It’s their religion.

Speaking about religion....





Yesterday, news of a hostage situation in a Texas synagogue rocked the nation. Shortly after, due to the assailant’s admission on a Facebook Live stream, we had an identity and a motive.

The man holding a rabbi and other Jews hostage was a Pakistani named Muhammad Siddiqui. He was demanding the release of his anti-Semitic sister, Aafia Siddiqui, who is currently in prison for trying to kill US military personnel. The Islamist community has made the terrorist a living martyr, with CAIR hosting many rallies seeking her freedom.

Thankfully, due to the actions of the local police and the SWAT team that was present, the hostage-taker was killed and everyone is now safe. As per usual, that left the FBI to march in and take things over, and the response they gave is one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever seen from a law enforcement agency.

This absolute gaslighting garbage has to stop. The hostage-taker was an Islamist who specifically chose to hold Jews hostage in order to secure the release of a convicted terrorist, who herself was a rabid anti-Semite. Further, Muhammad Siddiqui admitted on his Facebook Live stream why he chose his target and why he was doing what he was doing. Yet, the FBI’s response is to assert that they are “continuing to work to find a motive”? As if he attacked a synagogue by sheer chance?

With all due respect, and the FBI is owed none, are you freaking kidding me?

If I’ve written once, I’ve written it a dozen times, and I’ll continue to write it until things change: The FBI needs to be disbanded. This agency continues to have no credibility, as they actively seek to protect the current administration, push political narratives, and lie to the faces of the American public. FBI Director Christopher Wray is a disgrace, but the problems within the bureau are not just relegated to the top echelon of leadership. Things are rotten to the core.

And because the FBI did what it did, that gave the media a green light to completely obfuscate from what happened at this Texas synagogue. It was just a random act of violence, completely detached from the Jewish community, perpetrated by a man with an “English accent.”

This follows a pattern of absurdity where the FBI refuses to talk motive when it might be politically inconvenient. Whether it’s the Waukesha massacre, the Las Vegas shooting, or this, it’s impossible to ignore how this always seems to happen. Let’s just say that the FBI should no longer exist, and once Congress disbands it and everyone is safely out of that ugly building, it should be knocked to the ground, with something actually worthwhile built in its place.

I’ll leave it at that, so as to stop myself from getting in trouble.

Editor’s note: The hostage taker has been identified by the FBI, in a statement released this morning. Despite his claims that he was Muhammad Siddiqui, the brother of Aafia Siddiqui, he is actually a 44-year-old British national named Malik Faisal Akram.


https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/01/16/the-fbi-response-to-the-texas-synagogue-attack-is-absolutely-sick-n507504 

Why can't Michael Jackson go within 500 yards of a school?
Because he's dead

saw the correct version of this story at 6:30 AM in my Boston Sunday Globe.
Not sure what purpose quoting a rant based on misinformation serves regardless of one's thoughts on the FBI.
How is the author able to claim the high road?

Seriously, I find this contradictory and if I wandered in from the rain would not know what was the point.
Sorry, but the truth is painful enough even if one is not Jewish. Why use that, as if this isn't horrid on it's own?

The article in #222 is absolute BS with an agenda.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rabbi-shares-gratitude-hostage-situation-texas-synagogue-rcna12408 

Why not read what the FBI has said? ^

Huh? What? I heard with my own ears on the TV what the original statement of the FBI was, FBI Special Agent in Charge Matt DeSarno said "the Texas synagogue hostage taker's demands were specifically focused on issues not connected to the Jewish community.", Like WTF! I guess the terrorist made a mistake, he must have thunk he was in a Baptist church to something.:-k
Well, I know the FBI is just trying to cover for the BIG GUY who famously said "We won't ignore what our intelligence agencies have determined to be the most lethal terrorist threat to our homeland today: White supremacy is terrorism"... well, the Texas synagogue event doesn't fit that narrative does it?.

Jewish leaders react to FBI statement on Texas synagogue hostage-taker: 'The FBI got it wrong'
One Jewish leader told Fox News 'the FBI got it wrong' after Texas hostage situation


https://www.foxnews.com/us/jewish-leaders-react-fbi-statement-texas-synagogue-hostages 

We can go ahead and be done with this whole synagogue attack thing. It’s just not newsworthy.

Spey, because what the FBI says NOW is only a result of the massive outrage of what they said FIRST...

I heard the initial press conference at the scene live, too, and my jaw dropped when I heard it... Like all the other MASSIVE mischaracterizations of crimes the FBI has perpetrated. They CHOOSE how to speak, they NEVER speak to the press without lot's of internal conversations about what they are going to say, and they CHOSE those words specifically at the hostage press conference.

Had there not been massive outrage, do you think they would have suddennly said "Woops! We got that one wrong, he DID target a shul on Shabbat because of the Jews. Our bad!"... I don't think so.

Um, read my article, the FBI catagoricly stated differently after doing some due diligence.

"due diligence" 😂
Ya, after the public outrage over their idiotic original statement.

Spey, with all due respect, I have been involved in the lengthy back and forth required prior to the FBI having an on-scene press conference like the one I watched. Decisions are made to use (or not use) specific words, and the stetement is completely vetted prior to giving it. The mere fact that someone, even initially, was reluctant to correlate the circumcstances at the scene to reality is frightening, appaling and offensive. Like if a reporter stands in front of a burning riot calling it a "mostly peaceful protest" or like calling 9/11 an "aviation disaster."

The fact that the FBI were even initially willing to be so completely tone deaf (at best) is pretty scary.

They made the initial statement, yes they did. Then they revised it. I will leave it there. The interesting question would be were they tone deaf or following procedure. Of that question I have no idea.

I am less focused on the revision (which is certainly welcome) than on the fact that they DID make the initial statement. They could have easily said "we are not making any statements about the HT's motives at this time", but they chose otherwise.

Am I glad they revised their statement? Yes. Do I wonder what their motivation for doing so was? Yes.

You only get one chance to make a first impression and their true colors show on those first impression, not the polished, "we need to rethink this" second-takes.

OK, that makes sense to me stated that way. Yes their original statement was very poor.

What's the difference between a Lamborghini and a dead body?
I don't have a Lamborghini in my garage

How the F**k did he get from JFK, AIRPORT IN NYC to TEXAS??

THAT MIGHT BE A CLUE THE "F.UN B.ORED I.DIOTS"
MIGHT WANT TO INVESTIGATE...

Maybe, they are saving that until they are done with you.

The FBI serves a purpose and is never going away. Do you really think they do not have dossiers on all the major players within the United States? If so you are naive.

As noted by the Washington media, “The FBI reversed its position late Sunday on the Texas synagogue hostage-taker, acknowledging it was a case of terrorism after first improbably insisting the suspect’s motives were unclear.”

It wasn’t just a happenstance reversal, and it wasn’t a reversal based on evidence discovered that caused them to adopt new conclusions. Immediately preceding the FBI reversal in position was a public statement by Joe Biden in Philadelphia:

[11:58 A.M. EST, SUNDAY] …”Hey, folks. With regard to Texas and the synagogue, I spoke this morning with the Attorney General and — to get a rundown. He said there’s overwhelming cooperation with the local authorities and the FBI, and they did one hell of a job.

This was an act of terror. This was an act of terror. And it not only was related to someone who had been arrested, I might add, 15 years ago and been in jail for 10 years — the idea that it was something new. And they did just a great job. “… ~ Joe Biden

The reason this aspect is important is to highlight the motives of the FBI and DOJ. The actions of the institutions are driven by political defenses of the leftist regime.

If President Donald Trump was to have said “This was an act of terror“, the same institutions would have castigated him by saying, there’s still not enough information to make that legal distinction. The media would then inflate the issue and spend the next two media cycles ridiculing him. This is not supposition, this example, is a reference point that actually played out several times during the Trump administration.

However, during the Biden administration, the institutional motives of the DOJ/FBI are in alignment with Joe Biden and his administration. Therefore, the institutions themselves will modify their practices and operations to be in synergy with Dear Leader.

This might sound like a “duh” example, but the larger point is reinforcement of a severely politicized justice system. It is very dangerous to have a justice system driven by political alignment. It is even more dangerous to have a law enforcement agency making decisions based on political alignment.

Joe Biden doesn’t need to give instructions about ideological alignment and messaging. Indeed, I doubt he gives any instructions. The people behind Biden might give instructions, but this type of synergy is more appropriately considered like the cast of an improvisation performance just following the cues by the lead actor. Biden says something, and the apparatus (whichever element it is) moves to align with whatever he just said.

♦ Saturday Night / Sunday Morning FBI: ““We do believe from our engagement with this subject that he was singularly focused on one issue, and it was not specifically related to the Jewish community,” Matthew DeSarno, the FBI Dallas special agent in charge, told reporters. “But we’re continuing to work to find motive, and we will continue on that path.”

♦ Sunday at Noon: “This was an act of terror. This was an act of terror,” Joe Biden says.

♦ Sunday at 5:00pm FBI: “This is a terrorism-related matter, in which the Jewish community was targeted, and is being investigated by the Joint Terrorism Task Force.”

Here’s the video of Biden’s full statement at Noon on Sunday:
The Transcript is [ AVAILABLE HERE ]

Q Do you know why he targeted that specific synagogue, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, no, I don’t. We don’t have — I don’t think there is sufficient information to know about why he targeted that synagogue or why he insisted on the release of someone who’s been in prison for over 10 years, why he was engaged — why he was using antisemitic and anti-Israeli comments. I — we just don’t have enough facts.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/01/17/the-event-that-triggered-the-fbi-to-reverse-their-narrative-on-the-colleyville-terror-attack/ 

Need more proof?

AUSTIN, Texas — The British terrorist who held four people hostage at a Texas synagogue over the weekend is believed to have traveled to the United States on the basis of tourism, meaning he faced less screening and vetting than a visa or green card recipient would.

Malik Faisal Akram of Blackburn, England, entered the U.S. on a flight into John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York either in late December or early January. He traveled on a tourist visa, according to a U.S. official who anonymously spoke with the Associated Press. Because visas for tourism are not required for British travelers who plan to stay for less than three months, it is likely that Akram traveled through the U.S. Visa Waiver Program.

England is one of 40 countries that the U.S. considers a lesser national security threat and the citizens of which are allowed to travel to the U.S. without having to obtain a visa. Under the Visa Waiver Program, tourists may travel to the U.S. for less than 90 days but must first be approved through U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Electronic System for Travel Authorization.

However, travelers under the program “do not undergo the in-person screening generally required” to receive other types of visas, the Congressional Research Service concluded in an October 2021 report . Because the tourists do not have their biometric data taken, such as fingerprints, facial scans, or retina scans, that information cannot be run against the Department of Homeland Security’s Automated Biometric Identification System or the FBI’s Next Generation Identification system. Instead, their biographical information is checked against other biographical databases.

It is possible that Akram, whose brother claimed he had a criminal record , lied when filling out his ESTA or that his criminal history was not mentioned in the databases that his information was screened against.

The DHS declined to comment on how Akram traveled to the U.S. or what he disclosed as his reason for visiting. The DHS referred the Washington Examiner to the FBI, which did not respond to a request for comment.

BROTHER OF TEXAS HOSTAGE TAKER: WHY DID U.S. ADMIT A KNOWN CRIMINAL?

“Under the Trump administration, we made sure to expand transparency on immigration matters and immigration stories to the greatest extent possible. The Biden administration has moved in the opposite direction and is not providing immigration histories in the way DHS did," said Jon Feere, former ICE senior advisor to the director and chief of staff during the Trump administration.

"ICE could absolutely provide the immigration history of this individual in significant detail. If there were any reason why ICE felt that it couldn’t, the DHS secretary could waive any types of protections and put the information out itself," Feere said.

Chad Wolf, former acting DHS secretary under Trump, said within several hours of law enforcement identifying who the hostage taker was on Saturday that the DHS and the FBI would have created a profile about him, including any derogatory information about him. They would also look at how many times he has or has not traveled to and from the U.S., as well as details about his most recent trip.

“The secretary, attorney general, and FBI director have that information in hand by now. What they choose to release is a different story. They can decide not to release any of it,” Wolf said. “In the Trump administration, we routinely chose to release unclassified background information so the American people could understand who a particular person was or wasn’t. How they traveled to and from the United States — the administration should be able to release that information.”

"The American people have a right to know," said Tom Homan, former acting ICE director. "If DHS has that information, they ought to release it."


The DNC is soft on any kind of crime all the while screaming racism and white supremacy. This isn't hard to figure out. Just like the naval base shooting in Florida, the army base shooting in TX.