FBI investigate peace activist

At a recent protest in San Francisco, Zionists hurled insults at peace activists and also issued threats such as this:

You’re all being identified, every last one of you…we will find out where you live. We’re going to make your lives difficult..we will disrupt your families…

It would appear that there are Zionists in Austin, Texas, who share the same sentiment and have decided to enlist the services of the FBI in order to pursue their political agenda.

What other plausible explanation can there be as to why the FBI came to question the mother of five shown in this video? She is a part-time registered nurse and part-time peace activist whose only form of “suspicious” behavior is that she has participated in protests calling for justice in Palestine.

(h/t Mondoweiss)

Print Friendly
facebooktwittermail

Comments

  1. John Sp. says:

    Awesome video! The point about the FBI being able to lie to get information is an extremely good one, with deep ramifications. I wonder if they bothered to investigate the source/validity of the information that led them to this woman’s door.

  2. DE Teodoru says:

    In Europe and America there is a Jewish fed anti-Muslim hate campaign and a Muslim fed anti-Jewish hate brewing. I recall how as boys my brother and I would get into a fight while spectators would be entertained. But after a while, with the blood splattering, people got bored and those cheering one or the other would just leave. We both stood there a humiliating exhibit like animals at the circus, left the worst for it bloody and alone.

    Despite all of American efforts since Bill Clinton to try and monopolize Central Asia so our empire can attain a massive OPEC-independent oil source for cheap gas to fill-er-up our SUVs, we have not yet succeeded in dominating that Muslim world and will have to come back to the Saudis and Arabian Gulf states for oil, hat and cup in hand. This humiliation will drown our disdain for Muslims in oil, transferring it to Jews whose issue, Israel, produces nothing of worth to anyone, just demands for more and more and more in reparation for the Holocaust which the Zionists did not experience because they were safe in Palestine protected by British colonial forces. I FEAR A KRYSTALNACHT BACKLASSH POPING UP ALL OVER THE WESTERN WORLD, POPING UP LIKE MUSHROOMS AGAINST JEWS, BLAMING THEM FOR THE BLOOD WE SPILLED IN THE NEOCONS-LED “WORLD WAR IV” AGAINST ISLAM. AS THE WEST CUTS ISRAEL OFF, ISRAEL WILL COMMIT SUICIDE BY BLOWING UP ITS NUKES TO DESTROY THE WHOLE MIDDLE EAST FOR IR WILL CHOSE TO TAKE OUT THE WHOLR REGION RATHER THAN FADE AS A FAILED EXPERIMENT—THAT IS THE “NEVER AGAIN” PART OF THE HOLOCAUST PSYCHOSIS. The children of Israel– the true Sabras– deserve better than to be victims of this Holocaust psychosis. They are entitled to a safe and prosperous homeland, Israel– land of their birth– that they can make better while contributing to the well-being of the region. The HATEFUL STALINIST PSYCHOTICS that have seized it from the Sabra hands of Netanyahu’s should suffer complete cut off of Western aid as the Gaza Palestinians now suffer for having freely and democratically voted HAMAS into power. Perhaps if we EVEN-HANDEDLY cut them BOTH off now– no more tax-deduction for $billions in Zionist aid to Israel or Palestine– the two sides will quickly come to an accord because they are, after all, related in blood. I am sure that Abbas and Netanyahu can do so because both want to save the land of their birth with a two-state, one-economy solution en route to regional integration. They must be given a chance to deal one on one with each other before the Jews pay for the crimes of the Israelis and the Israelis pay for the crimes of the Stalinist psychos whose putsch deposed ILLIGALLY Netanyahu!

    A reiteration by the Arab League of a commitment to full diplomatic and economic integration with Israel, once it returns to the 1967 borders, is in order so as to break the hold of fear imposed on Israel by the Stalinists. The Stalinists must be made to know that whatever they do to Netanyahu cannot be covered with phony claims of Arab aggression. IT IS QUARTER TO MIDNIGHT FOR HUMANITY IN MANY MORE WAYS THAN ONE. ALREADY WE BEGAN THIS CENTURY AS BLOODY AS THE LAST. WE MUST LEARN AND GIVE PEACE A CHANCE AS THERE IS NOTHING INTRINSIC TO THE SEMITIC FAMILY WHICH MAKES IMPOSSIBLE ISRAELI-ARAB INTEGRATION FOR A MODERNIZATION OF THE ENTIRE REGION AS A UNITED FAMILY.

    Hear my prayer Oh God and let this small spot on the globe be where you show us that we are indeed humans rather than beats who kill each other more out of fear than purpose. Let Israel be, prosperous and glorious….let Palestine be, prosperous and glorious, helped in that task by its Jewish brethren as it is by its Christian brethren.

  3. Maybe they were investigating the threats against the protesters.

  4. I would suggest that everyone who has received attention from their authorities for taking part in free and peaceful demonstrations must report the incident. A collecting organization such as Mondoweiss, would be good for the Palestine issue, but there are many more injustices worth championing.
    Solid evidence of government agencies supporting any particular side in a social or political dispute is necessary to curb the growth of totalitarianism.

  5. DE Teodoru says:

    Mr. Hoare, the issue is that it really is so hard to get the FBI off their butts. That someone could get them off their butts to harass an American lady seeking justice for the Palestinians tells you a lot aobut where it cem from. As Communism swept East Europe, for us, all this was very familiar!

  6. Superb reaction by the lady involved (taking the camera and just facing them on her doorstep).

    I applaud her actions.

  7. MonkeyMuffins says:

    Gotta love the Left-in-name-only femminist (1) who spawns 5 kids in an age of hopeless overpopulation, thereby taking resources out of the hands and mouths of at least 250 humans (2) in the so-called “developing world”.

    As a repentant, recovering regressive-gliberal-phlegmocrat (d/b/a progressive, liberal democrats) this kind of hypocrisy makes me sick.

    How many times, during the above referenced video, did she brag about her rabbit-like ability to breed more resource-exploiting “first world” hominids as if it were a redeeming personality trait or character reference?

    Newsflash: overpopulating Earth–specifically and especially with rapacious, profligate “first worlders”–is not something to be (effusively) proud about.

    May her conscience find her when she least expects it.

    (1) See, If women ruled the world nothing would be different, by Lisa Jervis, Lip Magazine, 9/15/2005

    (2) On average, an individual amerikan consumes resources at a 50 to 1 ratio compared to individuals in so-called “third world” or “developing world” regions. Depending on the resource and region this ratio can be as high as 75 to 1 or higher. These ratios are only possibly by literally taking said resources from said regions to their detriment and for our benefit. This is know as imported carrying capacity and is by definition unsustainable let alone unconscionable.

    We live at the end of empire, during the century of contraction, in a culture of make believe.

    We are not going to grow, consume, indebt and complicate our way out of the problems of growth, consumption, debt and complexity.

    We got everything we wanted and lost everything we needed.

  8. Joe, that was my first thought too, given the scary threats against the protesters by the Zionists. Maybe it’s naive, but I do believe the FBI genuinely wants to prevent violence in general.

    Great information in the video, thanks for posting.

  9. Ross Wolf says:

    Don’t Think For A Moment—You Can Talk To The FBI Off The Record.

    If you are questioned by the FBI and truthfully answer “No” to a question, you might be charged for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. For example, if someone (unbeknownst to you) had proposed committing an act of violence or other crime at an activist meeting you attended—then later the FBI questions you about having knowledge of that proposal, by answering “No” the FBI might charge you for providing a misleading answer or lying to a federal agent under18 U.S.C. § 1001. This law is a trap for the innocent, because how can you prove you didn’t know something? Even answering, “yes” under this law can be hazardous. Consider the U.S. Supreme Case BROGAN v. UNITED STATES No. 96—1579. Argued December 2, 1997 Decided January 26, 1998: James Brogan was indicted on federal bribery charges and for making a “false statement” within the jurisdiction of a (federal agency) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Note under the law, that any person questioned by the FBI or other Federal Agency can be imprisoned up to 5-years and fined $10,000 for every “misleading or false answer”; that includes false or misleading statements made to the FBI when questioned about a crime the Government can’t prove you committed. Under BROGAN v. UNITED STATES, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg noted that when the FBI questions someone about an old crime after the Statute of Limitations past for criminal prosecution, and the questioned person denies having committed the crime, their fresh denial may involuntarily waive their right to assert in their defense—the statute of limitations has past for criminal prosecution e.g., a 20-year old crime. Consequently if you are ever questioned by the FBI or other federal agency about a past crime or about having knowledge of anything illegal happening in the future, the smart thing to do might be to remain silent and if necessary state to the FBI “Before I answer any of your questions I first need the benefit of an attorney.” Keep in mind that there is no such thing as talking to an FBI Agent or any federal agency off the record. Re: James Brogan, the FBI came by Brogan’s office and gave the appearance their visit was informal, then after asking a few questions indicted Brogan for lying to the FBI.
    Below is a brief summary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision BROGAN v. UNITED STATES No. 96—1579 and Website access to learn more about the Brogan Case and 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    BROGAN v. UNITED STATES

    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
    No. 96—1579. Argued December 2, 1997–Decided January 26, 1998
    Petitioner falsely answered “no” when federal agents asked him whether he had received any cash or gifts from a company whose employees were represented by the union in which he was an officer. He was indicted on federal bribery charges and for making a false statement within the jurisdiction of a federal agency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. A jury in the District Court found him guilty. The Second Circuit affirmed, categorically rejecting his request to adopt the so-called “exculpatory no” doctrine, which excludes from §1001’s scope false statements that consist of the mere denial of wrongdoing.
    Held: There is no exception to §1001 criminal liability for a false statement consisting merely of an “exculpatory no.” Although many Court of Appeals decisions have embraced the “exculpatory no” doctrine, it is not supported by §1001’s plain language. By its terms, §1001 covers “any” false statement–that is, a false statement “of whatever kind,” United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. ___, ___–including the use of the word “no” in response to a question. Petitioner’s argument that §1001 does not criminalize simple denials of guilt proceeds from two mistaken premises: that the statute criminalizes only those statements that “pervert governmental functions,” and that simple denials of guilt do not do so. United States v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86, 93, distinguished. His argument that a literal reading of §1001 violates the “spirit” of the Fifth Amendment is rejected because the Fifth Amendment does not confer a privilege to lie. E.g., United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 117. His final argument that the “exculpatory no” doctrine is necessary to eliminate the grave risk that §1001 will be abused by overzealous prosecutors seeking to “pile on” offenses is not supported by the evidence and should, in any event, be addressed to Congress. Pp. 2—8.
    96 F.3d 35, affirmed.

    Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined, and in which Souter, J., joined in part. Souter, J., filed a statement concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
    Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Souter, J., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZS.html