Want to report a crime to the FBI? First you’ll have to prove you deserve to even see an FBI agent.
Step 1: Visit a Federal building where the FBI has a field office. To enter, you must show a driver’s license or State ID card.
If your name is on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted” list, you won’t show it at all (let alone visit any FBI office).
And if you aren’t a notorious criminal or terrorist, handing over a driver’s license or State ID card with the name “John Smith” isn’t going to tell the security guard anything relevant about you.
It’s simply an invasion of your privacy in the name of security theater.
Step 2: You must remove
- Your belt;
- Your shoes;
- Your watch;
- Your wallet;
- All other objects from your pants pockets;
- Any jacket you’re wearing;
- Any cell phone you’re carrying.
All of these must be placed in one or more large plastic containers, which are run through an x-ray scanner.
Step 3: Assuming you avoid setting off any alarm system, you’re allowed to enter.
Step 4: Take an elevator to the floor where the Bureau has its office and walk into a large room filled with several comfortable chairs that sit close to the floor.
Step 5: Approach a window such as you find in a bank–made of thick, presumably bulletproof glass.
A secretary on the opposite side greets you, and asks why you’ve come.
Step 6: State your reason for wanting to speak with an agent. If the secretary thinks it’s legitimate, she requires you to show her your driver’s license or State ID card.
Step 7: Slide this through a slot in the glass window. Then she makes a xerox of this and hands the card back.
Step 8: Then you must fill out a single-page card, which requires you to provide your:
- Name;
- Address;
- Phone number;
- Social Security Number;
- The reason you want to speak to an agent.
Of course, you can refuse to fill out the card. But then the secretary will refuse to let you meet with an agent.
So the FBI has no qualms about requiring others to give up their privacy. But its director, James B. Comey, believes the public actions of police should be hidden from citizens’ scrutiny.
Addressing a forum at the University of Chicago Law School on October 23, Comey offered a series of possible reasons for the recent surge in crime rates in America.
“Maybe it’s the return of violent offenders after serving jail terms. Maybe it’s cheap heroin or synthetic drugs. Maybe after we busted up the large gangs, smaller groups are now fighting for turf.
“Maybe it’s a change in the justice system’s approach to bail or charging or sentencing. Maybe something has changed with respect to the availability of guns….”
Then Comey offered what he thought was the real villain behind the rise in crime: Cellphones aimed at police.
FBI Director James B. Comey
“In today’s YouTube world, are officers reluctant to get out of their cars and do the work that controls violent crime? Are officers answering 911 calls but avoiding the informal contact that keeps bad guys from standing around, especially with guns?
“I spoke to officers privately in one big city precinct who described being surrounded by young people with mobile phone cameras held high, taunting them the moment they get out of their cars. They told me, ‘We feel like we’re under siege and we don’t feel much like getting out of our cars.’
“I’ve been told about a senior police leader who urged his force to remember that their political leadership has no tolerance for a viral video.
“So the suggestion, the question that has been asked of me, is whether these kinds of things are changing police behavior all over the country.
“And the answer is, I don’t know. I don’t know whether this explains it entirely, but I do have a strong sense that some part of the explanation is a chill wind blowing through American law enforcement over the last year. And that wind is surely changing behavior.”
The FBI has
- Lobbied Congress for an electronic “key” that would allow it to enter a cyber “back door” to eavesdrop on even those emails protected by encryption systems;
- Monitored electronic bugs and wiretapped phones–as well as social media sites like Facebook and Twitter;
- Treated law-abiding citizens like criminal suspects before they can even seek help from an agent; and
- Repeatedly preached to Americans that if they have nothing to hide, they should have nothing to fear from police surveillance.
But according to the FBI, citizens who aim cameras at cops in public places present a clear and present danger. This holds true even if they don’t interfere with the ability of police to make arrests.
They make heavily armed police feel so threatened that many officers are refusing to carry out their sworn duties.







ABC NEWS, AFGHANISTAN, AIRBUS A321, AL QAEDA, BARACK OBAMA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, IRAQ, ISLAM, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND SYRIA, MALAYSIA FLIGHT 17, MUSLIMS, NBC NEWS, RUSSIA, SOVIET UNION, STINGER MISSILES, SYRIA, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, VLADIMIR PUTIN
THE CHICKEN KIEV IS COMING HOME TO ROOST
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on November 2, 2015 at 3:01 pmOn September 30, Russian President Vladimir Putin started launching airstrikes against Syria.
The objective: To bolster the dictatorship of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is now caught up in civil war.
This began on March 15, 2011, triggered by protests demanding political reforms and the ouster of al-Assad. More than 310,000 people have been killed in the fighting.
The Obama administration is worried about Russian intentions. And Republicans are furious, demanding that American military forces directly confront those of Russia.
Yet despite Right-wing alarms about Russia, there is no reason for alarm–by Americans.
Putin’s intervention in Syria’s civil war offers three possible outcomes for the United States.
And they’re all positive.
Vladimir Putin
First, the Russians will kill thousands of America’s sworn enemies.
Russians are well-known for their disregard for human life. During their invasion of Germany in 1945, Russian soldiers literally nailed civilians to barn doors, squashed them under their tanks, and raped countless women of all ages.
In Syria, they will slaughter everyone who gets in their way. Thus, they will kill far more of America’s Islamic enemies than even our own military–hamstrung by do-gooder “rules of engagement”–could possibly eliminate.
Second, Russia will replace the United States as “The Great Satan” in the eyes of most Islamics.
The Soviet Union waged a ruthless war against Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989. Out of that war grew Al-Qaeda. Millions of Islamics still hate Russians for their brutalities.
From 1999 to 2009, Russia fought a brutal war against Islamics in Chechnya. Chechens responded with terrorism across Russia.
Russia’s intervention in Syria will only harden its image as an enemy of Islam–even if it’s supporting one group of Islamics (the Assad regime) against others.
If Islamic terrorism starts raging throughout Russia, Putin may be forced to back down from his military moves against Syria and Ukraine.
Third, if Russian planes get shot down or Russian soldiers killed, Russia will suffer the casualties–not the United States.
The Soviet Union never fully recovered from its losses in Afghanistan–13,310 soldiers killed, 35,478 wounded.
If Russia starts taking heavy losses in Syria or at home through terrorism, this could lead to widespread unrest. Even Vladimir Putin could find himself in danger of being replaced.
And for Russia, the chicken Kiev has already come home to roost.
On October 31, Airbus A321, a Russian airliner, broke up in mid-air, then crashed in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, killing all 224 people on board.
The plane was carrying holidaymakers from the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh to St Petersburg when it crashed into a mountainous area of central Sinai.
In Egypt, a militant group affiliated to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) claimed that it had brought down the plane “in response to Russian airstrikes that killed hundreds of Muslims on Syrian land.”
At this point, it’s too early in the investigation to know whether this is true.
Egyptian analysts began examining the contents of the two “black box” recorders recovered from the airliner. But this process could take days.
And there is more to determining what caused an airline crash than examining the contents of “black boxes.”
On July 17, 2014, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17/MAS17) was traveling from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur when it crashed in Ukraine. All 283 passengers and 15 crew on board were instantly killed.
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17
Not until October 13, 2015, did the Dutch Safety Board release a final report on their investigation into the incident. Its conclusion: The airliner was downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile launched from Eastern Ukraine by pro-Russian insurgents.
It could easily take a year for investigators to reach a verdict on the cause of the Airbus A321 disaster.
Meanwhile, the crash has already proved emotionally wrenching for Russians.
Flags across Russia are flying at half-staff and Russian Orthodox priests are conducting services to pray for its victims.
President Putin declared a nationwide day of mourning. In St. Petersburg, home to most of the victims, authorities ordered the mourning to last for three days.
Many Russians no doubt already believe the plane was brought down by a surface-to-air missile. And there is good reason for this.
American military officials have told Fox News that it “appears likely/probable” that U.S.-made Stinger missiles have fallen into the hands of ISIS combatants.
The Stinger is a shoulder-fired surface-to-air weapon. During the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, the United States supplied huge numbers of these weapons to Afghan forces. They proved devastating against Russian planes and helicopters.
And how might have ISIS fighters acquired such a weapon? From American-supplied army bases they have occupied in recent days.
Flag of ISIS
There’s also the possibility that a bomb could have been smuggled aboard.
Even if the investigation finds the plane wasn’t shot down or blown up, many Russians will blame Putin’s intervention for their loss.
And if the investigation finds that terrorists were responsible, there may well be major protests throughout Russia against Putin.
And if this loss is followed by others equally dramatic and costly, all bets are off for the long-term future of the Putin regime.
Share this: