THE FBI’S BIZARRE COVER-UP OF THE GOP BASEBALL SHOOTING

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, June 22, 2017:

James Hodgkinson’s assault on Republican members of Congress was the most serious political assassination in decades. And yet at the same time it was wrapped up by the Capitol Police.

There was really little for the FBI to do here. Hodgkinson’s motives were fairly clear. He had a list of names of targets. His social media was filled with rants against Republicans. A witness describes him studying the area of his future attack. According to Rep. DeSantis, he asked if the players were Republicans or Democrats.

This is about as open and shut as anything gets. All the FBi had to do was go through his laptop and phone to confirm that he hadn’t been coordinating with anyone else.

Except the FBI instead decided to treat Hodgkinson as if he were a Muslim terrorist. And by that I mean launch into a cover-up of his motives.

First, there was the odd denial of Rep. DeSantis account.

Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., told CNBC that a man came up to him and Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., at the practice and asked if the players on the field were Republicans or Democrats.

“We both agreed that that individual who came up to us and asked if it was Republicans or Democrats … is the same individual police have identified,” DeSantis said. “That picture is the same guy that we saw.”

Someone from the FBI appeared to deny that. The FBI briefing however includes it. But the briefing is bizarre in that it goes out of its way to deny the facts.

The gunman who shot a top House Republican and four other people on a Virginia baseball field didn’t have any concrete plans to inflict violence on the Republicans he loathed, FBI officials said Wednesday.

They said he acted alone and had no connections to terror groups. But they said they had not yet clarified who, if anyone, he planned to target, or why, beyond his animus toward President Donald Trump and the Republicans he felt were ruining the country. It wasn’t even clear whether he had prior plans to attack the baseball practice or whether he just happened upon it the morning of June 14, said Tim Slater, who leads the criminal division of the FBI’s Washington field office.

“At this point in the investigation, it appears more spontaneous,” Slater said.

Hodgkinson had a piece of paper with the names of six members of Congress written on it, Slater said, but the note lacked any further context and there was no evidence from his computer, phone or other belongings that indicated he planned to target those officials. Slater declined to name the officials whose names were on the note or say whether they were Republicans or Democrats or were at the baseball practice.

In April, Hogkinson made the tourist rounds in Washington, visiting monuments, museums, the U.S. Capitol and the Dirksen Senate Office Building and taking pictures, the FBI said. He also took pictures of the baseball field where he would later fire more than 60 shots.

“The FBI does not believe that these photographs represented surveillance of intended targets,” the FBI said in a statement.

So the working theory here is that Hodgkinson just stocked up on firepower, for no apparent reason, took photos of the baseball field because it was so picturesque, had a list of members of Congress for no apparent reason, and then randomly and spontaneously opened fire while he happened to be carrying a rifle and touring local baseball fields?

That hit list? It’s just a piece of paper.

Timothy Slater, special agent in charge of the criminal division for the Washington field office, would not classify it as a hit list, saying it was only “a piece of paper.”

“If you look at his pattern of life and what he was doing on his laptop and social media accounts, there was no indication that that was a list to target or that there were any threats associated with those names on the list,” Slater said.

It just happened to be a piece of paper in his weapons locker.

Authorities found the list in a storage locker Hodgkinson had rented in Alexandria, Virgina, since April. Inside, they also found 200 rounds of ammunition, a laptop, a receipt from a gun purchase in November 2016 and SKS rifle components

Just a piece of paper.

That morning, Hodgkinson used Google Maps to search for a route from Alexandria to his home in Belleville. He also ran a Google search for the “2017 Republican Convention,”

Spontaneous. The official FBI release whitewashes his social media postings.

Items found on Hodgkinson included a piece of paper that contained the names of six members of Congress. No context was included on this paper, however, a review of Hodgkinson’s web searches in the months prior to the shooting revealed only a cursory search of two of those members of Congress. A second document with a rough sketch of several streets in Washington, D.C. was found on Hodgkinson; however, it was not deemed to be of investigative significance.

Not much seems to be. Also there seems to be a discrepancy here as to whether the list was on him or in his locker.

Analysis of the electronic media items recovered from Hodgkinson’s belongings assessed that Hodgkinson did not place any online posts of threats or references to members of Congress or the Congressional baseball game. Hodgkinson made numerous posts on all of his social media accounts espousing anti-Republican views, although all the posts reviewed thus far appear to be First Amendment-protected speech.

The First Amendment protects the speech of living people. It doesn’t conflict with establishing motive.

The FBI emphasizes that he didn’t threaten violence against members of Congress. But he clearly hated his targets. He had googled them at one point. And his social media included an attack on the man he shot. That’s the sort of thing that adds up to motive. Unless you’re desperately whitewashing the investigation to make it seem like this was a random act by an unstable man with financial problems.

It’s almost like Jimmy’s a Muslim terrorist. Usually they’re the ones to benefit from this treatment.

“He was running out of money. He was not employed at the time of the event, and he was looking for some local employment. He was married for 30 years, and it appears that that marriage was not going so well,” Slater said. “It was just a pattern of life where you could tell things were not going well.”

Much like the FBI investigation.

Also see:

Something is very wrong at the FBI 

And lets not forget this:

Vlad Tepes Interviews Former CIA Station Chief, Brad Johnson

Interview One on jihad and politics:

Interview Two on the Jihadist playbook,  “The Manchester Manual”Carlos the Jackal’s “Revolutionary Islam” and much more:

***

Poll: Should Human Rights be Dropped to Smash Terror?

UK Prime Minister Theresa May campaigns for re-election. (Photo: BEN STANSTALL/AFP/Getty Images)

Clarion Project, by Elliot Friedland, June 7, 2017:

UK Prime Minister Theresa May has promised not to let human rights legislation stand in the way of defeating terrorism if re-elected. She made the pledge after facing heavy criticism following three terrorist attacks on British soil in just three months.

Take the poll at the bottom of this article. Thank you. (go to Clarion Project)

Her comments came after the former commander of the British Army in Afghanistan and the former most senior South Asian police officer in the UK both called to lock terror suspects in internment camps. Such draconian policies would be a radical departure from existing policy. They would also see stiff opposition from human rights groups since internment camps are a form of imprisonment without trial. The right to trial is considered one of the bedrocks of a free society.

Journalists demanded to know why the Manchester bomber and two of the London Bridge attackers were at liberty to carry out their attacks despite having been previously reported to security services for radical behavior.

“When I stood on the steps of Downing Street after the London attack I said enough is enough and things have got to change,” she said at a campaign speech in Slough. “We need to take on the ideology that unites and motivates the perpetrators of these attacks.”

Moving on to human rights, she added “We should do even more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.”

This may be an allusion to policies being floated regarding establishing internment camps to detain thousands of suspected jihadis without trial.

A string of public figures have supported the proposal to detain Islamists suspects en masse.

Colonel Richard Kemp, formerly head of the British government’s emergency response committee, COBRA, and former head of the British armed forces in Afghanistan made the call for internment camps last week.

He told the Good Morning Britain news show the government needs to help security services fight terror “by removing as many of these people [suspected terrorists] out of the country as we possibly can.”

He said all non-British citizens who are suspected of radicalism should be deported immediately. Anyone who has gone to fight for ISIS should not be allowed back, he argued. Any British citizens on whom the state has intelligence but not enough evidence to take to court, he said, should be interned in a facility without trial.

Former police chief with London’s Metropolitan Police Tarique Ghaffur, who was Britain’s highest ranked Muslim police officer of South Asian origin, supported the call for internment camps in a piece in the Mail on Sunday.

“We face an unprecedented terrorist threat – about 3,000 extremists are subjects of interest to MI5 and police, and about 500 plots are being monitored. The numbers are way too many for the security services and police to monitor” he said.

Therefore, he argued, they should be interned in special prison camps.

“These would be community-based centres where the extremists would be risk-assessed,” he argued. “Then the extremists would be made to go through a deradicalisation programme, using the expertise of imams, charity workers and counter- terrorism officers. These centres would have oversight from vetted Muslim and other community leaders, who would ensure they stayed within the law.”

“Let us have a proper national debate about this, and not be afraid to speak openly for fear of offending any communities, or for the sake of political correctness” he added.

UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader Paul Nuttall said at the end of May “when you read this morning there’s a suspected 23,000 jihadis living amongst us, obviously MI5 are stretched to capacity at this present moment in time.”

“I think we’ve got to look at ways of ensuring that our people are safe, whether that is a return to control orders, whether that is tagging these people, who knows, in the future maybe a return to internment.”

He added that the lives of British citizens were more important than “the human rights of any jihadi.”

Controversial Mail on Sunday Columnist Katie Hopkins called for people on the terror watch list to be “rounded up.”

She told Fox and Friends “we do need internment camps.” Host Clay Morris apologized, saying he and his team found the idea “reprehensible.”

By contrast, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said terrorism was linked to British foreign policy. He previously branded drone strikes as “obscene” and during his career as an MP voted against no less than 17 proposed anti-terror laws.

He hit out at Theresa May’s record on security while in office, calling on her to resign. Government cuts made while she was Home Secretary saw police numbers drop by 20,000. He also recently backpedaled on his stated opposition to shoot-to-kill policies during terrorist attacks.

He now says he would “support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force” during an attack.

Once measures like detention camps are introduced they are difficult to dismantle and could conceivably be sued by the government for a host of other suspected offences, not just to fight terrorism. There is also no guarantee that innocent people would not end up being mistakenly imprisoned without trial or recourse to legal assistance as part of the proposed “round up.”

Counter-Terror Lessons from America’s Civil War

PJ MEDIA, BY DAVID P. GOLDMAN, JUNE 3, 2017:

The essay below first appeared a year ago in The Asia Times, under the headline, “Why the terrorists are winning the intelligence war.” There’s a tried and true American approach to suppressing terrorism, and it worked quite well during Gen. Sherman’s 1863 Kentucky campaign and Gen. Phil Sheridan’s subsequent reduction of the Shenandoah Valley. We don’t have to be particularly smart; we merely have to do some disgusting things. Sherman and Sheridan suppressed sniping at Union soldiers by Confederate civilians by burning the towns (just the towns, not the townsfolk) that sheltered them. In other words, they forced collective responsibility upon a hostile population, a doctrine that in peacetime is entirely repugnant, but that in wartime becomes unavoidable. By contrast, the peacetime procedure of turning petty criminals into police snitches has backfired terribly. No doubt we will learn that the perpetrators of tonight’s horror at London Bridge were known to police, like the Manchester Arena suicide bomber and most of the perpetrators of large-scale terrorist acts in Europe during the past several years. (Update: “At Least One London Bridge Terrorist Was a ‘Known Wolf’“) The remedy is time-tested and straightforward. We merely require the will to apply it.

Why the terrorists are winning the intelligence war

Yet another criminal known to security services has perpetrated a mass killing, the Tunisian Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel. Why did the French police allow a foreign national with a criminal record of violence to reside in France? Apart from utter incompetence, the explanation is that he was a snitch for the French authorities. Blackmailing Muslim criminals to inform on prospective terrorists is the principal activity of European counter-terrorism agencies, as I noted in 2015. Every Muslim in Europe knows this.

The terrorists, though, have succeeded in turning the police agents sent to spy on them and forcing them to commit suicide attacks to expiate their sins. This has become depressingly familiar; as Ryan Gallagher reported recently, perpetrators already known to the authorities committed ten of the highest-profile attacks between 2013 and 2015.

These attacks, in other words, are designed to impress the Muslim public as much as they are intended to horrify the western public. In so many words, the terrorists tell Muslims that western police agencies cannot protect them. If they cooperate with the police they will be found out and punished.  The West fears the power of Islam: it evinces such fear by praising Islam as a religion of peace, by squelching dissent in the name of fighting supposed Islamophobia, and by offering concessions and apologies to Muslims. Ordinary Muslims live in fear of the terror networks, which have infiltrated their communities and proven their ability to turn the efforts of western security services against them. They are less likely to inform on prospective terrorists and more likely to aid them by inaction.

The terrorists, in short, are winning the intelligence war, because they have shaped the environment in which intelligence is gathered and traded. But that is how intelligence wars always proceed: spies switch sides and tell their stories because they want to be with the winner. ISIS and al-Qaeda look like winners in the eyes of western Muslim populations after humiliating the security services of the West.

As a result, western European Muslims fear the terrorists more than they fear the police. The West will remain vulnerable to mass terror attacks until the balance of fear shifts in the other direction.

As the Prussian army drove into France during the 1870 war with France, Germany’s Chancellor Otto von Bismarck sought the advice of the American military observer, none other than Phil Sheridan, whose cavalry had burned out the farmers of the Shenandoah Valley in the last stages of the conflict. What should Bismarck do about French snipers and saboteurs from villages along the Prussian route of march? Sheridan told Bismarck to burn the villages, leaving the people “with nothing left but their eyes to weep with after the war.” That, and hang the snipers, Sheridan threw in.

Like Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, who burned a great swath through Georgia and the Carolinas, Sheridan believed that war is won not just by killing soldiers but by denying them support from a broader civilian population. There’s nothing particularly clever about this insight. One learns from James Lee McDonough’s new biography of Sherman how ordinary the great man was–a competent military officer without a minute’s combat experience before the war began, then an honest but unsuccessful banker. When the war came Sherman came close to a nervous breakdown, trying in vain to convince his masters that they would have to kill 300,000 Southern soldiers and devastate the Confederacy to win the war. He then distinguished himself in combat at Shiloh in 1863 and went on to become the scourge of the Deep South.

The Union always had more men and more resources; what it lacked was generals with the stomach for the job. That meant not only the grisly war of attrition waged by Grant, another middling commander with absolute resolve, but also retaliation against civilians: When snipers fired on Union soldiers from Tennessee or Kentucky villages, Sherman expelled residents, burned houses, and laid waste to crops. There are lessons here for what we used to call, quaintly, the Global War on Terror.

Destroying ISIS, al-Qaeda and other Muslim terror groups is not particularly difficult, far less difficult than Sherman or Sheridan’s task during the Civil War. It simply requires doing some disgusting things. Western intelligence doesn’t have to infiltrate terror groups, tap phones, mine social media postings and so forth (although these doubtless are worth doing). Muslim communities in the West will inform on the terrorists. They will tell police when someone has packed up and gone to Syria, and when he has returned. They will tell police who is talking about killing westerners, who has a suspicious amount of cash, who is listening to broadcasts from Salafist preachers.

They will tell western security services everything they need to know, provided that western security services ask in the right way. I mean in Phil Sheridan’s way. Like the victorious Union generals of the Civil War, the West does not have to be particularly clever. It simply needs to understand what kind of war is is fighting.

Most Muslims are peaceful people who disapprove of terrorism, but many are not. Opinion polls show a large and consistent minority  of 20% to 40% approves of at least some form of terrorism. Support for ISIS generally is low, but much higher for Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist groups. By any reasonable count there are a few hundred million Muslims who in some way approve of terror, although very few of them would take part in terror attacks. But they are the sea in which the sharks can swim unobserved. They may not build bombs, but they will turn a blind eye to terrorists in their midst, especially if those terrorists are relations. They also fear retaliation from the terrorists if they inform.

The way to win the war is to frighten the larger community of Muslims who passively support terror by action or inaction–frighten them so badly that they will inform on family members. Frightening the larger Muslim population in the West does not require a great deal of effort: a few thousand deportations would do. Western intelligence services do not even have to deport the right people; the wrong people know who they are, and so do many of their neighbors. The ensuing conversation is an easy one to have. “I understand that your nephew is due for deportation, Hussein, and I believe you when you tell me that he has done nothing wrong. I might be able to help you. But you have to help me. Give me something I can use–and don’t waste my time by making things up, or I swear that I’ll deport you, too. If you don’t have any information, then find out who does.”

This approach to quashing insurgency has worked numerous times in the past. It is not characteristic of peacetime life in western democracies, to be sure, but neither was Phil Sheridan’s ride through the Shenandoah. We prefer to think about winning hearts and minds. Winning the hearts and minds of a people, though, isn’t difficult once they fear you.

***

Only 1/3 of UK Muslims Would Report Terrorist Suspects

Clarion Project’s National Security Analyst and Shillman Fellow Prof. Ryan Mauro talks about a survey of British-Muslims that found that only one-third would report someone with suspected links to terrorists in Syria. The poll also shows that five percent of British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers, which amounts to close to 150,000 people.

***

***

CJR: Israel Knows what it takes to counter the jihadist insurgency. Watch season one of FAUDA on Netflix for a very realistic drama of the fight with Hamas.

NETFLIX Hit TV show ‘Fauda’ highlights the chaos of the Israeli-Palestinian divide

The Israeli action-thriller is the source of much excitement in Israel — and in Palestine. Fauda, meaning ‘chaos’ in Arabic, follows an elite undercover Israeli army unit operating in Palestinian society to catch one key militant member of Hamas. It sounds like a typical action series but for the region, the show is ground-breaking: It’s mostly in Arabic with Hebrew subtitles, and it shows the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a way that makes people from all sides want to keep watching.

Three Ways to Defeat ISIS on Social Media

Published on May 30, 2017 by Ryan Mauro

Clarion Project Shillman Fellow, Prof. Ryan Mauro, explains that the U.S. needs a 3-prong approach towards countering ISIS and other Islamist messaging on social media.

Also see:

Glazov Gang: John Guandolo on “Trump vs. Brotherhood Infiltration”

Jihad Watch, MAY 30, 2017 BY JAMIE GLAZOV

Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel.

This new special edition of The Glazov Gang features John Guandolo, a former FBI agent, combat veteran Marine, and now the President of Understanding the Threat.

John discussed Trump vs. Brotherhood Infiltration, casting a disturbing light on the enemy within.

Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch the new Jamie Glazov Moment in which Jamie focuses on Why Islamic Terror Targeted Children in Manchester, unveiling how death cults always prioritize child sacrifice: CLICK HERE.

Please donate through our Pay Pal account to help The Glazov Gang keep going. Thank you!

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel and to Jamie Glazov Productions. Also LIKE us on Facebook and LIKE Jamie’s FB Fan Page.

***

Also see:

This week’s program assesss the President’s trip to Saudi Arabia and unveils the truth about what happened – its easy to understand if you translate what the Islamic leader said through the filter of sharia.  Many people think the President was “tough” on the Islamic rulers. In fact, the US submitted to Islam.  Understand why.  The program also looks at key events of the week including the AFDI protest in NY over the CUNY commencement address by Hamas operative Linda Sarsour, as well as the bombing in Manchester, UK and the ramifications.  As always, enjoy the Whiskey Tango Foxtrot segment and a little sharia in Chris Gaubatz’s Know Thy Enemy segment.  Join us as we take the fight to the enemy and put FREEDOM back on the offensive where it belongs.

John Guandolo’s website has an excellent Research and Resources page that you should see if you haven’t already.

Denial Still Flows Over Londonistan

By Melanie Phillips, May 25, 2017:

In the wake of the jihadi human bomb attack in Manchester, Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May said: “We struggle to comprehend the warped and twisted mind that sees a room packed with young children not as a scene to cherish but an opportunity for carnage.”

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel said: “ It is unbelievable that somebody has used a joyful pop concert to kill or seriously injure so many people.”

A headline in the Washington Post read: “In suburban Manchester, a search for what might have motivated the attacker”.

“Struggle to comprehend”? “Unbelievable”? “What might have motivated the attacker”? Really??

In 2006 I published my book Londonistan which analysed the supine response of the British political, legal and religious establishment to Islamic jihadi terrorism and the Islamisation of Britain. What follows below is the concluding chapter of that book. As the army patrols the streets of Britain to guard against further expected terrorist attacks, my warning about the deadly failure to face up to the true nature of the threat facing the west is surely even more urgent today.

LONDONISTAN CONCLUSION

Britain is in denial. Having allowed the country to turn into a global hub of the Islamic jihad without apparently giving it a second thought, the British establishment is still failing even now — despite the wake-up calls of both 9/11 and the London bomb attacks of 2005 — to acknowledge what it is actually facing and take the appropriate action. Instead, it is deep into a policy of appeasement of the phenomenon that threatens it, throwing sops to both radical Islamism and the Muslim community in a panic-stricken attempt to curry favour and buy off the chances of any further attacks.

This disastrous policy ignores the first law of terrorism which is that it preys on weakness. The only way to defeat it is through strength — the strength of a response based on absolute consistency and moral integrity, which arises in turn from the strength of belief in the values that are being defended. By choosing instead the path of least resistance, Britain is advertising its fundamental weakness and is thus not only greatly enhancing the danger to itself but is also enfeebling the alliance in the defence of the west.

Britain has a long and inglorious history of appeasing terrorism, thus bringing true the aphorism in which its ruling class so cynically believes that ‘terrorism works’. Now, however, this dubious national trait has been cemented even more firmly into the national psyche by the governing doctrine of multiculturalism, which has made it all but impossible even to acknowledge that this is a problem rooted within the religion of a particular minority community. The fervent embrace of ‘victim culture’ means instead that this minority has to be treated on its own assessment as a victim of the majority and its grievances attended to on the basis that it is these grievances which are the cause of terrorism. At the same time, however, this minority disavows any connection with terrorism and vilifies anyone who dares suggest to the contrary. Thus Britain is being forced to act on the basis that if it does not do so it will be attacked — by people who claim that terrorism runs totally counter to the values of their religion, but then demand that the grievances of members of that religion are addressed as the price of averting further attacks. This deeply manipulative and mind-twisting behaviour is the equivalent of holding a gun to Britain’s head while denying that this is being done, and threatening to run out of town anyone who points it out.

The intersection of an aggressive religious fanaticism with the multicultural ideology of victimhood has created a state of paralysis across British institutions. The refusal to admit the religious character of the threat means not only that Britain is failing to take the action it should be taking but, worse still, is providing Islamist ideologues with an even more powerful platform from which to disseminate the anti-western views which have so inflamed a section of Britain’s Muslims. The refusal to acknowledge that this is principally a war of religious ideology, and that dangerous ideas that can kill are spread across a continuum of religious thought which acts as a recruiting-sergeant for violence, is the most egregious failure by the British political and security establishment. The deeply-rooted British belief that violence always arises from rational grievances, and the resulting inability to comprehend the cultural dynamics of religious fanaticism, have furthermore created a widespread climate of irrationality and prejudice in which the principal victims of the war against the west, America and Israel, are demonised instead as its cause.

Read more