The rising federal Gestapo
The Houck Family: Targets of FBI harassment and arrest.
The little boy in the center clearly needs to be frog-marched to prison.
It can happen here. Anyone who denies this is merely guaranteeing that tyranny in America will arrive sooner.
Worse, it is happening here, right now, at this very moment. The Houck family to the right has been in the news the past few days because on September 23, 2022 they found their home surrounded by an FBI SWAT team with guns drawn, pounding at the front door to arrest the father, Mark Houck, for a minor pushing incident that had occurred months earlier that was so minor the court had dismissed the lawsuit against Houck almost immediately. Notwithstanding its utter triviality, the Biden administration, its Justice Department, and the FBI decided it gave them a great chance to intimidate and frighten someone who happened to also be a conservative and religious activist.
Ryan-Marie, who is a homeschooling mother, described how the SWAT team of 25 to 30 FBI agents swarmed their property with around 15 vehicles at 7:05 a.m. this morning. Having quickly surrounded the house with rifles in firing position, “they started pounding on the door and yelling for us to open it.”
Before opening the door, she explained, her husband tried to calm them, saying, “‘Please, I’m going to open the door, but, please, my children are in the home. I have seven babies in the house.’ But they just kept pounding and screaming,” she said.
When he opened the door, “they had big, huge rifles pointed at Mark and pointed at me and kind of pointed throughout the house,” Ryan-Marie described. When they came in, they ordered the kids to stay upstairs. “Our staircase is open, so [the kids] were all at the top of the stairs which faces the front door, and I was on the stairs as well, coming down.”
“The kids were all just screaming. It was all just very scary and traumatic,” she explained.
The FBI officers at first claimed they didn’t need a warrant to arrest Houck. When both Mark and Ryan-Marie challenged this the officers backed down, slightly, and produced the one-page very vague warrant.
This particular abuse of power by the FBI and the Biden administration has gotten ample coverage in the conservative press in the past few days. I am not breaking any news for those who are paying attention.
What I want to note is the pattern. Houck’s arrest is not the exception to the rule, it has become the rule. For the past two years the Biden administration has made it its policy to criminalize dissent. Anyone who is active politically in any way is subject to illegal searches, seizures, and arrests. The Houck story is merely one example.
The protesters on January 6th are another example. The only ones who appeared to break into the Capitol used techniques that matched Antifa, not Trump supporters, or were clearly FBI provocateurs. The Trump protesters meanwhile were let into the building by security, walked around for awhile doing no damage, and then left. For this behavior they have been treated by the Biden administration and all Democrats as traitors, insurrectionists, and terrorists. At least two have committed suicide because of this oppressive treatment.
For example, two weeks ago one of those January 6th Trump supporters was sentenced to five years in prison for the crime of “parading.”
Anthony Williams travelled to Washington on January 6 and was captured in pictures and videos around and inside of the Capitol Building. On the very last page [of the FBI report], they conclude that there was probably cause to believe that he did “knowingly enter or remain in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority.” They also concluded that he did “utter loud, threatening, or abusive language.” And they of course included a charge that Williams did “parade, demonstrate, or picket” on the Capitol grounds, supposedly to disrupt or influence the work of Congress.
There’s that “parading” charge again, along with “shouting.”
The problem is that there is solid video evidence that Williams — along with almost all the protesters — was let into the building by the guards themselves. That alone raises questions about him entering the building “without lawful authority.”
Regardless, even if he trespassed the punishment is excessive, and clearly meant to intimidate Biden opponents and any Trump supporters. Don’t you dare protest against Democrats, or you might be charged with “parading” and “demonstrating” or “shouting”, and go to prison for years.
Williams of course is only one of many. The Biden administration is gung-ho on catching every single person who walked quietly and peaceably through the Capitol on January 6th and putting them in prison.
January 6th however is only one aspect of the Biden administration’s attack. It is also using the Justice Department and the FBI to harass and persecute numerous Americans, like Mark Houck above, for simple exercising their first amendment rights. For example, the Justice Department recently used its subpoena power to attack a conservative group called the Eagle Forum. As noted at the link:
This subpoena, issued by Jason R. Cheeks, an attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Alabama, has but one intent: to harass and intimidate a conservative organization for daring to engage in the democratic process by working on an issue that inflames the Left.
In another example, FBI officers surrounded the owner of My Pillow, Mike Lindell, in a public place and forced him to turn over his cell phone. The agents held him illegally, denied him the right to call his lawyer, and threatened him with arrest. And why? We really do not know. Lindell is not accused of any crimes, only being very public about the issue of election fraud, especially during the 2020 election.
In other words, the FBI was weaponized by the Biden administration to try to intimidate a Trump supporter, merely because Lindell is a Trump supporter.
These examples only scratch the surface. In the past two years the effort by Democrats to portray Republicans criminals and traitors, merely because they disagree with Democratic Party policy, has become normalized. To Democrats today, if you are a Republican you are a fascist, an insurrectionist, a traitor, a criminal, and evil. Your rights are voided and they have the right to arrest you, at any time.
Note too that this pattern doesn’t merely apply to the Biden administration, the Justice Department, and the FBI. To get these invalid warrants these agencies must get a judge to sign off on the warrant. And increasingly, judges seem quite willing to join in on the game, approving warrants that have no validity at all, that name no crime, that have no reasonable cause, and thus are unconstitutional under the fourth amendment, which states quite bluntly that:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Since Lindell is accused of no crime, the warrant on its face was illegal and unconstitutional. Not only should many FBI and Justice officials be fired, and personally liable for this illegal behavior, the judge who signed the warrant should be removed from office. Lindell has sued, and based on the evidence, stands to win quite handily.
Meanwhile, many FBI whistleblowers have come forward protesting these actions. And not surprisingly, the Biden administration has immediately retaliated, suspending such whistle-blowers for coming forward.
The corruption and abuse of power here however is not merely limited to political speech. The FBI has become a downright criminal organization. In order to get the right to rummage through hundreds of Beverley Hills safe deposit boxes and confiscate any cash exceeding $5,000 (in other words, rob the bank), FBI officials misled the judge in writing up the warrant.
Eighteen months later, newly unsealed court documents show that the FBI and U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles got their warrant for that raid by misleading the judge who approved it. They omitted from their warrant request a central part of the FBI’s plan: Permanent confiscation of everything inside every box containing at least $5,000 in cash or goods, a senior FBI agent recently testified.
The FBI’s justification for the dragnet forfeiture was its presumption that hundreds of unknown box holders were all storing assets somehow tied to unknown crimes, court records show. It took five days for scores of agents to fill their evidence bags with the bounty: More than $86 million in cash and a bonanza of gold, silver, rare coins, gem-studded jewelry and enough Rolex and Cartier watches to stock a boutique.
Good work if you can get it. You not only can rob a bank, you do so with a judge’s approval.
If a major, brutal, and merciless house-cleaning does not occur soon, nothing at all will be left of this country’s free republic. The next Congress, should the Republicans take power, must zero the funding for the FBI. No more money, at all. It must also move to remove numerous FBI officials, from FBI director Chris Wray on down. Above all, it must not cooperate in any way with the agenda of the Biden administration’s Justice Department.
Should the Republicans chicken out (as they usually do), they will quickly find themselves eaten alive. This is no longer time for comity or reasonable action. The Democrats are no longer being reasonable. The Republicans must return that behavior in kind, double.
Now available in hardback and paperback as well as ebook!
From the press release: In this ground-breaking new history of early America, historian Robert Zimmerman not only exposes the lie behind The New York Times 1619 Project that falsely claims slavery is central to the history of the United States, he also provides profound lessons about the nature of human societies, lessons important for Americans today as well as for all future settlers on Mars and elsewhere in space.
Conscious Choice: The origins of slavery in America and why it matters today and for our future in outer space, is a riveting page-turning story that documents how slavery slowly became pervasive in the southern British colonies of North America, colonies founded by a people and culture that not only did not allow slavery but in every way were hostile to the practice.
Conscious Choice does more however. In telling the tragic history of the Virginia colony and the rise of slavery there, Zimmerman lays out the proper path for creating healthy societies in places like the Moon and Mars.
“Zimmerman’s ground-breaking history provides every future generation the basic framework for establishing new societies on other worlds. We would be wise to heed what he says.” —Robert Zubrin, founder of founder of the Mars Society.
All editions are available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and all book vendors, with the ebook priced at $5.99 before discount. The ebook can also be purchased direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit, in which case you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.
Autographed printed copies are also available at discount directly from me (hardback $24.95; paperback $14.95; Shipping cost for either: $5.00). Just email me at zimmerman @ nasw dot org.
At some point those who are sent out to execute these orders are going to have to say *NO*.
“I was just following orders” is an old excuse for doing the deeds of oppression and abuse of power.
There are now some whistle blowers coming forward from within the FBI regarding such things, this must expand to those who are sent out to enforce for the powers that need to intimidate and harass.
This is a dark road.
Contour, you underestimate the problem. They have been focused on getting the kind of people that believe in this kind of action. If that were not true, I would expect the whistle blowers that have come forward would not have been needed.
This agency has enjoyed immense privilege for decades now, in court and with prosecuters everywhere. No one doubted the word of an agent. Whatever they wrote on the affidavit was accepted as fact. Between instances of caught in lies of both omission and commission, and misleading judges on warrants, they have proven that the privilege is no longer desired by anyone not wishing to see further abuse.
“Bees Still Fish Says CA Supreme Court”
Kurt at Uncivil Law (9-25-22)
“You Are The Nazi”
The only thing that can come from immense privilege and immense power is the abuse thereof.
I agree that they tend to recruit likeminded or compliant individuals.
But some / many in the rank and file understand that they are abusing their power and at some point, something must be done.
We IMO are reaching that point.
“FBI whistleblower says SWAT teams being misused, J6 defendants’ rights trampled, cases all tainted”
WE are taaught that Georgian England was anything but a democratic. state. But this is what one of the greatest of the King’s Ministers, William Pitt the Elder had to say on this matter. “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail — its roof may shake — the wind may blow through it — the storm may enter — the rain may enter — but the King of England cannot enter — all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!” The late Earl of Chatham must be spinning in his grave.
This nothing new about law enforcement under Dim administrations. See Ruby Ridge “During the USMS reconnaissance of the Weaver property, six U.S. Marshals encountered Harris and Sammy, Weaver’s 14-year-old son, in woods near the family cabin. A shootout took place. Deputy U.S. Marshal William Francis Degan, Sammy Weaver, and the Weavers’ dog, Striker, all died as a result. In the subsequent siege of the Weaver residence, led by the FBI, Weaver’s wife Vicki was killed by FBI sniper fire. All casualties occurred in the first two days of the operation. ” Weaver’s wife, a pregnant woman, was an obvious threat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge Supposed the Feds were “reformed” Then came Waco https://va-eivai-uyinc.com/?_=%2Fwiki%2FWaco_siege%23Yg5KwHR1fdM7AOhxmmRm5lr6AP3B7SU4. Planned as a military style assault on the Branch Davidian Compound.. How’s that reformation effort v=coming, guys?
V for Vendetta (2005)
‘The Dominoes Fall”
Robert, I agree completely! No more money for the crooks at the FBI. No more firearms, no more vehicles, nothing! We should close the entire organization & fire everyone, then decide if we really want the feds to have a police force at all. I say NO!
David M Cook. Unfortunately there are something like around 50 Federal police forces –
U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations
U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division
U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
U.S. Capitol Police
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency
U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Defense Criminal Investigative Service
U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service
U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Odometer Fraud Investigation
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation
U.S. Federal Protective Service
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
U.S. IRS Criminal Investigations Division
U.S. Marshal Service
U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service
U.S. Office of Special Investigations
U.S. Park Police
U.S. Postal Inspection Service
U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services
U.S. Secret Service
The FBI has been J. Edgar Hoover since J. Edgar Hoover was its director. Possibly even before.
Dan Bongino had an excellent segment on this topic this morning (9/26). He is former Secret Service and quit in protest several years ago over the increasing corruption.
All of those police forces, combined with the entire U.S. military, and all of the armed forces of the entire world, would still be vastly outnumbered and outgunned by the armed civilian population of the United States. And among that population are individuals, now discarded by the woke administration, who are supremely skilled in covert warfare.
They either have no idea what they are provoking, or they foolishly believe they cannot be overwhelmed. Their arrogance will becoming their undoing.
Or, to put it more crudely, if I knew how many weapons were held by the citizens of this country, I wouldn’t want to piss them off.
Good for him!
Phil, How many antitank weapons do you have? Antiaircraft guns and missiles? Artillery pieces with how much ammunition? Machine guns? I am sorry to tell you, but your fantasy that a bunch of untrained, unorganized militia is going stop the US military – let alone the rest of the world – is just that nothing but bluster and fantasy. And don’t say, “But Ukraine”. They’re not fighting with the rifle from over the mantlepiece, but modern equipment. There aren’t many Javelins or Stingers in private hands
Donald Trump must just love that he has fooled so many people into seeing what he wants them to see. People like the author of the above commentary. Mix a bunch of things together, some with possible merit, some that are falsehoods, some that are a good dose of fantasy, and produce a fountain of anger and hate.
It will be interesting to see what the author and those like him do with the country when they take over in pursuit of their twisted version of the words “truth,” “freedom,” “lawful,” and “democracy.” Wonder what will become of the Democrats? Or Republicans still capable of thinking for themselves? Or anyone who dares call things objectively?
At this point, it seems far more likely the fascist fever infecting the country will be what breaks it in two, not the people that are the focus of the author.
The only open question is whether the US military will ever fire upon its own citizens.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, they will.
(We’re firmly in a post-constitutional environment, ALL bets are off. Welcome to Obama’s Amerika.)
Mark Levin hammered this Topic in his opening monologue for his radio show on Monday the 26th.
Thanks for the laugh. But people were believing in liberty and freedom long before Trump. Oh, and the US is not a democracy. Never was. It is a republic. Rule of law and “lawful” are not the same either. Rule of law means law applied equally.
Fascism? The newest definition is “everything I disagree with is fascism”. So please make a coherent case before simply calling people names.
To David and everyone else who must see Trump as the radical, the Nazi and the Fascist, it is called POLITICS.
Jan 6th? POLITICS. Loud and ugly but politics all the same. (And of course, with a heaping helping dose of agent provocateurs conveniently provided by the opposition within the administration who need Trump to be vilified in the eyes of the public)
The Constitution essentially structures political warfare every day in the form of the many ways that political imagery and information can be transmitted both overtly and covertly, and that is how we fight the political warfare, by design.
Why is it by design? What is the goal of structure such potential chaos and confusion? So those in the Political Realm are forced to reveal themselves to those in the Pedestrian Realm in order that the transfer of political power does not descend into a bloody conflagration.
And that is the concept behind the Constitution, the peaceful transfer of power. And that is precisely what makes the Constitution unique in the world.
Who were actual Progressives of their day? The Founders.
The “Progressives” of today are progressive in name only and all they actually are are Socialists who desire absolute power over those who they are today forced to be mindful of, the public.
Why must the Democrats cheat? Because they have to.
If a Democrat, who is essentially today as they define themselves “Democrat Socialists” were to reveal the truth of what they by necessity intend, their absolute power and control over the people and politics, they would never see any political power in America EVER.
What are we all witness to today? Nazism? Fascism?
No, just politics in the political warfare that the Constitution structures in order that massive amounts of blood not be spilled in the transfer of political power.
“CONCLUSION: The public lives and operates under a subjective moral code or within a “Pedestrian Realm” perspective which they assume their leadership which exists within the “Political Realm” is constrained by. This is a subjective false perspective conclusion on the part of the public. Leadership at its existential core is not about morality, truth and honesty. Leadership is about the fundamental exercise of power and “its” survival.”
To my point:
The solution for the Democrat, the radical Left in politics today?
“One of the editors of the liberal media outlet ‘Politico’ recently wrote how the Constitution must be rewritten in order to stop Trump.”
If the rules do not favor your perverted model of operation, just change the rules.
The Constitution is fine and operating as per design as per the Founders. Who clearly understood the nature of man regarding politics and the nature of the abuse of power?
They were white, they wore wacky wigs, some of them owned slaves, but they were all men of their times, and they were and are the true Progressives of their times who freed a majority of the world.
Were there abuses? Sure, but no apologies.
David, IMO you are the one who has been fooled, into accepting that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan your life for you better than you can plan it yourself … so that all you need to do is SUBMIT to that elite and things will be all right.
So much for objectivity – nothing says “freethinker” like submissive compliance to a ruling elite, because they Know Better™.
We do think for ourselves, and manage our lives ourselves. We recognize that Donald Trump advanced policies that facilitated the individual liberty necessary to do both – even respecting federalism when the Left and a good bit of the Right was in full panic-demic mode..
Our respect for our own individual liberty, means that the people that you imply are threatened will not be persecuted or prosecuted, unless they persist in seeking to lord it over their neighbors with coercive force.
Col B, while the American military is technologically formidable, the Taliban and the Vietnamese both demonstrated the limits of technological superiority.
It all depends upon what kind of damage each side is willing to accept, to resolve the conflict in their favor.
And as long as even soft tyranny persists, the chafing effect upon free people motivates them to accept a higher level of damage. … and if it goes on long enough, eventually reaching the level where they consider fortune and life as expendables to secure freedom for their family and neighbors. When that happens, things get deadly.
We aren’t there yet. There is much we can do to forestall armed conflict. The Progressives occupying DC have now pushed the conflicts into the states and localities, where free people are still quite able to push back on DC and thwart their Utopian self-righteousness without going kinetic.
But if the FBI continues to be the Federal Bureau of Inquisition, compelled support for anything-goes morality in our schools and other institutions persists, and politicians refuse to recognize all that, we will get there.
This man is accused of assaulting and injuring a 72 year old man who was escorting a patient into a healthcare clinic. Even a cursory review of multiple media sources outside of the alt-right spaces as well as a statement issued by the FBI refute the claim that SWAT or any other heavily armed agents were involved in the arrest of this alleged violent criminal. The only source that makes claims of violence and excessive force during the arrest are the alleged violent criminal’s family. Perhaps we will not ever the know the truth of what happened, but we certainly should not simply take the word of the alleged violent criminal himself or that of his family absent any evidence to back up their claims of violence and excessive force on the part of the FBI.
Here is some truth, Truthiness.
A simple assault case does not call for an FBI raid of any kind, especially when the alleged victim was allegedly verbally abusing the accused’s son.
This is about leveraging the FACE Act to intimidate dissenters from the current regime.
One more among dozens of incidents of persecuting dissent that Bob has reported upon,
Your context-deficient passive-aggressive parsing of information to fit your narrative is noted as such – a tactic we have seen repeatedly from the Left. Why should we take your word on this in that light?
Am I to assume from your response that you believe that verbal abuse warrants a violent response? Not stated in your response, though heavily implied.
With regard to the use of the FBI in the arrest of this alleged violent criminal, I might suggest that you familiarize yourself with the idea of jurisdiction. This alleged violent criminal was charged with committing a federal crime. Local and state police do not have jurisdiction in that matter and so it fell to the FBI to apprehend the suspect. And they are not simply persecuting dissent in this case. They are prosecuting a person that has been charged with a violent crime. Had the suspect not allegedly resorted to physical violence, he would not have been arrested for said violence.
Finally, nowhere in my statement did I state or suggest that you take my word on anything. I simply pointed out that there are clearly competing narratives in this case and that the family of the alleged violent criminal have presented no evidence to back up their claims of excessive force or heavily armed agents ‘raiding’ their home. I am certainly not the one that is taking information that is presented without evidence and using it to fit my narrative .
Local and state police do have jurisdiction over assault.
Had the “victim” not been verbally abusing a child, there would have been no push that your heroes would use to wedge their way into this case so they can make an intimidating example of a pro-lifer.
And that is all it was, a push. As opposed to shooting a mother at Ruby Ridge, or burning down a religious compound,
We see right through your spin, Truthiness. You aren’t the first to try and strain at gnats to fit your narrative,
Do you know who we hire for our police?
Type A personalities that do not mind physical confrontation. People who learn the rules of the job and follow them.
They get promoted by learning new skills and time in the union. Doing a good job means getting small time criminals off of the streets with little problem.
Think of them as the athletes in high school.
Do you know who we hire for our FBI?
Type B personalities who dislike physical confrontation but will follow orders no matter what. They know the rules but follow orders anyways.
They get promoted by being known for following all orders no matter what. Doing a good job just means the paperwork was filled out correctly.
Think of them as the nerdy hall monitors in high school.
Neither needs any expertise with firearms. At least not until they specialize. Safe with the fire arm and can hit the target are the two descriptors I would use for the average member of either group.
There is not a single FBI agent who would not follow orders to arrest someone. Otherwise they are not FBI agents.
As for this case.
When did simple assault ( a bump that was over acted by the ‘victim’) become a federal crime?
The FBI stepping in on this would make a simple bar fight a federal crime and would require FBI involvement in every domestic case.
Why has the FBI not investigated every single shooting in Chicago and Detroit?
Mark Levin is again hammering on this Topic in Tuesdays (27th) show.
For someone named “truthiness” you sure like to spin things. Your designation of sites you do not like as “alt-right”, a made up term by MSM, does not help you credibility.
The claim of Mr Houck’s pushing the person was not because of verbal abuse, but for that plus his invading his son’s personal space. Small point, but relevant in the case of minors.
The FBI denied sending a SWAT unit. They did not deny sending 20 to 30 agents. All agents are always armed. Nor did they deny having weapons drawn. They said they “knocked. Have you seen video of LE when they knock on a door with a warrant? They beat on the door.
They wife called them SWAT. I am willing to accept she does not know what SWAT is, precisely. She also said they were armed and had body armor. That is typical of LE serving a warrant.
Finally, your statement that we “may never know” what happened combined with your apparent willingness to accept a statement from the FBI at face value is contradictory.
Local and state authorities declined to press charges, leaving only the federal authorities to charge this alleged violent criminal for assault. As such, local and state authorities had no jurisdiction to be involved in the arrest.
As you did not respond to my question, and instead once again implied that verbal abuse is justification for physical violence, I am left to assume that you believe that physical violence is warranted as a response to spoken or shouted words.. That is a rather extreme position to take and is certainly at odds with conservative views on freedom of speech.
I am not sure why you are bringing up Ruby Ridge or ‘burning down a religious compound.’ As far as I am aware, they have nothing to do with the case presented here. This case is about an alleged assault outside of a healthcare clinic. As far as I am aware, none of the people involved were involved in Ruby Ridge, nor was Ruby Ridge a healthcare clinic.
Finally, I would still appreciate a response regarding the complete lack of evidence backing up the accounts given by the alleged violent criminal’s family. I would be interested to know why you are willing to believe everything they say even absent any proof to back up their story. Mobile phones are ubiquitous as are doorbell and property cameras. Of course it is possible that this family did not have any of these things and were unable to capture any video of the ‘violent raid’. It is just interesting that you and others are more than willing to believe anything that they say that fits your narrative without a shred of evidence of it being true.
“When did simple assault ( a bump that was over acted by the ‘victim’) become a federal crime?”
Do you have access to a video of the alleged assault? I assume that you must, otherwise this statement would simply be parroting statements made by the alleged violent criminal’s family without any evidence to back up their story. I hope that you are not falling into the same situation as Jester and propagating a possibly false narrative that is without evidence only because it supports your personal narrative.
With regard to when an assault became a federal crime, this is fairly easy to answer. It is obviously the context that matters, and in this context it became a federal crime with the passage of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994. This law comfortably passed with strong bipartisan support and more than a supermajority in the Senate. So unless the bar that you frequent or your own home also happen to contain a healthcare clinic then physical altercations at those locations would not, in fact, require the involvement of the FBI under the law that this man allegedly violated. I would strongly suggest that in the future you try and better familiarize yourself with the case at hand prior to posting such statements as lack of understanding on a subject can sometime serve to propagate misinformation.
Whereas it appears that Jester feels that physical violence is warranted in the case of only verbal altercation, you seem to express the opinion that physical violence is warranted in the case of a verbal altercation with the added presence of close physical proximity. A distinction to be sure, but still a position that would generally be at odds with the concept of freedom of speech. I would also be interested in seeing what evidence you have or have seen that would indicate that the victim in this case was, in fact, ‘invading’ the personal space of the alleged attacker’s son. Or are you also falling into the same pattern as Jester and pzatchok and simply accepting a one-sided story absent any evidence because it fits your personal narrative?
Nowhere in my post did I express that I was willing to take the statement issued by the FBI at face value. I simply pointed out that there are very significantly conflicting narratives in this case. My statement that we may never know the truth of the event reflects that. Unless one side or the other presents evidence to back up their account of the events surrounding the arrest, we are left with two sides to the story that are in conflict. I am simply questioning taking a side on the matter without some shred of evidence to back up that position. You and others here seem to be willing to do just that as long as doing so fits your preferred narrative.
The pastor did not block access and the old man he bumped was not trying to gain access.
And just because a local or state authority drops a case does not mean it automatically goes to the federal authorities.
First off they need to be informed of the case. So who told them? And no the news does not a request make.
Second off which supervisor ordered them to do this type of attack?
Third why did they think they needed more than 2 guys to serve a warrant on a fat pastor? Did they think his 4 year old would destroy evidence or pull a gun and shoot them?
This is a severe over reaction to a simple assignment.
The FBI just made a huge drug raid in my area and they only needed a dozen local LEO’s and three FBI agents. 3. Not 30.
Truthiness, your attempt at applying Alinsky Rule Four to me is noted.
As is your above-it-all passive-aggressive presentation. We see right through your Progressive standard operating procedure. We can surmise what side you have chosen from that.
Here is more of both sides of the story:
The fact that both the local authorities, and the “victim” treated this as trivial undermines your attempt to portray the “victim” and the FBI as righteous … particularly when it is questionable whether FACE still applies in the post-Roe world where access to abortion is no longer considered a constitutional right – which as I understand it, was the basis for legislating FACE.
This is nothing more than targeting a known pro-life activist.
Let us both hope they find the video to clarify this.
“Whereas it appears that Jester feels that physical violence is warranted in the case of only verbal altercation, you seem to express the opinion that physical violence is warranted in the case of a verbal altercation with the added presence of close physical proximity.”
… of a MINOR.
A fact you avoid twice now. It was not proximity to Mr Houck, but to his 12 year old son. You are implying that getting in the face a minor and yelling obscenities is protected speech? The local DA and city police apparently disagree. As you pointed out, the local charges of assault were originally dropped before the DOJ decided to look at the FACE act. The “escort” tried to sue, but that was thrown out, when he failed to even show up to court.
Mr. Houck’s spokesman downgraded the reported number to 20 agents.
The original incident was apparently caught on video, also according to the spokesman said. They are working on getting it.
This site has a single pic of the FBI at the house showing at least three, and there are what looks like three vehicles in the back ground.
Both agents in body armor, as expected.
One has a rifle on the porch.
So the report of heavily armed agents at the door are confirmed.
Why do we not see more agents? Because they are smart enough not to “stack” directly in front of a door.
All this happened after failing to respond to an offer, made through his lawyer, to turn himself in and talk with the US Attorney.
“I am not sure why you are bringing up Ruby Ridge or ‘burning down a religious compound.’ ”
In both those cases, the Feds bypassed opportunity to detain the desired individual at another location, and instead went for the option that had the potential for violence. Both of those incidents are examples of why ignoring the offer meet the prosecutor/investigators with his lawyer is the wrong choice.
So why create the risk of an altercation when someone offers to walk in the front door with his lawyer?
Why initiate a confrontation with dangerous variables, when communication via the lawyer is an option?
The reasons are either:
2. An attempt to grab headlines before an election.
3. A conspiracy theorist would suggest the intent to cause violence, with the desire to incite backlash against pro-lifers.
If you have other reasons to suggest why LE would choose a possible violent confrontation, I would like to hear them.
Precedent is not in their favor, BTW. A case in 2019 with similar circumstances was thrown out.
The premise of the ruling is that they must actually attempt to block access to be a violation of the FACE act. The 1st Amdt is on the side of the Pro-life counselors. The issue at hand appears to be an altercation between the two men, being leveraged with the FACE act to be something bigger than it is.
Last, you call it a health care clinic. It is not. It is an abortion clinic. At least 50% of those persons that go in the door, do not come out.
I just looked at the pic again. The FBI agent with the rifle, also has a shield (the type used in raids, not riots).
“It is obviously the context that matters, and in this context it became a federal crime with the passage of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994. This law comfortably passed with strong bipartisan support and more than a supermajority in the Senate.”
You fail to why/how mention it passed with such support. It not only protects so called health clinics, but places of worship.
This is how it got bi-partisan support. This is an important fact you omitted to make it sound as if clinic access was supported so overwhelmingly.
Why is this important? The vandalism and blocking access of churches that has been happening since Dobbs, as well as during the BLM protests should have triggered this law.
And yet nothing happened. This is clear evidence of bias, under the guise of prosecutorial discretion.
Side note. You accused us of preferring a narrative, and being opposed to the alleged victim’s 1st Amdt rights. Indeed, fighting words are (narrowly) protected speech. However, in terms of provocation, Mr Houck may be able to claim the alleged victim’s words and proximity to his child, a minor, amounted to provocaton. This would negate the assault. The reasonable man standard is called for here.
In other words, the so-called victim cannot be prosecuted by the state for his language and action, but Mr Houck should be equally protected as he does not represent the state, but the boy’s parent, and was provoked to defend him.