Category Archives: Crime

He Said That? 2/18/17

From Henry Kissinger, and he would know:

Corrupt politicians make the other ten percent look bad.

Advertisements

DHS Insider Warns “It’s Spy Versus Spy”, by Victurus Libertas

This is an explosive interview with a purported DHS insider making allegations of pedophilia rings in high places. The mainstream media won’t touch this story, but there has been enough smoke (John and Tony Podesta emails with weird “Pizza” references, their weird art collections, Jeffrey Epstein, Anthony Weiner) that the possibility of fire merits investigation. The mainstream media’s blanket labeling of the story as “fake news” and failure to investigate looks suspiciously like its peddling of the Russia-Trump connection. From the website victuruslibertas.com:

VL has been fortunate enough to work with some awesome people! We have loyal and awakened followers who help bring us information, and we also have trusted insiders, whistleblowers and leakers who trust us enough to give us information, too. Today, we have an exclusive interview with a special DHS insider who has answered some critical questions we have on PizzaGate. Our insider prefers to call it PedoGate and what he told us blew our minds!

We are so fortunate that members of the Intel community like our work and feel they can trust us. We have been trying to get to the bottom of PizzaGate for months and the answers we got from our DHS insider stunned and shocked us. Here we go!

Q. So, in the Intelligence community, how chaotic is the atmosphere now?

A. In my 34 years of Governmental service, I have never seen anything like it. It’s the bifurcation of the entire intelligence apparatus.

Q. It seems the intel community has it in for Trump – is this your feeling?

A. There are many Trump supporters within the FBI. The CIA, however, is against Trump because Trump threatens to ruin their game in the middle east.

Q. Can you elaborate?

A. CIA and Mossad work in tandem with British intel. The goal for the CIA was to replace Assad with a puppet and to topple Iran so we could access their oil. Israel works closely with it’s “sister”, Saudi Arabia, to help this dark cause.

Q. So it seems like the intel community has it in for Trump. How can he protect himself?

A. Trump has a tremendous opportunity here, but needs to circle wagons. The travel ban included 7 countries chosen by both Jared Kushner and Rudy. Why did it not include Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Turkey or other countries that hate us? The seven nations mentioned were chosen by Israel, that’s why. And the unspoken alliance of Israel and Saudi Arabia should be exposed. They are brother and sister. Jared Kushner needs to be careful with what he says and to whom. But, the biggest thing Trump can do is expose PedoGate via Sessions. Big names will go down hard, and it gets the blood suckers drained from the swamp. There are as many pedophiles on the Republican side as there is with democrats, but Trump is in a unique position to truly “clean up Dodge”, so to speak. I can tell you that what is in Anthony Weiner’s hard drive, and what videos exist via Jeffery Epstein, WILL BRING massive arrests – in time. Trump’s legacy could be truly great if he was to purge the CIA, stop the extortion, prosecute the pedophiles and reinstate the death penalty for pedo’s convicted a second time. Pedogate is his path to greatness.

To continue reading: DHS Insider Warns “It’s Spy Versus Spy”

On The Verge Of Treason: US Spies Withhold Intelligence From Trump, by Tyler Durden

The Wall Street Journal accuses intelligence personnel from withholding information from the president for whom they work. That, as opposed to anything Trump and his team have done this past year, sounds like treason. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Following President Trump’s exclamations today with regard “un-American” leaks of classified intel, it appears he has a bigger, more serious problem on his hands. WSJ reports that US intel officials have withheld information from President Trump due to concerns it could be leaked or compromised.

The Wall Street Journal, citing unidentified current and former officials familiar with the matter, reports that officials’ decision to keep information from Mr. Trump underscores the deep mistrust that has developed between the intelligence community and the president over his team’s contacts with the Russian government, as well as the enmity he has shown toward U.S. spy agencies. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump accused the agencies of leaking information to undermine him.

In some of these cases of withheld information, officials have decided not to show Mr. Trump the sources and methods that the intelligence agencies use to collect information, the current and former officials said. Those sources and methods could include, for instance, the means that an agency uses to spy on a foreign government.

In some ways Trump may not care: according to the WSK, “Trump doesn’t immerse himself in intelligence information, and it isn’t clear that he has expressed a desire to know sources and methods. The intelligence agencies have been told to dramatically pare down the president’s daily intelligence briefing, both the number of topics and how much information is described under each topic, an official said. Compared with his immediate predecessors, Mr. Trump so far has chosen to rely less on the daily briefing than they did.”

However, now that the WSJ brought up this topic, one can be absolutely sure the first demand Trump will make during his next intel briefing: “show me all the information.” That’s when things could get rough.

To continue reading: On The Verge Of Treason: US Spies Withhold Intelligence From Trump

How White Liberals Enable Crime in Black Communities, by Walter E. Williams

Blacks are disproportionately both the committers and victims of violent crimes. Liberal crusades against police, focused on racism, end up hurting far more blacks than they help. From Walter E. Williams at dailysignal.com:

Ordinary black people cannot afford to go along with the liberal agenda that calls for undermining police authority. That agenda makes for more black crime victims.

Let’s look at what works and what doesn’t work.

In 1990, New York City adopted the practice in which its police officers might stop and question a pedestrian. If there was suspicion, they would frisk the person for weapons and other contraband. This practice, well within the law, is known as a “Terry stop.”

After two decades of this proactive police program, New York City’s homicides fell from over 2,200 per year to about 300. Blacks were the major beneficiaries of proactive policing.

According to Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald—author of “The War on Cops”—seeing as black males are the majority of New York City’s homicide victims, more than 10,000 blacks are alive today who would not be had it not been for proactive policing.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other leftist groups brought suit against proactive policing. A U.S. district court judge ruled that New York City’s “stop and frisk” policy violated the 14th Amendment’s promise of equal protection because black and Hispanic people were subject to stops and searches at a higher rate than whites.

But the higher rate was justified. Mac Donald points out that while blacks are 23 percent of New York City’s population, they are responsible for 75 percent of shootings and 70 percent of robberies. Whites are 34 percent of the population of New York City. They are responsible for less than 2 percent of shootings and 4 percent of robberies.

If you’re trying to prevent shootings and robberies, whom are you going to focus most attention on, blacks or whites?

To continue reading: How White Liberals Enable Crime in Black Communities

Is the Left Playing with Fire Again? by Patrick J. Buchanan

The last time Democrats embraced violence, during the Johnson administration, the way was paved for Richard Nixon to win two elections, propelled by his Silent Majority, for Ronald Reagan’s Revolution, and for the South to move decisively into the Republican column. Perhaps their current embrace of violence will work out better for them, but probably not. From Patrick J. Buchanan at buchanan.org:

To those who lived through that era that tore us apart in the ’60s and ’70s, it is starting to look like “deja vu all over again.”

And as Adlai Stevenson, Bobby Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey did then, Democrats today like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are pandering to the hell-raisers, hoping to ride their energy to victory.

Democrats would do well to recall what happened the last time they rode the tiger of social revolution.

As the riots began in Harlem in 1964 and Watts in 1965, liberals rushed to render moral sanction and to identify with the rioters.

“In the great struggle to advance civil and human rights,” said Adlai at Colby College, “even a jail sentence is no longer a dishonor but a proud achievement. … Perhaps we are destined to see in this law-loving land people running for office … on their prison records.”

“There is no point in telling Negroes to obey the law,” said Bobby; to the Negro, “the law is the enemy.” Hubert assured us that if he had to live in a slum, “I could lead a mighty good revolt myself.”

Thus did liberals tie themselves and their party to what was coming. By 1967, Malcolm X had been assassinated, Stokely Carmichael with his call to “Black Power” had replaced John Lewis at SNCC, and H. Rap Brown had a new slogan: “By any means necessary.”

Came then the days-long riots of Newark and Detroit in 1967 where the 82nd Airborne was sent in. A hundred cities were burned and pillaged following the assassination of Dr. King on April 4, 1968.

To continue reading: Is the Left Playing with Fire Again?

 

A Tale of Two Talks: Free Speech in the U.S., by Douglas Murray

Milo Yiannopolous has never argued that either slavery or rape are good things, but a violent mob of thugs  prevented him from speaking at UC Berkeley. Jonathan A.C. Brown, during a talk at Georgetown University, praised Muslim slavery and slave rape. There were no protests and nary a peep from students or the academic establishment. From Douglas Murray at gatestoneinstitute.org:

• During his talk at Georgetown University, Jonathan A.C. Brown condemned slavery when it took place historically in America and other Western countries, but praised the practise of slavery as it happened in Muslim societies, explained that Muslim slaves lived “a pretty good life”, and claimed that it is “not immoral for one human to own another human.” Regarding the vexed matter of whether it is right or wrong to have sex with one of your slaves, Brown, who is director of the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, said that “consent isn’t necessary for lawful sex”.

• No mob of anti-sharia people has gone to Georgetown, torn up telephone poles, set fire to things or smashed up the campus, as mobs did at Berkeley.

Milo Yiannopoulos has never argued that the Western system of slavery was benevolent and worthwhile, and that slaves in America had “a pretty good life”. He has never argued against consent being an important principle in sexual relations. If he had, then the riots at Berkeley would doubtless have been far worse than they were and even more media companies and professors would have tried to argue that Yiannopoulos had “brought the violence upon himself” or even organized it himself.

To continue reading: A Tale of Two Talks: Free Speech in the U.S.

Civil Asset Forfeiture – Ruining Lives, While Failing To Stop Crime, by Duane Norman

Trump’s come down on the wrong side of the civil asset forfeiture issue and he may not even know what it is. From Duane Norman at fmshooter.com:

Yesterday, President Trump met with the National Sheriff’s Association at the White House. Like so many Trump comments, this one took a strange turn when Trump (jokingly or not) threatened to “destroy the career” of a Texas state Senator:

During the meeting, Rockwall County, Texas, Sheriff Harold Eavenson told President Trump about a piece of asset forfeiture legislation he believes would aid Mexican drug cartels…here’s the full conversation:

Eavenson: “There’s a state senator in Texas that was talking about legislation to require conviction before we could receive that forfeiture money.”

Trump: “Do you believe that?”

Eavenson: “And I told him that the cartel would build a monument to him in Mexico if he could get that legislation passed.”

Trump: “Who is that state senator? I want to hear his name. We’ll destroy his career…”

Though the major point of conversation was about Trump’s threat to a state legislator, the bigger story should be the implicit support Trump gave to civil asset forfeiture, whether he realized it or not. And if you are not aware what civil asset forfeiture is, it is (surprisingly) something that is agreed by both sides of the aisle to be unjust and unconstitutional, and rightfully so.

Civil asset forfeiture is defined by Wikipedia as “a controversial legal process in which law enforcement officers take assets from persons suspected of involvement with crime or illegal activity without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing.” The practice is commonplace in the war on drugs, but it can be extended to almost anything.

What it means is that the government can essentially seize any of your assets it can find (be it in a bank account, or cash/gold/whatever you have in a safe or under the mattress), label them a part of a “criminal investigation,” and keep them indefinitely, without sufficient due process for the citizen to challenge the seizures, and whether you are ultimately charged with a crime or not.

To continue reading: Civil Asset Forfeiture – Ruining Lives, While Failing To Stop Crime