Glenn Greenwald Says FBI Is Manufacturing Domestic Terrorism Cases

$upport via Cash App

Glenn Greenwald on Fox News’ Ingraham Angle (07/27/22)

Independent journalist and whistleblower Glenn Greenwald appeared on Fox News’ Ingraham Angle (07/27/22) to discuss the recent bombshell whistleblower revelation that the FBI is essentially manufacturing domestic terrorism cases to justify the Biden administration’s push to go after White Supremacists and other domestic violent extremists(DVEs) after the January 6th insurrection. 

Greenwald went even further than that, saying the practice of manufacturing domestic terrorism cases has been going on, even with the original war on terrorism that was launched after the 9/11 attacks–something Yours Truly has constantly screamed about, to your rolling eyes of course. 

This intro by host Ingraham is important in establishing the context for Greenwald’s interview (video at 0:34): “The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee[Rep Jim Jordan(OH)]told Fox Digital that new whistleblower documents allege that the FBI is pressuring[agents]to reclassify cases as domestic violent extremism, that are not examples of domestic violent extremism, and Jordan alleges that this is being done in order to justify the Biden administration’s push to focus on these cases and have a special unit focusing on them.” 

Asked by host Ingraham whether the FBI is making up domestic terrorism cases, Greenwald said (video at 1:13): “You know it’s not surprising…even though they now say January 6th is the reason they have to increase their attention to this problem, in fact, even before January 6th the Biden administration was saying one of its key priorities was to import the war on terror on to domestic soil and make that be a new war, only this time aimed at American citizens, and throughout 2021 there were so many instances where DHS issued one warning after the next…none of which materialized. You could see them exaggerating and inflating the threat the entire time because what they want to do is usher in all sorts of authoritarian attacks on civil liberties in the name of this domestic war on terror, and since they don’t have the cases, now they are just making them up, which is by the way what they did with the first war on terror as well.” 

Asked whether our intelligence agencies are abusing these tools to go after their political critics(something Putin and other autocrats are known for), Greenwald responded(video at 2:40): “You know we’ve obtained, and I’ve done reporting on the documents from Homeland Security where they identify the kind of people they regard as “domestic extremists”, and usually it’s just people with anti-establishment politics…people who are against the government, who question the legitimacy of government authority, even there are sometimes people on the left, say animal rights activists or environmental activists, and people on the right who are pro-life activists. It’s clearly aimed at any sort of exercise of free speech and free association and free political protesting that the constitution is supposed to guarantee, that they are going to say are just extremists and now should be regarded as terrorism.” 

Yours Truly has warned you about manufactured terrorism cases and importantly, how that is in itself, a threat to national security–to which you rolled your eyes of course. Here’s the point one more time, so that you finally get it. 

When these terrorism/ counterterrorism resources are abused by our Intel agencies to go after people they know, are not terrorists, and with seemingly zero pushback from Congress & MSM, sooner or later, the public loses confidence in our counterterrorism efforts/intel agencies.

Why is this a national security threat? It is a national security threat because when real domestic terrorism threats arise, like the one we have now with White Supremacists, and the intel agencies need more powers(statutes) and resources($$) to tackle the legitimate problem, the abuses end up ruining the reputations of such agencies so much, that the public(Congress) is unwilling to grant them the extra power and resources they need, even though everybody acknowledges the White Supremacy problem. In other words, the public knows there’s a legitimate White Supremacy/violent extremism problem, they just can’t trust the corrupt intel agencies with any more powers–therein lies the national security threat/problem—the understandable lack of faith. The same applies with the problems we recently saw with COVID vaccines–very skeptical public because of long-running and yet unaddressed questions (zero congressional hearings) about non-consensual human experimentation, primarily by the military industrial complex. 

Greenwald is somewhat of a polarizing figure so naturally, there will be efforts by his former liberal allies in the mainstream media to dismiss his manufactured terrorism charge. It is important to point out however, that other very respectable figures have long raised concerns about this very issue, chief among them former FBI Special Agent Mike German, currently a Fellow at the Brennan Center. This video, on how our intelligence agencies, and the FBI in particular, have become the biggest threats to democracy, is a must watch, and largely validates what Greenwald said on Ingraham’s show.

Bottom line folks, a wise man once said, “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Ever since 9/11, we’ve given our intelligence agencies absolute power to prosecute the war on terrorism. There was a reasonable expectation from the public, that Congress and MSM, would act as checks to this absolute power, something we now know was a total fantasy. This absolute power has corrupted our intel agencies so absolutely, that now when they come begging for more tools to combat the legitimate threat of White Supremacy/domestic extremism, nobody wants to “extend them the extra line of credit.” This is just the latest example as to why strict oversight in instances where government agencies are granted immense powers over people’s lives, is not just good for the public’s interest, but also for the said agencies. 

Also, it cannot be left unsaid that even though the media and some in Congress are just now beginning to speak out about the abuse of our counterterrorism resources, they are yet to start addressing the equally important topic as to what is actually done to the said innocent manufactured terrorists–the so-called targeted individuals. Let’s just say, when that is finally exposed, hopefully soon, many will quibble with the notion that we are “the land of the free”.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Is It Time To Hold Fox News Accountable Over Its Role In The January 6th Insurrection?

$upport via Cash App

An interesting segment on MSNBC’s Katie Phang Show(06/11/22) delved into the burning question among members of the public, as to whether Fox News should be held accountable for what many believe, was an incitement by some of its leading hosts towards the violent insurrection at the Capitol on 01/06/2021. This question is resurfacing because a former senior editor at Fox News, one Chris Stirewalt, who was known to openly criticize the network’s super close ties to the Trump administration and its far right extremist backers, is set to testify at the January 6th Committee’s second public hearing set for Monday(06/13/22). It is expected that Stirewalt will draw a direct connection between some of the leading insurrectionists and Fox News’ hosts. Katie Phang’s guest Danielle Moodie, who hosts the Woke AF Podcast, thinks Fox News should absolutely be held accountable for it’s role in the January 6th insurrection.

Host Katie Phang:“One of the witnesses on Monday, we know, is Chris Stirewalt. He was fired from Fox after calling Arizona for Biden. He’s also been known to say Fox News is an arm of the Republican Party. Do you think the committee is going to start zeroing in on the White House’s[Trump’s] interactions with the network Fox News?”

Danielle Moodie:“I would love for them to do that. I would love for the Department of Justice to do that, I’d love for the FCC to do that, I mean the reality here is that Fox News for the longest time, is the propaganda arm, it is a dangerous entity, and so I think it is incredibly important for them not to just look at this and say, ‘Oh well, freedom of speech, we can’t touch it’. We have to see how all of these pieces fit together, and I think that without Fox News, you wouldn’t have the kind of amplification of the insurrection, and replacement theory, and all of the things that we know that these militias…and the Trump base holds dear, and so yes, I think that they absolutely should be zeroing in on Fox at some point, and I hope it’s soon.”

Bottom line folks, we can complain about the rise of White nationalism and other far right violent extremist groups all we want, but unless we are willing and able to confront the Fox News engine that we know, powers all these dangerous groups, then we might as well start preparing for the next, possibly successful insurrection. If the January 6th Commitee is serious about its stated goal of preventing another violent insurrection, then as Danielle Moodie correctly points out, it necessarily has to deal with the role of Fox News in the 2021 insurrection, and potentially, a future one. Put another way, it’s about time Fox News’ freedom of speech defense got put to the test. Incitement to violence is a well known exception to a freedom of speech claim.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Laura Ingraham Is Upset That Defense Secretary Austin Wants To Rid Military Of Racists & Extremists

The unfortunate events of January 6, 2021, dubbed “DCInsurrection”, where a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building interrupting a joint session of Congress convened to formally confirm the election of President Joe Biden, have raised a lot of questions about violent extremism and racism in the United States, and specifically, the extent to which such extremism and racism have infected the military ranks.

During the insurrection, a lot of Americans witnessed on live TV and social media, images of many of the rioters in military regalia, engaging in formations that left absolutely no doubt that they were either active duty military officers, or veterans of the U.S. armed forces. Media reports have since confirmed that quite a number of the DC insurrectionists were indeed either active duty military officers or veterans, a disturbing development indeed, and proof positive sign that there is radicalization/extremism within our armed forces. Sadly, there were also images at the DC insurrection of people displaying flags and other symbols of groups with long and documented histories of espousing White supremacist views. So the problem at DC insurrection was not just violent extremism, but violent extremism plus racism.

Naturally, as a result of these troubling media reports, there have been calls from the public and members of Congress, for the department of defense to investigate this apparent radicalization in the military, with the goal of ridding the revered American institution of racists and extremists–something all reasonable people will conclude is a very noble and justified goal. It was therefore quite interesting on Thursday’s(2/4/2021) edition of her show, to see Fox News host Laura Ingraham express reservations, even outrage, at the fact that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has put in motion efforts to do just that–rid the U.S. military of racists and extremists.

In the editorial section of her show titled “The Ingraham Angle“, Ingraham lashed out at Defense Secretary Austin saying his efforts to get racists and extremists out of the military was a veiled attempt at purging Conservatives and Trump supporters from the military. Laura played a clip of Defense Secretary Austin’s remarks at his Senate confirmation hearing where Secretary Austin said, “I will fight hard to stump out sexual assault, and to rid our ranks of racists and extremists. The job of the department of defense is to keep America safe from our enemies, but we can’t do that if some of those enemies lie within our own ranks.” She then strangely lashed out at these perfectly normal sentiments by Secretary Austin saying, “Of course what he [Secretary Austin] really meant then, and what he would like to do now, is rid the military of all strong Conservatives and of course, Trump supporters.”

Laura Ingraham’s take on Secretary Austin’s remarks at his confirmation hearings are not only troubling because she unreasonably casts negative aspersions at the Secretary’s motives, but also because she appears to be troubled that efforts are underway to rid the military of racists and extremists. Reasonable people would welcome such a move because it is not only good for the military, but also for the country to have a military that does not harbor racists and extremists. By unreasonably suggesting that the aim here is to rid the military of “strong Conservatives” and “Trump supporters”, is Laura Ingraham tacitly admitting that Conservatives and Trumpers are indeed racists and extremists? Are racists and extremists a voting block that is now being actively courted by the modern Republican party? These and others, are interesting questions one hopes the mainstream media will pose to Ingraham and company, regarding her seeming reluctance to have the military remove racists and extremists from it’s ranks.

It also bears pointing out that Ingraham’s reservations about getting rid of racists and extremists from the military is a prevalent view among many prominent Republicans. You’ll remember that after the January 6th incident, many people started expressing concern about a similar insurrection happening two weeks later, at the January 20th presidential inauguration event. Among the steps taken to prevent a repeat of January 6th, was a beefing up of security in and around Washington DC, by bringing in National Guard troops from the various states. The troops brought in to secure the inauguration event were vetted to ensure they had no ties to the same extremists groups that participated in the January 6th insurrection. Strangely, and much like we witnessed with Laura Ingraham, Texas Governor Gregg Abbott and Florida’s Ron DeSantis, were also very upset that the troops were vetted for extremism ties, something most reasonable people would consider prudent given the circumstances.

Bottom line folks, Yours Truly has repeatedly stated that among the most underreported stories during the four years of the Trump administration, is the extent to which he politicized and abused the military to achieve his political interests. These unreasonable protestations by Trumpers like Laura Ingraham, Governors Abbott, DeSantis, et al, towards ridding the military of racists and extremists, only add on to my suspicions. Are they afraid that a vetting will uncover something they are already aware of, but would rather hide from the public? Hmm

Obviously the jury is still out on the finer details of the politicization and abuse of the military during the four years of the Trump administration, and hopefully details will soon start coming out under the Biden administration. One hopes that the mainstream media will keep us fully apprised on the findings of DOD Inspector General’s investigations in this regard, especially in states like Texas and Florida with super Trumper Governors.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Little Known FBI’s Race-Based Surveillance

There have been numerous media reports about a very troubling practice by the FBI to designate Black activists as “Black Identity Extremists”, an often bogus designation which is then used to justify subjecting the said activists to all levels of surveillance–private, local, state, federal and even military surveillance in major cities like Houston, LA, Chicago, New York and others. The rationale, a bogus one, is that a “Black Identity Extremist” or BIE is more likely to attack law enforcement officers and thus needs to be placed under 24-hour surveillance.

The controversy surrounding this program, beyond its prima facie racism, centers around the ease with which a Black activist could end up in this designation. Several media reports have said that even mundane activities like organizing or attending a Black Lives Matter rally could in the eyes of the FBI qualify a Black activist as a BIE subjecting them to unjustified long-term government surveillance, the fruits of which could be used in their criminal prosecution. Needless to say, Black activists who support/sympathize with Black Lives Matter on social media (Twitter, Facebook) can also very easily be designated as BIEs. Simply put, this is a very serious problem that is yet to garner the mainstream media attention it deserves.

Yours Truly has ranted and raved about the lack of mainstream media attention surrounding this seemingly–let’s face it–racist surveillance by the FBI for quite a while now, wondering when House Democrats would take up this serious issue with the justice department.

Well, it turns out Rep Sheila Jackson-Lee (R-TX) did indeed raise this issue with then U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions at a House hearing on November 14, 2017. Rep Jackson-Lee asked Sessions; “My question is, as I hold up the poster dealing with the report under your jurisdiction–Black Identity Extremists. It is interesting to me that you are opposing [meant targeting] individuals who are opposing lethal force, similar to the attack on Reverend Dr Martin Luther King on Cointelpro, but there seems to be no report dealing with the tiki torch parade in Charlottesville chanting ‘Jews will not replace us’. Why is there an attack on Black activists versus any report dealing with the Alt Right and the White Nationalists?” AG Sessions responded that he was not aware of the report.

Cointelpro which Rep Jackson-Lee referenced in her questioning was a controversial and secret surveillance program the FBI deployed on Black civil rights activists in the 60s, most notably, on the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Historians agree that the primary reason the FBI ran Cointelpro on Black civil rights activists was to scare them into silence. This is precisely why when Black activists hear about “Black Identity Extremists” they are immediately reminded of stories they’ve read about Cointelpro and are justified in questioning whether the FBI has indeed reverted back to its 1960s tactic of stifling Black dissent.

Bottom line the “Black Identity Extremist” debate is one that begs for serious mainstream media attention. The mainstream media and indeed members of Congress must not remain silent as a section of the population is unjustly subjected to heightened levels of government surveillance all in an effort to stifle their first amendment compliant political speech. At moments like these, Martin Niemoller’s famous words come to mind; “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist, then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist, then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com