When Friends are Actually Foes

The FBI and CIA Are Enemies of the American People

Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson sat down for a three-hour-plus discussion on the Joe Rogan Show last week, covering everything from UFOs, to religion and artificial intelligence. But perhaps the most important topic they covered was the insidious and dangerous role played by the US regime’s intelligence agencies in America.

Specifically, Carlson suggested the CIA continues to lobby for keeping the JFK files secret, possibly because the CIA had a role in the assassination. Tucker also brought up how the FBI’s second-in-command was responsible for taking down Richard Nixon. Carlson described how intelligence agencies hold immense power within Congress because members of Congress—who are generally disreputable people with many secrets—are terrified of being blackmailed. After all, in a post-Patriot Act world of nearly unrestrained spying by the US regime, there is no privacy in America.

I’ll let you, dear readers, listen to the full interview and make up your mind for yourselves as to the details of the discussion.

What I want to highlight here, however, is how remarkable it is that two major media figures—Rogan and Carlson—are announcing to their millions of listeners and readers that organizations like the CIA and the FBI are despicable agencies committed to undermining the legal and constitutional institutions of the United States.

This is long overdue.

Deep-state agencies like the CIA and the FBI have for far too long been considered reputable organizations just trying to “keep us safe” or somehow defend the United States from alleged foreign threats. Conservatives have long been among the worst offenders. Libertarians know this well, and have observed for decades the breed of “small-government” conservatives who one minute claim “the government can’t do anything right” and then the next minute simp for “heroic” CIA and FBI agents. People such as these have long checked their critical thinking skills at the door as soon as the discussion turns to the regime’s spy agencies—or the Pentagon, for that matter. This is not to say that Leftists are guiltless on this. While historically it was the Left that actually made some efforts to expose intelligence agencies and their crimes in the 1970s, that is now ancient history. The Left in 2024 has rarely met a regime spook it didn’t like. This was made explicit last month when Adam Westbrook and Lindsey Crouse declared in The New York Times that “the Deep State is actually kind of awesome.”

The job of opposing these contemptible enemies of freedom at America’s intelligence agencies—especially the FBI and CIA and NSA—falls to the minority of Americans who actually care about law and human rights enough to seek true restraints on regime power. Those of us in this minority must never miss an opportunity to disparage, doubt, question, and generally express loathing for these organizations and for every single agent and employee at these agencies who collects a taxpayer-funded salary.

A Danger for Many Decades 

Since at least the early 1960s, many have understood that the post-war intelligence agencies have posed an especially dangerous threat to the people of the United States. For example, exactly one month after Kennedy’s assassination—surely, just a coincidence!—former president Harry Truman expressed alarm about the CIA’s meddling in domestic affairs. He wrote in The Washington Post: “For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas. …I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations.”

Then as now, however, The Washington Post was an arm of the deep state and the editor buried Truman’s op-ed on Page A11. The CIA was outraged enough by the column, however, that CIA director Allen Dulles lied and claimed that Truman had been “quite astounded“ when he saw his own article and that the whole thing was really the work of a Truman aide.

This bizarre attempt by CIA operative to “retract” Truman’s article was nonetheless contradicted by Truman himself who reiterated in a 1964 letter that Truman had only intended the CIA to be an informational service for the president, and that “[I]t was not intended to operate as an international agency engaged in strange activities.” Truman would later tell an interviewer that “[I]f I’d known what was going to happen, I never would have [created the CIA.]”1

Of course, Truman may have known about many of the CIA’s “strange activities” by the late 1950s, such as MKULTRA, and related “mind control” experiments with LSD and other drugs. The CIA was known to drug the agency’s victims against their will, such as seven black inmates in Kentucky who were were fed “’double, triple and quadruple’ doses of LSD for 77 straight days.” One might also mention the very suspicious case of Frank Olson, a bioweapons expert who was given LSD by CIA agents without his knowledge. Olson later “fell” to his death from a hotel window in 1953. The agency lied about drugging Olson for 22 years.

The CIA faced some scrutiny in the wake of the Vietnam war as the Left began to rein in the deep state which had spent years attempting to destroy American opponents of the war through a variety of dirty tricks. Yet, the agency had hardly been “reformed” by the time the US’s “war on terror” was launched in late 2001. The CIA returned to its illegal medical torture—assuming it had ever stopped—with new medical experiments on regime prisoners. Documents uncovered by the ACLU have shown that CIA doctors are still used to provide a veneer of scientific legitimacy to CIA torture programs. In the age of vaccine passports, this alliance between doctors and the CIA should alarm any defender of human rights.

In spite of all this, the CIA continues to fail spectacularly at its original mission of collecting useful information. The CIA failed to see the Iranian Revolution coming. The CIA was clueless about Soviet Missiles shipped to Cuba in 1962. The CIA believed the Soviet Union was an economic powerhouse in the 1980s. And, of course, the CIA let 9/11 happen right under its nose.

Given all this, even conservative stalwarts have seen the light on the CIA in recent years. The late Angelo Codevilla, for example, penned a 2020 article calling for “breaking up” the CIA. The CIA, Codevilla notes, is now so “ideologically partisan,” so “obsolete,” and its record of failure so undeniable, that the agency is now “inherently dangerous and low-value.”

End the FBI

The CIA isn’t alone in its war on American freedom and decency, however. The FBI is almost equally dangerous, which is why Codevilla also calls for the FBI to be “restricted to law enforcement.”

Unknown to many Americans, the FBI doesn’t even consider itself to be a law enforcement agency anymore. The FBI is now a “national security” agency, and that means the FBI is an arm of the American spy regime. This, of course, is why the Department of Justice can now be used for blatantly political purposes such as when the FBI spied on candidate Donald Trump in 2016.

Here at mises.org, we’ve already reported on the mixture of abuse and incompetence that characterizes the FBI. The FBI expends countless hours tracking down harmless “enemies” of the regime—such as little old ladies prosecuted for the January 6 riot—while ignoring real criminals like Larry Nassar. Nor surprisingly, local police will tell you it’s the state and local police who do the real work of tracking down real criminals, and then the FBI swoops in to take the credit.

Moreover, the history of the FBI lends substantial plausibility to Tucker Carlson’s claim that intelligence agencies are in the business of blackmailing members of Congress. This is a known tactic employed by J. Edgar Hoover during this 48-year reign at the FBI. Hoover, of course, was lauded for decades as a hero, but in reality, he was, in the words of historian Beverly Gage, a “one-dimensional tyrant and backroom schemer who strong-armed the rest of the country into submission…the most influential federal appointee of the twentieth century.” Hoover and his army of compliant FBI agents spied on anyone and everyone—especially elected officials and other public figures—who might be useful as a target for blackmail.

So, what to do with these agencies?

There is nothing that these agencies do that could justify their continued existence. Both agencies—neither of which in their present forms are authorized among the enumerated powers of the US constitution—were sold to the taxpayers as agencies to be used only against hardened criminals and foreign dictators. Today, these organizations spend their time exploiting the taxpayers for ever larger budgets, for ever more power to spy on Americans, and new ways to trick those same Americans into supporting the regime’s latest wars.

They are, simply put, the regime’s secret police, devoted to building the regime’s power. One answer is to eviscerate their budgets, repeal their enabling legislation, and encourage aggressive lawfare against the regime in retribution for these agencies’ many crimes. That’s probably a best-case scenario. Other scenarios likely require the bankruptcy of the regime, or perhaps its dissolution. That is likely to come with substantial and negative economic effects in the short term. Unfortunately, many Americans are still enthralled to these organizations thanks to relentless state propaganda that tells us this American version of the KGB exists for our own good.  Abolition will clearly take time. Now is a good time to start.

  • 1Merle Miller, Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman (New York: Berkley Publishing, 1973) pp. 391-92. When asked how he felt about the creation of the CIA, Truman replied: “I think it was a mistake. And if I’d known what was going to happen, I never would have done it … it got out of hand …they’ve got an organization over there in Virginia now that is practically the equal of the Pentagon in many ways … those fellows in the CIA don’t just report on wars and the like, they go out and make their own … it’s become a government all of its own and all secret … That’s a very dangerous thing in a democratic society.”

from:    https://mises.org/mises-wire/fbi-and-cia-are-enemies-american-people

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

Election Tampering — AGAIN!!!!

Former Deputy National Security Adviser Says FBI, CIA & DOJ Will Rig 2024 Election

Former Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland, who served for the first four months of the Trump administration under Michael Flynn, says that the deep state is going to rig the 2024 US election because they have already gotten away with it in the past two elections without consequences. She said that we now have black-and-white evidence that the FBI interfered in the 2016 election and that the CIA interfered in the 2020 election with the 51 former intel agents who said the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.

  • Save

Link for video:    https://rumble.com/v2p6vn6-former-deputy-natl-security-advisor-claims-fbi-cia-and-doj-will-rig-2024-pr.html

.“We now have black-and-white evidence that the FBI interfered in the 2016 election. When they failed to elect Hillary Clinton, they set out to destroy the Trump administration,” she told Fox Business‘ Maria Bartiromo.

“Go back to 2020. This time, the CIA got involved in the election with those 51 former intel agents who said the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. So they’ve gotten away with it for two elections. They will surely try and get away with it in 2024, right?

Because there are no consequences…

There is now hard evidence that there was election interference by the U.S. intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice. Those individuals must be terrified that a Republican president comes in with a Republican Attorney General, investigates them, and charges them with all of the crimes they have committed over the last eight years. Take it to the bank.

They will absolutely interfere in 2024…

These people are selling us out. Not only to foreign leaders, but they are interfering in our elections.

They are tearing up the Constitution… This is just a gut punch to the American people.

Read full article here…

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2023/05/former-deputy-national-security-adviser-says-fbi-cia-doj-will-rig-2024-election/

New FBI Hacking Powers

It Just Got Much Easier for the FBI to Hack Your Computer
Just in time for the Trump administration.

Just in time for the Trump administration, the FBI has gotten what critics characterize as broad new hacking powers. As of Thursday, government agents can now use warrants obtained from a single judge to hack computers in multiple jurisdictions, rather than having to get warrants from judges in each distinct jurisdiction, as required under the old rule. The rule went into effect despite the last-ditch efforts by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and others to either kill or delay it in order to give Congress time to study its implications.

In a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, Wyden said the change to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure was especially troubling given the imminent presidency of Donald Trump, who has “openly said he wants the power to hack his political opponents the same way Russia does.”

“By sitting here and doing nothing, the Senate has given consent to this expansion of government hacking and surveillance.”

The changes were approved by the US Supreme Court in a private vote at the end of April, after several years of discussion within the federal judiciary. They were never debated by Congress. The US Department of Justice says the news rules are necessary, particularly in cases where criminals use anonymizing software to conceal their location while committing crimes such as peddling child pornography. Another concern is the weaponizing of hundreds of thousands of internet-connected devices into “botnets” that are then used to flood websites with traffic to shut them down, or for criminal activities that, in the words of Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, “siphon wealth and invade privacy on a massive scale.”

Wyden isn’t convinced that the changes are urgent. Along with Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Steve Daines (R-Mont.), he tried on Wednesday to get the Senate to approve legislation that would have either blocked or delayed the implementation of the new powers.

Those efforts failed.

“By sitting here and doing nothing, the Senate has given consent to this expansion of government hacking and surveillance,” Wyden said in a statement. “Law-abiding Americans are going to ask, ‘What were you guys thinking?’ when the FBI starts hacking victims of a botnet hack. Or when a mass hack goes awry and breaks their device or an entire hospital system and puts lives at risk.”

Caldwell argued the rules had already been debated and vetted. In a November 28 blog post, she wrote the federal judiciary deliberated on the changes for three years, using the same process used to modify other rules of criminal procedure. The current rule change deals specifically with venue issues—removing traditional jurisdictional constraints—and not what investigators can actually do as part of the search, she wrote. Further, investigators already had the power to search multiple computers at the same time, she noted, and it was already legal for investigators to hack victim computers to understand the scope of the criminal hack.

“It would be strange if the law forbade searching the scene of a crime,” she wrote.

Caldwell also wrote that the rule modification doesn’t change what is and isn’t permissible under the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. “The Constitution already forbids mass, indiscriminate rummaging through victims’ computers, and it will continue to do so,” she wrote. “By contrast, blocking the [rule change] would make it more difficult for law enforcement to combat mass hacking by actual criminals.”

But those reassurances likely will not satisfy privacy advocates. In June, tech writer Mike Masnick noted that the DOJ’s justification for the rule change “skirt[ed] the truth, at best.” The new rule, Masnick wrote, “effectively wipe[s] out the requirement to give a copy of the warrant to the person whose computers are being hacked,” which “pretty much guarantees that some of the people who are hacked following this won’t even know about it.” He suggested that the DOJ’s use of the threat of child exploitation as a way to legitimize the rule change in effect derailed the necessary review of serious modifications to the government’s powers that should be debated and approved by Congress. “The FBI has a rather long history of abusing its surveillance powers, and especially seeking to avoid strict oversight,” Masnick wrote. “Approving such a change just because the DOJ is insisting it’s ‘FOR THE CHILDREN, WON’T YOU PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!’ isn’t a particularly good reason.”

That’s probably why big tech companies like Google and a host of civil rights organizations have opposed the change for years.

“Google has a significant interest in protecting its users and securing its infrastructure,” wrote Richard Salgado, Google’s director of law enforcement and information security, in a February 2015 letter submitted to the Judicial Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules. “The proposed amendment substantively expands the government’s current authority under Rule 41 and raises a number of monumental and highly complex constitutional, legal, and geopolitical concerns.”

from:    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/fbi-computer-hacking-supreme-court

Fewer Civil Liberties! Why?

As always, do your research:

Meet the Senators who recently voted to destroy your civil liberties

There were a few handful of Republicans who voted against it, and they should be commended

Yesterday, I published a post warning about an amendment to be put up for a vote in the U.S. Senate that would severely harm the civil liberties of American citizens. I was very disappointed to see an unusually low amount of reads on that particular post, which came in well below average despite being such an important issue.

Well it turns out John McCain’s amendment 4787 came up for a vote earlier today, and it was stopped by one vote. Yes, by one vote.

So what’s at stake? Let’s review an excerpt from yesterday’s post, Republican Senators Use Orlando Shooting to Push for Increased Government Spying Powers:

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell set up a vote late on Monday to expand the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s authority to use a secretive surveillance order without a warrant to include email metadata and some browsing history information.

The amendment would broaden the FBI’s authority to use so-called National Security Letters to include electronic communications transaction records such as time stamps of emails and the emails’ senders and recipients.

NSLs do not require a warrant and are almost always accompanied by a gag order preventing the service provider from sharing the request with a targeted user.

Sounds pretty important, but no one seemed to care yesterday. Fortunately, the vote (barely) went the right way, but Mitch McConnell switched his vote to NO at the end just so that he could regroup and push for another vote.

As US News reported:

Privacy-minded senators on Wednesday blocked an amendment that would give the FBI power to take internet records, including browser histories and email metadata, without a court order. But the victory may be fleeting.

Just one vote kept the measure from clearing a 60-vote procedural hurdle, and political arm-twisting may soon result in a second vote. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., switched his vote to “no” to allow reconsideration in the near future. That made the final tally 58-38, with four senators not voting.

As such, it’s very important that everyone understand where their Senators stand on this issue. Notably, Mr. fake “libertarian” Ted Cruz, who always pretends to care about civil liberties, voted in favor of giving the FBI more unconstitutional powers. There were a few handful of Republicans who voted against it, and they should be commended. They are:

Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Cory Gardner (Colorado)
Rand Paul (Kentucky)
Steve Daines (Montana)
Dean Heller (Nevada)
Mike Lee (Utah)

To find out how your Senator voted, click here, and let them know how you feel.

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

from:     https://www.intellihub.com/meet-the-senators-who-recently-voted-to-destroy-your-civil-liberties/

Orlando – What is the Truth?

As always, do your research:

Hidden Ties Between Orlando Shooter and FBI Raise Strange Questions

by Jon Rappoport (To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrixclick here.)

orlando shooter fbi“…Michael German, a former F.B.I. agent who researches national security law at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, told the Times, ‘They’re [the FBI] manufacturing terrorism cases.’” (The New Yorker, June 10, 2016, “Do FBI Stings help fight against ISIS?” by Evan Osnos)

The website Cryptogon has pieced together some interesting facts, and a quite odd “coincidence.” I’m bolstering their work.

First of all, the Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, changed his name in 2006.  As NBC News notes: “Records also show that he had filed a petition for a name change in 2006 from Omar Mir Seddique to Omar Mir Seddique Mateen.”

Why is that important? Why is his original last name, Seddique, also spelled Siddiqui, significant? Because of a previous terrorism case in Florida, in which the FBI informant’s name was Siddiqui. And because that previous case may have been one of those FBI prop-jobs, where the informant was used to falsely accuse a suspect of a terrorist act. The New Yorker (cited above) has details:

“This is not the first time that the F.B.I. has attracted criticism from national-security experts and civil-liberties groups for generating terrorism cases through sting operations and confidential informants. In ‘The Imam’s Curse,’ published in September, I reported on a Florida family that was accused of providing ‘material support’ to terrorists. In that case, a father, Hafiz Khan, and two of his sons were arrested. The charges against the sons were eventually dropped, but Hafiz Khan was convicted and sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. At Khan’s trial, his lawyer, Khurrum Wahid, questioned the reliability of the key [FBI] informant in the case, David Mahmood Siddiqui. Wahid accused Siddiqui, who’d had periods of unemployment, of lying to authorities because his work as a confidential informant was lucrative. For his role in the case, Siddiqui had received a hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars, plus expenses. But in a subsequent interview with the Associated Press, Siddiqui stood by his testimony and motives: ‘I did it for the love of my country, not for money.’”

The website Cryptogon, which pieced this whole story together, comments: “What are the odds that an FBI informant in a [previous] Florida terrorist case shares the same last name as the perpetrator of the worst mass shooting in U.S. history—also in Florida—[Omar Mateen] a lone wolf cop poser with multiple acknowledged contacts with the FBI, who was formerly listed on the terrorist watch list and associated with a suicide bomber… while holding a valid security guard license?”

Indeed.

And in case you think Siddiqui is a common last name, here is a statement from Mooseroots:

“Siddiqui is an uncommon surname in the United States. When the United States Census was taken in 2000, there were about 4,994 individuals with the last name “Siddiqui,” ranking it number 6,281 for all surnames. Historically, the name has been most prevalent in the Southwest, though the name is actually most common in Hawaii. Siddiqui is least common in the southeastern states.”

If for some reason the name Siddiqui throws you off, suppose the last name was, let me make something up, Graposco? A few years ago, an FBI informant in Florida, Graposco, appeared to have falsely accused a man of terrorist acts—and in 2016, another Graposco, who changed that last name to something else, killed 50 people in a Florida nightclub shooting—after having been investigated twice by the FBI? Might that coincidence grab your attention?

Again—the 2016 Orlando shooter had extensive contact with the FBI in 2013 and 2014. The FBI investigated him twice and dropped the investigations. The FBI used an informant in a previous Florida case, and that informant had the same last name as the Orlando shooter. It’s quite possible the previous informant was told to give a false statement which incriminated a man for terrorist acts.

You can say this is a coincidence. Maybe it is. But it seems more than odd.  Are the two Siddiqui men connected?

Was the Orlando shooter involved in some kind of FBI plan to mount a terror op that was supposed to be stopped before it went ahead, but wasn’t? Was the Orlando shooter “helped” over the edge from having “radical ideas” to committing mass murder?

from:    http://www.realfarmacy.com/orlando-shooter-fbi/

 

Protect Your Web Privacy

Constitutional Judge Begs America to “Wake Up” Over Fed’s Plan to Spy on Your Web Activity
TOPICS:Andrew NapolitanoCivil LibertiesFBISurveillance

June 9, 2016

fbi-spyingBy Matt Agorist

This week, the US senate published a bill that would give the FBI seemingly unlimited power to pry into the “electronic communications” of American citizens. The bill would give the FBI warrantless access to email records as well as a slew of other electronic data.

Its passage could effectively end online privacy.

According to a report in the Intercept:

The provision, tucked into the Senate Intelligence Authorization Act, would explicitly authorize the FBI to obtain “electronic communication transactional records” for individuals or entities — though it doesn’t define what that means. The bill was passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee last week.

In the past, the FBI has considered “electronic communication transactional records” to be a broad category of information — including everything from browsing history, email header information, records of online purchases, IP addresses of contacts, and more.

The single ‘no’ vote against the bill came from Sen. Ron Wyden, who wrote a letter warning Americans that the bill’s provisions “would allow any FBI field office to demand email records without a court order, a major expansion of federal surveillance powers.”

Using the fear mongering tactics of “we need this to keep you safe,” the Fed will likely force this bill to become law.

The bill, if passed, could theoretically allow the FBI to target any individual who visits the FreeThoughtProject.com because of the subversive, yet entirely peaceful nature of the site. That information would then be stored, and a file kept on all people who are perceived rebellious by the State.

If you think the government declaring peaceful liberty-minded individuals as enemies of the state is far-fetched, think again. In 2009, a secret report distributed by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) entitled “The Modern Militia Movement” specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.

Of course, all laws like this one are ostensibly designed to keep you safe from ‘terror;’ however, as we’ve seen in the past — terrorism is but a fraction of the cause for legislation like this.

Taking to the airwaves to voice his concern over the death of the 4th Amendment in relation to Senate Intelligence Authorization Act, Judge Andrew Napolitano unleashed his fury.

Napolitano noted the sheer ominous nature of a bill that would allow the FBI access to a person’s Web history.

He pointed out that the government will, as it always does, argue that this is necessary to keep us safe from terror attacks. But he would note that the argument is a “facade.”

“This law will pass because the Congress doesn’t give a damn about whether it’s unconstitutional!” said Napolitano.

Pointing out that the police state continues to get worse, regardless of which puppet is in the White House, Napolitano bravely said, on FOX News of all places, “It always gets worse, it never gets better. No matter who’s in the White House, and no matter which party controls the Congress.”

“The American people should wake up. This is a major step…….toward a police state,” he said.

At the end of the video, Shepard Smith makes a hard hitting point about why this is able to continue.

People get riled up about the stupidest things and something important like this, you can’t get them to even send an email.

from:    http://www.activistpost.com/2016/06/constitutional-judge-begs-america-to-wake-up-over-feds-plan-to-spy-on-your-web-activity.html

9/11 Video Puts it All Together

Here is a five minute presentation of everything you always wanted to know about 9/11.

(Oh, and as for the plane flying into a building, about a year before 9/11, the emergency services in Putnam, Westchester, and other counties just north of New York City, had a drill in which a plane flew into a building, in this case a school.  The drill was held just outside of West Point.  As a member of a n ambulance corps in that area, I participated in that drill.)

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yuC_4mGTs98