The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

The FBI: Between a Rock and a Hard Place of Truth

A
few years ago, when I was researching one of my period detective novels, The
Chameleon
, I had occasion to contact the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for some details about the status and concerns of the FBI in
1929-1930. While the FBI
history site
gave me some information, it wasn’t quite enough. Because the
story was about the discovery of an embryonic Nazi Bund near San Francisco, the
questions I needed answers to were:
Was the Bureau of Investigation
(or the BOI, as the FBI was known then) actively monitoring Nazi activities or
Weimar Germany’s intelligence gathering in the U.S.? (Yes, to a limited extent.) Was the Department of Justice, under
which the BOI operated, concerned about Nazi or German espionage or activism in
the country? (Yes, to a limited extent.)
Did it keep tabs on known Nazi sympathizers and organizations or on German
intelligence operations in the country? (Yes.)
Or was the Bureau more concerned with Communist activities in the country? (Yes, much more so.) For story purposes,
because the novel is set in San Francisco in November 1929, where were BOI
divisional headquarters? (We don’t know.)
I
needed answers to these and other questions to write credibly about the BOI. I
was finally able to contact someone with the FBI in Washington D.C. who
scheduled a telephone conference for me with two agents: one who would answer
my questions, and another who would audit the conversation but not participate.
I was given their “field” names (which I no longer have a record
of).  The call lasted about 15 minutes.
Both agents (male) seemed to be on the road during the call. It was a very cordial
call, although I could sense that the one participating agent was reticent
about some information concerning Communist activism in the country.
The
“Yes” answers prompted me to further research, much of which is
reflected in the novel.
I
was able, after some very frustrating and lengthy research, to locate BOI
divisional headquarters in San Francisco in the period; no one in the Bureau
seemed to know the answer to that particular question, not in the San Francisco
office, nor in the Washington office. I encountered similar difficulties when,
because I was introducing a character from the British Consulate in San
Francisco in the same novel for the first time, I could find no one with the San
Francisco Consulate, nor with the British Embassy in Washington D.C., who knew
where the Consulate was in the time period. The Foreign Office’s records in
London had no record of the Consulate’s address in San Francisco, although it
did mention the name of the Consul General. I was able to find his residential
address in a 1930 telephone directory, but no listing in it for the Consulate
itself.  
While
writing the next novel of that series, A
Crimson Overture
, which deals with Soviet spies and fellow travelers in
the American and British governments, I encountered fewer research problems. Much
of it was already under my belt because of cross-references between Nazis and
Communists. There was far more information available vis-à-vis the Bureau’s
activities with Communist infiltration of our government in the period 1930.
Finally,
while assembling information about the prominence of Islam in the same period
for The
Black Stone,
I learned that the BOI was relatively ignorant of Islam
and of Middle East politics and the turmoil there. The Bureau was focused on a
rise in domestic crimes because of the Depression and the shattering
consequences of the stock market crash, and was splitting its manpower between
dealing with genuine crime and enforcing Prohibition.
And
now the FBI has become only relatively ignorant of Islam again. And the left is
so confident in its dramatization of the corrupting influence of power in the
second season of “House of Cards” that it depicted the FBI as an
instrument of that power, by actively conspiring against and entrapping a
reporter in a non-existent cyber-terrorism plot. The newspaper reporter was
pursuing evidence behind the murders of a U.S. representative, and then of a
freelance reporter who was close to the truth about who murdered the
congressman.
Here
is a brief account
of the Bureau’s post-1920s growing role.
During the early and mid-1930s,
several crucial decisions solidified the Bureau’s position as the nation’s
premier law enforcement agency. Responding to the kidnapping of the Lindbergh
baby in 1932, Congress passed a federal kidnapping statute. Then, in May and
June 1934, with gangsters like John Dillinger evading capture by crossing over
state lines, it passed a number of federal crime laws that significantly
enhanced the Bureau’s jurisdiction. In the wake of the Kansas City Massacre,
Congress also gave Bureau agents statutory authority to carry guns and make
arrests.
The Bureau of Investigation was
renamed the United States Bureau of Investigation on July 1, 1932. Then,
beginning July 1, 1933, the Department of Justice experimented for almost two
years with a Division of Investigation that included the Bureau of Prohibition.
Public confusion between Bureau of Investigation special agents and Prohibition
agents led to a permanent name change in 1935 for the agency composed of
Department of Justice’s investigators: the Federal Bureau of Investigation was
thus born.
The
Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)
has been the point man in a campaign to eviscerate the ability of the U.S.
military, the Bureau and other law enforcement entities to detect and foil
Islamic terrorism (or jihad) in the
United States. At the behest of CAIR, which accused the Bureau (and other law
enforcement entities) of being complicit or encouraging Islamophobia in its
training materials, and under pressure from President Barack Obama and the
Department of Justice, the Bureau donned politically correct blinders which
virtually excluded Islam from being an active threat to American lives and the
security of the country. USA
TODAY
in February 2012 reprinted a story from the Detroit Free Press,
“FBI ditches training materials criticized as anti-Muslim”:
After complaints from some Muslim
and Arab-American groups, the FBI has pulled more than 700 documents and 300
presentations that stereotyped Islam or were factually inaccurate, an FBI
spokesman said. The federal agency also intends in coming weeks to roll out
plans on how it will vet training materials.
FBI Director Robert Mueller
announced the agency had pulled the documents at a meeting two weeks ago with
advocacy groups. “The steps taken by the FBI … are certainly
welcomed,” Abed Ayoub, the national director of the American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee
, said Friday.
How
does one “stereotype” Muslims who subscribe to an ideology that calls
for turning the U.S. into an Islamic republic and its non-Muslim citizens into jizya-paying dhimmis? How would one “stereotype” Nazis, or Communists,
except to focus on the political ends of an ideology that employs force and
extortion to attain political power over a nation?
Not
content with having forced the Bureau into submission, CAIR and its allies have
also gone after local law enforcement departments. CAIR announced on February
14th 2014:
A prominent national Muslim civil
rights and advocacy organization today called on the Culpeper County Sheriff’s
Department in Virginia to drop notorious anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist John
Guandolo, who is scheduled to offer a three-day program later this month on
“Jihadi Networks in America.
“In a letter to the sheriff
delivered today, Corey Saylor, director of the Washington-based Council on
American-Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) Department to Monitor and Combat
Islamophobia, wrote in part: “Mr. Guandolo has a lengthy record of
anti-Muslim extremism and unprofessional behavior. His views on Islam are the
equivalent of historical anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic falsehoods. Guandolo offers
only his own prejudiced and inaccurate conspiratorial views, not solid
counterterrorism training.”
 
As noted by the Southern Poverty
law Center (SPLC), Guandolo is “a disreputable character, who regularly
attacks the U.S. government, claims that the director of the Central
Intelligence Agency is a secret Muslim agent for the Saudi government and says
that American Muslims ‘do not have a First Amendment right to do
anything.'”
It
was a Wired writer, Spencer
Ackerman
, who on September 14th 2011, wrote a lengthy report
that “exposed” the FBI’s “anti-Muslim” training materials that
added fuel to the fire.
The FBI is teaching its
counterterrorism agents that “main stream” [sic] American Muslims are likely to
be terrorist sympathizers; that the Prophet Mohammed was a “cult leader”; and
that the Islamic practice of giving charity is no more than a “funding
mechanism for combat.”
At the Bureau’s training ground
in Quantico, Virginia, agents are shown a chart contending that the more
“devout” a Muslim, the more likely he is to be “violent.” Those destructive
tendencies cannot be reversed, an FBI instructional presentation adds: “Any war
against non-believers is justified” under Muslim law; a “moderating process
cannot happen if the Koran continues to be regarded as the unalterable word of
Allah.”
Ackerman
provided sixteen
pages
of PDF images of slides from an FBI presentation on Islam. These
pages feature such subjects as “Military Considerations,”
“Strategic Themes and Drivers in Islamic Law (Sharia)”, the
“Doctrinal Basis for Jihad,” and “Chart Violence and Adherence
to Torah, Bible and Koran.” Nothing in those slides contradicts what is
known about Islam.
Ackerman’s
article was the lit rag on the Molotov cocktail that was tossed by Obama, the
DOJ, and CAIR into the Bureau’s counterterrorism training courses.  In fact, comparing the Power Point bullet
points in the training materials with what is known about Islam, its 1,400-year
history, and especially about the Musim Brotherhood and its allied
organizations such as the ISNA, the ICNA, and MSA, it seemed that the Bureau
had correctly identified Islam for what it is: a totalitarian ideology.
Ackerman
wrote about the “damning” course materials with a gasp of
indignation, overlooking the fact that the materials spoke the truth:
The FBI is teaching its
counterterrorism agents that “main stream” [sic] American Muslims are likely to
be terrorist sympathizers; that the Prophet Mohammed was a “cult leader”; and
that the Islamic practice of giving charity is no more than a “funding
mechanism for combat….”
“There may not be a ‘radical’
threat as much as it is simply a normal assertion of the orthodox ideology,”
one FBI presentation notes. “The strategic themes animating these Islamic
values are not fringe; they are main stream.”
Moral:
Reading the Aristotelian rule that “A is A” is no guarantee that a
person will grasp that A cannot be A and non-A at the same time. If one were
able to introduce Ackerman to syphilis-ridden Al Capone as a murdering mobster,
he would immediately think that Capone was a persecuted and stereotyped
Italian-American, whose syphilis was caused by cultural stress, and call for
the FBI to get its mind right.
We
can actually thank Ackerman for publishing the redacted and discarded FBI Power
Point slides, for they reveal that before the FBI went soft on Islam, it was on
the right track in treating Islam as the enemy ideology it is. Readers are
invited to examine the slides and reach their own conclusions about whether or
not they reflect the true character of Islam. William Gawthrop, who presented
the slide program and has subsequently lectured
on the nature of Islamic jihad, has been vindicated by the scholarship of Robert Spencer, Steve
Emerson
, Ayaan
Hirsi Ali
, and a host of other authorities on Islam.
Daniel
Greenfield, on his Sultan Knish page, wrote an insightful column, “One
Election Away from Losing Our Freedom
,” whose thesis is that once a
totalitarian program, no matter how innocuous, is introduced into the politics
of a free country, it will proceed to corrupt the freedom-based politics until
the government is so compromised, there is little recourse to correct the
problem and purge the totalitarian elements from the government.
As
though acting on cue, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which has
the power to license TV and radio stations, has proposed that it conduct a
study of how broadcast and print newsrooms choose and handle their news stories.
The Wall
Street Journal
reported on February 10th:
Last May the FCC proposed an
initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country.
With its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN,
the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station
owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia,
S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.
The purpose of the CIN, according
to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters
about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often
stations cover “critical information needs,” along with
“perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to
underserved populations.”
How does the FCC plan to dig up
all that information? First, the agency selected eight categories of
“critical information” such as the “environment” and
“economic opportunities,” that it believes local newscasters should
cover. It plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists,
television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their
“news philosophy” and how the station ensures that the community gets
critical information.
What
will the FCC do with that information? Obviously, bring pressure to bear on broadcasters
and publications to toe a preferred and politically correct line to better
serve the “critical information needs” of the political elite and its
cronies in the private sphere (Solyndra really didn’t need all that bad press,
did it? Nor Barack Obama’s many expensive taxpayer-paid vacations). The irony
of the Wall Street Journal article is that it was penned by a dissenting FCC
commissioner, Ajit Pai.
Greenfield,
in his “One Election Away” column, observed that:
When a political system becomes
polarized between the forces of freedom and the forces of totalitarianism, then
the forces of freedom have to win every single election. Meanwhile the
totalitarians only have to win one election and then spend the rest of time
reconstructing civic institutions, mobilizing thugs and making it structurally
impossible for the other side to compete….
Even if Republicans were to win
the White House and dominate the House and the Senate, they would still face a
totalitarian entity whose judges would make laws, whose media would subvert
democracy, whose educational institutions and entertainment industry would
reprogram the people and whose bureaucracy would undermine any decision that it
did not like….
Totalitarians politicize
everything. And that really means everything from the food you eat to the books
you read to the way you heat your home and drive to work. Individually we can
all make choices that neutralize the politicization even in matters as simple
as choosing the movies we watch or leaving products with environmentalist tripe
on the packaging on the shelf….
Elections alone will not defeat
the left. Totalitarian movements aren’t defeated at the voting booth, but in
the hearts of men and women. And if their grip on power continues, then the
scenes of violence and terror that we see on the evening news [e.g., in the
Ukraine, Venezuela, Egypt] will come to our streets and cities.
Truer
words have rarely been spoken.
Greenfield’s
argument could also be couched in these terms: A legitimate law-enforcement
agency such as the FBI, charged with pursuing and apprehending genuine,
rights-violating criminals, can become encrusted with the same poisonous
statist assumptions and premises as the government it serves. As a statist
government expands its powers, so eventually must the FBI until it becomes a
feared threat to one’s freedom, and not a protector of it. And, in our unique
circumstance, if our government becomes corrupt enough to side with this
country’s enemies, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, it must impose that policy
on all law-enforcement agencies and entities, including the courts.
The
FBI has reached a point in its history and functions that it must knuckle under
the liberal/left/Marxist perception of criminality, a definition of criminality
which exempts genuine criminals by excluding their ideology from official
approbation, and treat the ideology’s victims as the true criminals. Consciously,
or by osmosis, the FBI has adopted those same intrusive, oppressive and
totalitarian policies.
Yes,
the country is politically and philosophically polarized, between those who
value their freedom and those who, no matter how innocuous or petty or
grandiose their agenda, wish to extinguish that freedom.
We
have reached the point that we fear the FBI knocking on our doors. The FBI,
together with the DHS and the DOJ, is gradually becoming, not a
counterterrorism shield, but an instrument of counter-freedom.

Previous

Fearless Speech vs. “Hate Speech”

Next

Federal Fly Swatters: Pit Bulls vs. Poodles

3 Comments

  1. Edward Cline

    Nothing better underscores the FBI's role as a tool of political action than Dinesh D'Souza's arrest and indictment for his "illegal" campaign contributions. See http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/dinesh-dsouza-indictment-fbi-obama/2014/02/21/id/554099?ns_mail_uid=58664084&ns_mail_job=1557227_02222014&promo_code=168F9-1

  2. Unknown

    Fred Fisher said…Thanks to you and others the FCC has taken an about face in their Ist Amendment abrogation. I am sure this will be short lived on their part ; nevertheless, the bastards have been thwarted for the time being.

  3. Edward Cline

    Also, note on the FBI's home page that that the FBI has recently changed its mission statement from law enforcement to that of "national security."

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén