Blog

THE FBI TRIED TO AMBUSH MY SOURCE. NOW I’M TELLING THE WHOLE STORY.

FBI AGENT GRAYDEN RIDD had a confidential message for his informant. An FBI team had been given the green light by the Justice Department to ambush and derail a planned meeting between a reporter and a source, and the informant’s job was to let the FBI know when and where the meeting would take place.

The reporter whose meeting they planned to target was me.

It was January 2014, and I was an investigative reporter in the Washington bureau of the New York Times focusing on national security. The FBI wanted to stop me from obtaining documents that I’d been told would reveal the details of massive spying operations by the National Security Agency. The FBI was convinced that I was in contact with someone they had secretly nicknamed the “second Snowden,” who was about to give me an archive that they feared could go far beyond what former NSA contractor Edward Snowden had leaked about the agency’s spying operations the year before.

The FBI’s plan to grab my source at our scheduled meeting was approved by top officials at the FBI and the Justice Department during the Obama administration, according to audio recordings I obtained of several phone conversations between Ridd and his informant. At the time, Eric Holder was U.S. attorney general and James Comey was FBI director.

“Right now, they are on board,” Ridd said in one phone conversation to plan the ambush operation, referring to top Justice Department and FBI officials. “I have to periodically go up to the throne room and recommit them. … We actually have a lot of buy-in and a lot of support, but I do need to feed the beast.”

The FBI declined to comment and the Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment. Holder did not answer a request for comment left with his office; Comey did not respond to a request for comment conveyed through his lawyer. Ridd did not respond to a request for comment placed with a relative or to a knock at the door of his home in Washington, D.C.

Keep reading

New Evidence Implicates CIA, LAPD, FBI and Mafia as Plotters in Elaborate “Hit” Plan to Prevent RFK From Ever Reaching White House

On June 5, 1968, a few minutes after midnight, Robert Kennedy was shot and killed at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles while walking through a narrow serving area called “the pantry.” Kennedy had just won the California primary and was on his way to a room where print media reporters were waiting to hear him speak.

In early March, Lyndon B. Johnson had thrown open the race by announcing that he would not seek re-election because of the failure of his Vietnam policy. Kennedy emerged as a leading contender by energizing the youth wing of the party with his calls for sweeping social change.

Kennedy was in many ways a strange liberal icon because he grew up idolizing Herbert Hoover, was closest in his family to his father, Joseph, the millionaire business tycoon, began his career supporting Joseph McCarthy’s anti-communist witch-hunt, called for victory against communism in Vietnam in the early 1960s, and oversaw a terrorist campaign designed to overthrow the Cuban government.

Nevertheless, by the latter part of the 1960s, Kennedy had evolved into a crusader for the poor and dove on Vietnam who was trying to ride the wave of the protest movement into the White House.[1]

Biographers Lester and Irene David wrote that Bobby was the Kennedy who “felt deepest, cared the most, and fought the hardest for humanity—crying out against America’s involvement in the Vietnam War, championing the causes of blacks, Hispanics, and Mexican-Americans, and crusading against the suffering of children, the elderly and anyone else hurt or bypassed by social and economic progress.”[2]

After Kennedy’s death, the Democratic Party became a shadow of its former self, with six of the next nine presidents being Republicans. The Party in this period abandoned its core base—union laborers, minorities, and blue-collar workers—focusing instead on Wall Street.

Keep reading

Silicon Valley Corporations Are Taking Control Of History

Twitter has imposed a weeklong suspension on the account of writer and political activist Danny Haiphong for a thread he made on the platform disputing the mainstream Tiananmen Square massacre narrative.

The notification Haiphong received informed him that Twitter had locked his account for “Violating our rules against abuse and harassment,” presumably in reference to a rule the platform put in place a year ago which prohibits “content that denies that mass murder or other mass casualty events took place, where we can verify that the event occured, and when the content is shared with abusive intent.”

“This may include references to such an event as a ‘hoax’ or claims that victims or survivors are fake or ‘actors,’” Twitter said of the new rule. “It includes, but is not limited to, events like the Holocaust, school shootings, terrorist attacks, and natural disasters.”

That we are now seeing this rule applied to protect narratives which support the geostrategic interests of the US-centralized empire is not in the least bit surprising.

Haiphong is far from the first to dispute the mainstream western narrative about exactly what happened around Tiananmen Square in June of 1989 as the Soviet Union was crumbling and Washington’s temporary Cold War alignment with Beijing was losing its strategic usefulness. But we can expect more acts of online censorship like this as Silicon Valley continues to expand into its role as guardian of imperial historic records.

This idea that government-tied Silicon Valley institutions should act as arbiters of history on behalf of the public consumer is gaining steadily increasing acceptance in the artificially manufactured echo chamber of mainstream public opinion. We saw another example of this recently in Joe Lauria’s excellent refutation of accusations against Consortium News of historic inaccuracy by the imperial narrative management firm NewsGuard.

As journalists like Whitney Webb and Mnar Adley noted years ago, NewsGuard markets itself as a “news rating agency” designed to help people sort out good from bad sources of information online, but in reality functions as an empire-backed weapon against media who question imperial narratives about what’s happening in the world. The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal outlined the company’s many partnerships with imperial swamp monsters like former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and “chief propagandist” Richard Stengel as well as “imperialist cutouts like the German Marshall Fund” when its operatives contacted his outlet for comment on their accusations.

Lauria compiles a mountain of evidence in refutation of NewsGuard’s claim that Consortium News published “false content” about the 2014 US-backed coup in Ukraine, copiously citing outlets which NewsGuard itself has labeled accurate sources of information with its “green check” designation system. It becomes clear as you read the article that NewsGuard’s real function is, as John Kiriakou put it, “guarding the country from the news.”

Keep reading

The Satanist Neo-Nazi Plot to Murder U.S. Soldiers

Ethan Phelan Melzer’s secret life of hate ran deep. The 24-year-old private in the 173rd Airborne Brigade appeared to be just another young soldier, trying to find his way through military life at Fort Benning, Georgia. However, in his private time, prosecutors allege, Melzer had another, sinister side: He said he liked to perform macabre blood rituals; read obscure, gruesome tracts about torture and child abuse; collected violent iconography; and found like minds in the depths of Telegram, an encrypted messaging app so favored by extremists of all stripes that it is often referred to as “Terrorgram.” His handle was “Etil Reggad” — a near anadrome for “Elite Dagger.”

By Melzer’s own account, enlisting in the Army was a ruse — on the encrypted app, he wrote that he had joined up solely to gain knowledge of military weaponry and tactics. “It’s great for training,” he wrote, adding a cryptic remark about his base. “All of these places the vast majority deserve to be burned.”

Melzer repeatedly trash-talked the Army and described it as merely a means to hone his violent skills. “I’m not patriotic for shit,” he wrote to another radical who was considering enlisting in the Marines. Telegram chats disclosed by the government in court filings reveal his efforts to mask his true beliefs: “I fly under the radar already, act completely normal around other people outside and don’t talk about my personal life or beliefs with anyone.”

The young paratrooper said he was conducting what he called an “insight role” — both infiltrating and subverting an institution, one of the core tenets of the Order of Nine Angles, a secretive, nihilistic, bloodthirsty satanist-Nazi sect, to which, prosecutors allege, Melzer swore allegiance.

Once confined to the most obscure occultism, “O9A” ideology has spread like wildfire via the internet and the global fascist resurgence of the 2010s. Its cells, known as “nexions,” have cross-pollinated with the millenarian neo-Nazi worldview popularized by the wannabe 21st-century Tim McVeighs of the Atomwaffen Division, a group of American extremists who celebrated the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, venerated terrorists like Anders Breivik and psychopaths like Charles Manson, and have been connected to five murders and numerous bomb plots.

The key evangelical for O9A, the figure who facilitated this macabre wedding of apocalyptic death cults, is Joshua Caleb Sutter, a 41-year-old ex-convict, prolific satanist, publisher of manuscripts advocating murder, torture, rape, and child abuse — and a paid FBI informant since 2004.

Sutter’s O9A message is a lunatic mashup of vampirism, Columbine-style death worship, and edgelord posturing, specifically designed to lure in the lost, angry, and transgressive types like Melzer.

Keep reading

Whoopi Goldberg Thinks The AR15 Should Be Banned Because It ‘Turns People To Dust’

If you want to find some of the dumbest political hot takes of the past five years, you only need to have a strong stomach and the patience to sit through the numerous uneducated discussions of the clucking flock on The View.

Whoopi Goldberg continues this winning tradition (The View’s audience numbers tanked this year and it remains 10th among women 18-49 in daytime television) with her recent comments on gun control, arguing in favor of criminal arrest for Americans that own AR15s that refuse to give them up. When pressed on the fact that gun crimes could just as easily be committed with pistols during a largely one sided debate against her co-host, Goldberg argued that handguns “don’t turn people to dust.”

Neither do AR15s, but lets not bring reality into a debate that was broadcast on The View. Injury and death is just as likely from a handgun as it is from an AR15. You are also more likely to find expanding hollow point ammo used in a pistol. The primary difference is that a pistol’s range is limited, usually to 50 yards or less. This makes little difference though, as most shooting events and crimes occur within 50 yards anyway, and this includes shootings where rifles are involved.

Whether or not this was hyperbole, the insane misconceptions put out into the mainstream by anti-2nd Amendment activists falls in line with a long series of lies and gaffes uttered by Joe Biden and other Democrats. If you don’t know anything about the weapons you are trying to ban, then maybe you shouldn’t be trying to ban them?

The fact is, the vast majority of gun crimes and gun related homicides are committed with handguns according to FBI stats; only 2%-3% of crimes and homicides are committed using rifles or “assault rifles” on average. The claim that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban had any bearing on the overall decline in gun crime in the 1990s is false – The largest decline was in handgun homicides, and handguns were not subject to the 1994 ban.

Goldberg’s assertion that gun rights advocates should compromise and allow the banning of this “one gun” is naive; gun grabbers will never be satisfied with limited gun control, only total gun confiscation (at least among the poor and the people that oppose them politically). Say what you want about Beto O’Rourke, but his big mouth is valuable in that he often lets slip what the real agenda on gun control is.

Goldberg then goes on to suggest that people can “report” AR15 owners and have them arrested, saying the solution is “simple” and compared this to reporting and arresting women who abort their babies in states where abortion is banned. Interesting how the political left is rabidly in favor of killing people in the womb despite numerous other birth control options, but wants to strip all law abiding citizens of their rights whenever people die from gun related homicides.

Keep reading

Norwegian Feminist Faces Three Years in Prison For Saying Biological Men Can’t Be Lesbians

A Norwegian feminist faces up to three years in prison for saying that biological men can’t be lesbians.

Yes, really.

Christina Ellingsen, of the global feminist organization Women’s Declaration International (WDI), is under police investigation for making the claim in a tweet in which she criticized the trans activism group FRI.

“Why [does] FRI teach young people that males can be lesbians? Isn’t that conversion therapy?” Ellingsen allegedly tweeted.

She also questioned the legitimacy of FRI’s advisor Christine Jentoft identifying as a lesbian despite being born a biological male.

“Jentoft, who is male and an advisor in FRI, presents himself as a lesbian – that’s how bonkers the organization which supposedly works to protect young lesbians’ interests is. How does it help young lesbians when males claim to be lesbian, too?” Ellingsen reportedly said.

“You are a man. You cannot be a mother,” Ellingsen allegedly told Jentoft. “To normalize the idea that men can be mothers is a defined form of discrimination against women.”

“Amnesty International is also accusing Ellingsen of harassment for saying that Jentoft is a man on national television,” reports Reclaim the Net.

Norway’s hate crime laws were made more draconian last year to make criticizing gender ideology a crime and Ellingsen faces up to three years in prison if she is convicted.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson Applauds Taking Away Americans’ Second Amendment Rights

Future Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson praised New Zealand’s ban on semi-automatic long guns, which included a “mandatory government buyback,” during a commencement speech at Harvard University.

Brown-Jackson applauded the comments from leftist New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s commencement speech championing her government “banning military-style semi-automatics and assault rifles.”

Brown-Jackson can be seen in the video applauding the statement by Arden. It comes as an apparent approval of the removal of Second Amendment rights for Americans and a signal of support for President Biden’s anti-gun agenda. 

President Biden called for enacting more restrictions on the Second Amendment in response to the Uvalde shooting during his speech last week.

Keep reading

House Democrat Floats 1,000% Tax on AR-15-Style Rifles

A key House Democrat is floating a 1,000% tax on AR-15s and similar rifles as part of his party’s latest bid to push gun control in the wake of recent mass shootings.

Rep. Donald Beyer of Virginia, who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, told Business Insider that increasing the cost of the rifles ten-fold could be a deterrent to mass shootings. The tax could raise the price of the rifles to anywhere from $5,000 to as much as $20,000.

“What it’s intended to do is provide another creative pathway to actually make some sensible gun control happen,” Beyer said. “We think that a 1,000% fee on assault weapons is just the kind of restrictive measure that creates enough fiscal impact to qualify for reconciliation.”

A final draft of Beyer’s bill is not yet complete, and it is still unclear when the tax would take effect and what the added revenue would fund, although one possibility is a restitution program for family members of victims killed in shootings. Beyer said that law enforcement agencies and the U.S. military wouldn’t be subject to the tax. The lawmaker added that he believes his bill can clear the House, where Democrats hold a clear majority, and bypass the filibuster in the Senate, where Vice President Kamala Harris could cast the deciding vote.

Keep reading

Disney Actor Who Played Grandfather On ‘Andy Mack’ Jailed For Trying To Have Sex With Minor

A former Disney actor will spend two years in federal prison for allegedly enticing a minor to have sex. 

Stoney Westmoreland communicated with an undercover officer using Grindr, a gay dating app. He was later arrested in 2018 after trying to meet the investigator who was posing as a 13-year-old teenager.

Authorities said Westmoreland tried to meet the apparent underage boy for sex by using a ride-sharing app to order the boy a car to the Little America Hotel. 

After ordering the ride share for the minor, he was taken into custody by the Salt Lake City Police Department and FBI Child Exploitation Task Force.

According to police, he admitted to sending nude photos, and the victim he was speaking with told him he was 13 years old.

Keep reading

HOUSTON FORCES PRIVATE BUSINESSES TO INSTALL 24/7 CITYWIDE DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS FOR WARRANTLESS ACCESS BY POLICE

The Rutherford Institute is calling on the City of Houston to address glaring constitutional concerns relating to a recently adopted ordinance that requires private businesses to install citywide digital surveillance cameras that can be accessed by police without a search warrant. The Exterior Security Cameras Ordinance, adopted by the Houston City Council on April 20, 2022, requires private businesses to purchase and install digital surveillance cameras that carry out round-the-clock, citywide surveillance on the populace while “allowing” police to access the footage at any time, for any reason, and without the need of a court-issued warrant. In a letter to the Houston City Council, Rutherford Institute attorneys warn that the City’s thinly veiled attempt to evade oversight and accountability for Fourth Amendment violations by forcing a quasi-private/public arrangement on private businesses regarding the ownership and governance of digital surveillance cameras will not likely hold up to judicial scrutiny.

“By placing the burden of round-the-clock, citywide surveillance on private businesses, the City of Houston is clearly attempting an end-run around the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement as it relates to surveillance by government officials,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “This kind of warrantless, citywide surveillance program inevitably gives rise to a suspect society in which the burden of proof is reversed so that guilt is assumed and innocence must be proven.”

On April 20, 2022, the Houston City Council passed an ordinance ostensibly aimed at addressing “an increase of violent crimes due to the pandemic, social anxiety and economic uncertainty, open carry law and a strained criminal justice system resulting in a criminal backlog of cases.” The Exterior Security Cameras Ordinance requires certain private businesses (all bars, nightclubs, sexually-oriented businesses, convenience stores and game rooms inside city limits) to work in consultation with the Houston Police Department in order to install digital surveillance cameras that record the exterior property areas at all times. Business owners must bear the costs of the cameras, ensure the cameras are in proper working order, maintain recordings for at least 30 days, and provide video footage within 72 hours to police upon their request without a search warrant. The Ordinance is slated to take effect mid-July. Failure to comply with the Ordinance is a punishable offense for business owners with fines up to $500 per day. However, as The Rutherford Institute warns, by lodging the responsibility for the cameras with private businesses, the City is proceeding as if it is not bound by the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment, giving police carte blanche access to the surveillance footage from these digital cameras. Consequently, the Ordinance does not require a judge or magistrate to confirm that the police demand for video footage is supported by probable cause of criminal activity under oath, it does not limit the scope of the video footage which can be requested by the police in order to prevent obtaining extra and unnecessary video footage, and it does not require the crime to be violent or even serious in relation to the Ordinance’s stated goal of reducing violent crime. The Ordinance also fails to limit the use and further dissemination of the video footage by the police.

Keep reading