct of the process would be unimpeachable.

This they have not done. Quite the opposite.  This “investigation” demonstrates not only the Democrats’ duplicity, but also their desperation.

For you see, extremely serious crimes were committed against the Trump campaign; so now the Democrats and Deep State have placed themselves into a position of (as they see it) having to cover up “by any means necessary.”

Continue reading

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

The Democrats’ Existential Imperative for (at least theoretical) Impeachment

Cross-linked from TrevorLoudon.com

Impeach President Trump for Russian collusion; for emoluments; for obstruction of justice. Now for Ukraine (and Australia and China and then (?). Adam Schiff and his fellow Democrats and Deep Staters’ impeachment jihad could be viewed as obsessed, crazy – perhaps even comedic, as they (and Adam Schiff in particular) increasingly resemble Wile E. Coyote futilely chasing the Road Runner.

But even crazy and obsessed people can be rational in their machinations. What if the Deep State swamp crocodiles fully recognize that it is unlikely that they’ll succeed in removing President Trump from office through impeachment, yet still persist? Is there a method to their madness? Yes.

True, they desperately want to take out President Trump, and dare not rely upon the electoral process plus whatever voter fraud they can muster to accomplish that for them. So impeachment is their offensive element, and remains their best-case scenario. Still, after Mueller belly-flopped, they must have finally realized (if not before) that a successful impeachment and removal from office is highly unlikely, if not impossible.

But there is also a defensive element. They have to surmise that Trump’s declassifications, and (let us pray) DOJ indictments will occur between the release of the Inspector General’s report and the 2020 election. So they also require a defensive strategy well before the election. The Democrats can, and are, simultaneously playing both offense and defense.

Continue reading

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Gun control in Baltimore: 7 shot – 2 fatally – in 16 hours as homicide count reaches 240

Meanwhile in gun-controlled Chiraq: 34 shot, 6 fatally over the weekend.

Both cities have strict gun control laws. Yet it’s as if the criminals just don’t care…

From Fox News: The first weekend in September was another violent one in Charm City.

In the span of about 16 hours, seven people were shot — two fatally — in various neighborhoods throughout Baltimore.

The Baltimore Police Department said on Facebook the violent streak began around 9:30 p.m. on Saturday. Officers arriving at the scene in West Baltimore found a 39-year-old with a gunshot wound to the head. He was pronounced dead on the scene.

About two hours later a 28-year-old man was discovered shot on Milton Street in East Baltimore. He was transported to an area hospital and listed in serious condition, according to police.

Early Sunday, police responded to a neighborhood just north of Baltimore’s Penn Station for a report of a shooting around 1:22 a.m. Officers located a 27-year-old man with a gunshot wound in the leg who was later transported to an area hospital for treatment.

Just before 7 a.m. on Sunday, police went to Gold Street and discovered a 26-year-old man suffering from gunshot wounds to the torso, neck and head. The man was transported to an area hospital, where he later died, according to police.

About an hour later a double shooting was reported in South Baltimore on Filbert Street, where a 21-year-old man was shot in the back and transported to the hospital.

A short time later, a 23-year-old man suffering from gunshot wounds to the arm, leg and groin walked into an area hospital. Police believe both victims were on nearby Pennington Avenue when an unknown suspect began shooting.

Mike Callow, who was near the shooting on Pennington Avenue, told FOX45 Baltimore on Sunday the violence is overwhelming. “I think there’s a lot of senseless killings out here,” he said.

Callow echoed calls to get the violence under control in Baltimore. “It’s very upsetting. Nobody wants to see nobody get killed,” he told FOX45. “Everybody has a value in life and purpose in life and it’s just sad seeing people die every day throughout the city.”

By Sunday afternoon, Baltimore police were busy responding to yet another shooting in North Baltimore. Police said that incident happened around 1:40 p.m. when the 36-year-old male victim walked into an area hospital suffering from a gunshot wound to the leg.

Due to the victim being very uncooperative with investigators, a location and suspect information is unknown at this time,” police said.

Baltimore is in the midst of yet another violent year, with the homicide count now up to at least 240 reported homicides in 2019, according to statistics compiled by the Baltimore Sun. The city is on pace to have more than 300 murders for a fifth straight year.

“It’s very sad seeing this,” Callow told FOX45. “It seems like its every week, every couple weeks.”

In addition to a police department that’s distrusted by many residents, Charm City has seen a mix of chronically high rates of violent crime. The city of Baltimore is one of the most dangerous in America, according to the FBI.

Baltimore has been in the throes of a steep rise in violent crime since 2015, when the homicide rate spiked amid the city’s worst rioting in decades following the death of Freddie Gray, a black man who died in police custody. In 2017, the FBI placed the city on its “Crime in the U.S.” list. Baltimore was listed well above that of any other large American metropolis, with the 342 homicides notched that year, yielding a stunning homicide rate of 56 per 100,000 people.

Read the whole story here.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

DOJ Inspector General referred Comey for prosecution but AG Barr refused to prosecute

Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz is the chief watchdog of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Katie Pavlich reports for Townhall that on Thursday morning, August 29, 2019, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz released an 83-page long report on fired FBI Director James Comey‘s misconduct — that Comey set a “dangerous precedent” by purposefully leaking to the media confidential FBI memos about conversations with President Trump for personal and political gain, so as to launch the Special Counsel investigation into the 2016 presidential election on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump’s alleged (but wholly without evidence) collusion with the Russians. During sworn congressional testimony in 2017, Comey himself admitted that he’d purposely leaked the confidential memos to a friend, who then gave them to the New York Times.

The IG’s report specifically addresses a number of claims made by Comey that the memos he leaked were “personal documents.” But the IG concluded the memos, which were written on an official FBI computer while Comey was working in his official capacity as FBI director, belong to the FBI. Even worse, after Comey was fired he held onto the memos, which was against FBI protocol. From the report:

We conclude that the Memos were official FBI records, rather than Comey’s personal documents.  Accordingly, after his removal as FBI Director, Comey violated applicable policies and his Employment Agreement by failing to either surrender his copies of Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 to the FBI or seek authorization to retain them; by releasing official FBI information and records to third parties without authorization; and by failing to immediately alert the FBI about his disclosures to his personal attorneys once he became aware in June 2017 that Memo 2 contained six words (four of which were names of foreign countries mentioned by the President) that the FBI had determined were classified at the “CONFIDENTIAL” level.

Comey told the Office of the Inspector General that he considered Memos 2 through 7 to be his personal documents, rather than official FBI records.  He said he viewed these Memos as “a personal aide-mémoire,” “  like [his] diary” or   “like [his] notes,” which contained his “recollection[s]” of his conversations with President Trump. Comey further stated that he kept Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 in a personal safe at home because he believed the documents were personal records rather than FBI records. Comey’s characterization of the Memos as personal records finds no support in the law and is wholly incompatible with the plain language of the statutes, regulations, and policies defining Federal records, and the terms of Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement.  

We conclude that the Memos are official FBI records as defined by statute, regulations, Department and FBI policies, and Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement. Because they are official FBI records, Comey was required to handle the Memos in compliance with all applicable Department and FBI policies and the terms of his Employment Agreement.

The IG report concluded that by retaining and leaking official FBI documents, including confidential documents, James Comey  violated:

  1. The DOJ and policies pertaining to the retention, handling, and dissemination of FBI records and information; and
  2. The requirements of Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement.

In the words of the Inspector General’s report:

[A]fter his removal as FBI Director two months later, Comey provided a copy of Memo 4, which Comey had kept without authorization, to Richman with instructions to share the contents with a reporter for The New York Times. Memo 4 included information that was related to both the FBI’s ongoing investigation of Flynn and, by Comey’s own account, information that he believed and alleged constituted evidence of an attempt to obstruct the ongoing Flynn investigation; later that same day, The New York Times published an article about Memo 4 entitled, “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation.”

The responsibility to protect sensitive law enforcement information falls in large part to the employees of the FBI who have access to it through their daily duties. On occasion, some of these employees may disagree with decisions by prosecutors, judges, or higher ranking FBI and Department officials about the actions to take or not take in criminal and counterintelligence matters. They may even, in some situations, distrust the legitimacy of those supervisory, prosecutorial, or judicial decisions. But even when these employees believe that their most strongly-held personal convictions might be served by an unauthorized disclosure, the FBI depends on them not to disclose sensitive information.Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility. By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees—and the many thousands more former FBI employees—who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information. Comey said he was compelled to take these actions “if I love this country…and I love the Department of Justice, and I love the FBI.” However, were current or former FBI employees to follow the former Director’s example and disclose sensitive information in service of their own strongly held personal convictions, the FBI would be unable to dispatch its law enforcement duties properly, as Comey himself noted in his March 20, 2017 congressional testimony. Comey expressed a similar concern to President Trump, according to Memo 4, in discussing leaks of FBI information, telling Trump that the FBI’s ability to conduct its work is compromised “if people run around telling the press what we do.” This is no doubt part of the reason why Comey’s closest advisors used the words “surprised,” “stunned,” “shocked,” and “disappointment” to describe their reactions to learning what Comey had done.

In a country built on the rule of law, it is of utmost importance that all FBI employees adhere to Department and FBI policies, particularly when confronted by what appear to be extraordinary circumstances or compelling personal convictions. Comey had several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a Special Counsel, which he told us was his goal in making the disclosure. What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.

Incredibly, despite the DOJ Inspector General’s findings, Comey will not be prosecuted.

About a month before the release of the Inspector General’s report, The Hill had reported that “Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz’s team referred Comey for possible prosecution under the classified information protection laws, but Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors working for Attorney General William Barr reportedly have decided to decline prosecution,” ostensibly because the prosecutors “did not believe they had enough evidence of Comey’s intent to violate the law, according to multiple sources.”

A source told The Hill that prosecutors “working for” Barr were particularly concerned with one memo that Comey had leaked to a friend for publication by the media contained information that the FBI subsequently classified at the lowest level of “confidential” only after Comey had transmitted the information. And so the Attorney General’s office decided not to prosecute Comey so as not to “look petty and vindictive,”

After he learned that Attorney General Barr will not prosecute him, James Comey then completely misrepresented and twisted the Inspector General’s report into what it was not.

In a tweet on August 29, 2019, Comey crowed that the DOJ Inspector General found no evidence that Comey or his attorneys released any of the classified information contained in any of the memos to members of the media. Comey accused President Trump of giving the public “bad information”. Then Comey had the chutzpah to demand “a public apology from those who defamed me” or “a quick message with a ‘sorry we lied about you’ would be nice.”

Justice really is dead in America.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Did the FBI stage the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting?

The term “false flag” has its origins in naval warfare where a flag other than the belligerent’s true battle flag is used as a ruse de guerre.

As the term is used in contemporary America, a false flag is an event that is  contrived and manipulated by the authorities to achieve a covert agenda, e.g., gun control. The intended result is a “rallying around the flag” effect, wherein an inflamed “useful idiot” populace is mobilized to support the covert agenda. The public is given an untruthful version of the event by government and/or the media, whether it be about the perpetrator(s) and/or victim(s). That real people actually died or were injured doesn’t mean the event isn’t a false flag, so long as the event meets the two defining and necessary conditions for a false flag incident:

  1. The public is given an untruthful version of the event.
  2. The purpose of which is to achieve some covert agenda.

We are told that on Sunday night, Oct. 1, 2017, in Las Vegas, Nevada, 64-year-old retired accountant and multimillionaire Stephen Craig Paddock fired an automatic weapon from his room on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel at an outdoor Route 91 Harvest country western music concert across the street, killing 58 people and wounding more than 500.

If the Las Vegas shooting massacre was a false flag, it would mean there are people in government who could kill innocent people and inflict trauma on the American people to achieve their ends. That, in turn, means that our government is in the hands of people so diabolical, calling them psychopaths does not begin to describe what they are. That is a frightening thought.

But it is a thought not entirely alien to America’s Founding Fathers who fashioned a polity based on a view of human nature as inherently selfish, and of government as a necessary evil that must be constrained and delimited. To quote James Madison in The Federalist No. 51:

What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Even with checks and balances in place, the U.S. government is known to have undertaken and planned false flags. An example is the Gulf of Tonkin incident on August 4, 1964. We were told that without provocation, the North Vietnamese attacked the U.S.S. Maddox and U.S.S. Turner Joy destroyers. Congress took the bait and passed a joint resolution pre-approving military deployments without a declaration of war, thereby giving President Lyndon Johnson a free ticket to wage war in Vietnam. It turned out no Vietnamese boats were even in the gulf at the time of the alleged attack.

Then there was Operation Northwoods, a false flag of stunning scope, audacity and deviousness which was proposed in 1962 by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and approved by the head of every branch of the armed forces. Government operatives were to undertake acts of terrorism against U.S. military and civilian targets in Guantanamo Bay, Miami, other Florida cities, and even in Washington, D.C. Hostile acts including sinking U.S. ships, having fake Cuban MIGs attack a U. S. Air Force aircraft, hijacking and shooting down a chartered civil airliner, and gunning down civilians in the streets would be blamed on the Fidel Castro government, which would be used as pretexts for a “military intervention” against Cuba. Thankfully, President John F. Kennedy rejected the proposals. See “Operation Northwoods: A true U.S. government conspiracy for those who mock conspiracy theories“.

In the case of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting massacre, some question whether the FBI, part of the Deep State, had staged the shootings.

To begin, about 16 months before the shooting, in a report for Business Insider on June 9, 2016, news intern Caroline Simon sounded the alarm that “The FBI is ‘manufacturing terrorism cases’ on a greater scale than ever before“. She wrote:

The FBI has ramped up its use of sting operations in terrorism cases, dispatching undercover agents to pose as jihadists and ensnare Americans suspected of backing ISIS, aka the Islamic State, Daesh, or ISIL . . . .

In many cases, agents will seek out people who have somehow demonstrated radical views, and then coax them into plotting an act of terrorism — often providing weapons and money. Before the suspects can carry out their plans, though, they’re arrested.

But critics say that the FBI’s tactics serve to entrap only individuals who would never have committed any violence without the government’s instigation.

“They’re manufacturing terrorism cases,” Michael German, a former undercover agent with the FBI who now researches national-security law at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, told The Times . . . .

Stephen Downs, an attorney . . . said that the FBI often targets particularly vulnerable people, such as those with mental disabilities . . . who are genuinely psychotic, who are taking medication . . . .

On October 2, 2017, the morning after the night of the Las Vegas mass shooting, right on cue ISIS claimed responsibility for the shooting massacre. As reported by the New York Post, ISIS’s news agency Amaq said, “The Las Vegas attack was carried out by a soldier of the Islamic State” and that “The Las Vegas attacker converted to Islam a few months ago.”

The FBI quickly dismissed ISIS’s claim of responsibility.

On the same day as ISIS’s claim, FBI Special Agent in Charge Aaron Rouse said at a news conference there is no evidence that Stephen Paddock was associated with any international militant group and that “We have determined at this point no connection to an international terrorist organization.”

The FBI’s alacrity in dismissing ISIS’s claim of responsibility was particularly impressive given the fact that the Bureau, at the time more than eight months into its investigation of Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with the Russians to sabotage the 2016 presidential election, still could not definitively tell the American people that the allegation is fictive.

Adding to the confusion, on the same day of ISIS’s claim of responsibility and the FBI’s quick dismissal of the claim, InfoWars reported that:

The Las Vegas shooter didn’t commit suicide as the mainstream media is reporting, but was killed by a FBI hostage rescue team who also found Antifa literature in his hotel room, according to a source linked to the team.

The FBI team took the suspect out after he opened fired on them, according to the source, and afterwards the team found photos taken in the Middle East of a woman linked to the suspect, 64-year-old Stephen Paddock.

Do these look like the same man to you?

A “deep-level intelligence insider” also told Infowars the mass shooting was “very, very strange”:

  • The shooter, Stephen Paddock, was “an average 64-year-old white male with no criminal record.”
  • Paddock’s brother described him as an average person who was not into firearms and never owned that many guns. But Paddock’s Mandalay Bay hotel room was filled with guns, including several long guns. Where did those guns come from?
  • The attack clearly had been “pre-planned” and the target group, a country-music concert, “was specifically chosen” — a group that represents traditional America, patriotic, God-fearing, pro-Second amendment, pro-Constitution and anti-NWO (New World Order) Americans whom Obama derisively described as “clinging to their guns and religion.”

Noting the fortuitous coincidence that “the mainstream media was already in Las Vegas to cover the OJ Simpson release right before the shooting occurred,” Infowars concluded that the possibility of the Las Vegas shooting being a false flag must now be considered.

On October 5, 2017, four days after the Las Vegas mass shooting, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange referenced Caroline Simon’s Business Insider report when he implied in a since deleted tweet that the shooting had been staged by the FBI. Assange wrote:

Almost all “terror” plots are created by the FBI as part of its business model.

What is the business of the FBI? Extracting tax. What does it need to do that? A stable threat. Prob? Real terrorists are sporadic & make FBI look weak. Solution? Make them.

Assange ended his tweet with a link to Caroline Simon’s Business Insider report that “The FBI is ‘manufacturing terrorism cases’ on a greater scale than ever before.”

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0