By Pamela Geller

The FBI is discounting ISIS’ claim that the Las Vegas attack was jihad. But is the FBI really trustworthy?

The Islamic State says Steven Paddock converted six months ago. He filmed himself killing; jihadis do that and post it online. The attack was meticulously planned, as jihad attacks are, and Paddock likely had an accomplice. Paddock made numerous trips to the Middle East. Over 200 of his foreign financial transactions were flagged for possible “covert terrorism financing.”

Contrary to the ignorant, misinformed and delusional talking heads in the media, ISIS does not take responsibility for events that are not theirs. This has led even the New York Times’ terrorism expert to give credence to ISIS’ claims. The Philippines attack at Resorts World Casino was theirs. And there again, ISIS’ initial claims of responsibility were dismissed.

The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday that “the FBI investigated the Orlando mass shooter for 10 months -- and found nothing.”

The Orlando jihadi who opened fire on gay nightclub revelers at the Pulse Nightclub called 911 during the attack and pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State. The FBI investigated the Orlando mass shooter for 10 months and found nothing.

The FBI was warned of the Muslim Boston bombers -- multiple times -- and did nothing. Their inaction led to the Boston Marathon bombings.

And in another case, an FBI translator married the ISIS fighter that she was supposed to be investigating.

The FBI was in on the planning of the jihad attack against the Garland Muhammad art expo in Garland, Texas. They did nothing to stop it, not even giving us a warning that my event was targeted by devout Muslims who meant to kill us Charlie Hebdo-style. We killed those jihadis. It was the security team I hired to protect my event that saved numerous lives, nothing the FBI did. We survived despite the FBI.

The FBI was in on the planning of a Boston plot to behead me. They did not warn me or alert my security team. It was a Boston cop who killed one of the Muslims who had attacked the cop on his way to New York.

The ISIS plot to carry out mass shootings in Times Square, the NYC subway, and at music concerts reported yesterday actually took place this past June. All three were arrested months ago, but the FBI had it sealed. What else are they not telling us?

In 2015, ISIS recruiter Mohamed Abdullahi Hassan, also known as Mujahid Miski, was communicating with the Garland jihadis in the lead up to the Texas attack. Hassan allegedly traded more than 550 messages with attacker Elton Simpson, from November 2014 up until the day of the May 3, 2015, terror attack. Miski was also in contact with the Boston Muslims plotting to behead me. It has also been alleged that Miski influenced the San Bernardino Muslim mass murderers. Where was the FBI?

While I do believe that undercover FBI agents have to play along with the jihadis they’re dealing with -- because in order to be in an informant you have to have credibility -- it’s a whole other thing if you’re encouraging and cheering on the proposed murder of Americans who are standing in defense of freedom of speech, and then not doing anything about it. Why did the FBI only have one agent there? And not a team waiting for them to shoot back?

The FBI knew about the attack before it happened, but did not alert law enforcement or my security apparatus. When I first heard that the FBI had prior notice of the attack, I thought that it was very short-term notice. It was assumed by many people that the FBI had had some sketchy prior knowledge of the attack, but nothing particularly specific.

But we know now they were in on the planning of the jihad attack, and did nothing about it. If you recall, the FBI only got around to a general alert just three hours before our event. It was Garland police, not the FBI, that coordinated all the super security efforts with our own security team.

The FBI knew about the impending attack -- one of their agents told Simpson to “tear up Texas,” and an accomplice of Simpson was even communicating with the undercover agent at the time of the attack.

The Daily Beast reported that this accomplice “asked the undercover officer about the Draw Muhammad event’s security, size, and police presence, during the event, according to an affidavit filed in court. The affidavit does not specify what the undercover responded to questions about size and security.” Why not? Why weren’t the agent’s answers released?

They knew about the attack, yet they didn’t have a team there in case the jihadis started shooting?

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/10/why_we_cannot_trust...

Views: 50

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Over the years, the FBI has slowly been corrupted from top to bottom. We're still told that there are many within that law enforcement agency that actually do believe in honest investigations. However, the FBI leadership IS deeply corrupt. The conscientious underlings can only do so much before they are officially threatened by agency retribution or even dismissal. It may take several years before the FBI will ever regain the long held public trust. This agency has demonstrated that there is clearly a double standard being applied to the powerful elite, especially when it comes to investigating such members of the wealthy and politically connected. There is NO doubt. The Clinton investigation (or lack thereof) is one of many egregious examples of the sinister role they actually play in these criminal matters. They manipulate facts and use their power to stall court orders and destroy evidence.

Before these evil employees evolve into the role that resembles the new  'brown shirts' - Trump should bust up that corrupt agency and wipe their nefarious employee slate clean. Elevate what is left of the honest/skilled ones and swiftly fire the dangerous malcontents.

The FBI was corrupt from its inception. Hoover, the Director, was an unprincipled and homosexual individual who kept files on everybody to use as weapons of coercion. Presidents kept him on as the Director because firing him would disclose personal information regarding them that they could ill afford being loosed publicly. As LBJ said about Hoover, "It is better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in."

Hoover apparently set the example for other directors to follow. His administrative technique, commonly known as blackmail, has been followed to the letter, and if you want to rise to the top you apparently follow the lead and keep your damned mouth shut in the process.  The Clinton's learned the value of keeping an enemies list, and used it to keep mouths closed. Any who did not would die of an accident, or suicide.

Mueller doesn't have honest performance highlighted on his permanent record. His pal, Comey, doesn't either. Lying is an art, not a vice, to both.

Trust the FBI?  Does it deserve any, is the better question. 

never has, never will is my guess. I'm also guessing that the point you make was a significant factor in something that used to be common sense and commonly said = that allowing a fed/gov national database on us all was unacceptable pure stupidity.   ..and here we are fully accepting it as the new reality.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service