Skip to content

Removal of Confederate Monuments Costing U.S. Cities Millions

October 10, 2017

Warner Todd Huston

10/7/2017

Source …..

The costs are mounting for removing Confederate monuments in cities across America, the tab costing taxpayers millions.

A recent review of costs from just a few cities across America that began the process of removing Confederate statues from public property shows the extreme expense involved. Costs include both the actual removal costs and the police and public safety costs as cities send out police officers to keep protesters at bay while the destruction of the monuments commences.

One of the first cities to indulge the left’s desire to destroy Confederate monuments was New Orleans. Early this year, the city began the process of removing the statues but initially insisted a private citizen was footing the bill for the removal.

While some of those costs were supposed to be taken on by a citizen of the city, the city budget was also burdened with a whopping cost of $2.1 million, CNN reported in June.

The extra costs came in city employee overtime costs, police overtime costs, and fees related to the court cases that the removal of the statues forced onto the city. New Orleans even had to shell out $50,000 to build a storage facility to store the four large statues.

Fox News reported about another group of cities that incurred similar costs.

San Antonio, Texas, recently reported that it spent $258,680 to remove a Confederate statue from Travis Park. The price tag included $147,775 to tear down the monument, $103,809 for police overtime costs, and an additional $7,000 to cover landscaping costs after the statue was removed.

But that cost, some city officials said, did not include the incredible $17 million previously spent on a police presence around the statue during the months the city was contemplating the monument’s removal.

Authorities in Dallas, Texas, revealed a similar story with upwards to $450,000 spent to remove its Robert E. Lee statue.

But Dallas is also eyeing the removal of another statue situated in Pioneer Park that will cost an estimated $800,000 to remove.

Some of the costs in Dallas also include the removal of Confederate-themed street signs, with new signs featuring new names replacing them.

In Virginia, the costs to the city of Charlottesville are still not known, especially after a weekend of contentious rioting that incurred costs for policing. But before the riot that resulted in one death, the city was claiming that the removal of the statues could top $700,000.

Certainly, other cities looking to eliminate statues that in many cases have stood for nearly 100 years will see similar costs passed onto taxpayers, and the final dollar amount is growing by the month.

 

Advertisements

Stepping Back From the Crime Scene

October 7, 2017

Michael Swartz

10/6/2017

Source …..

Statistics on guns and gun crime can easily be manipulated for leftist ends. Let’s sort through the clutter.

As is their practice after a shooting with casualties on a mass scale, leftists are blaming the guns for the behavior of a man who obviously lost sight of the commandment, “You shall not murder.” And while we mourn the victims, the mainstream media seems preoccupied with the possibility of multiple shooters and the need to ban “bump stocks.” Many folks have also lost sight of the big picture: Statistically, we’re at far greater risk in a hospital than at a public concert like Sunday night’s Route 91 Harvest festival in Las Vegas.

One statistician, in fact, concluded that the gun control measures being proposed would be rather ineffective in addressing the problem. Leah Libresco, who is described by The Washington Post as “a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site,” came to this realization as part of a large effort by her former employer — something FiveThirtyEight reminded us of this week — to analyze all 33,000 deaths by firearm in a particular year. She makes the case that “bump stocks,” bans on so-called “assault rifles,” and even gun buybacks would do little good when the largest portions of gun deaths involve their usage as “suicide machines” or as a method for young gangbangers to settle scores.

“But, but,” stammers the Left, “look at how little gun violence there is in Australia — a place where certain types of guns were confiscated under penalty of law two decades ago after their own mass shooting.” While it’s true that no significant mass shootings have since occurred in Australia, a 2016 study by three Australian researchers found the data was inconclusive regarding the effects of the gun buyback: “Following enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016. There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms.”

Moreover, as Corey Iacono of the Foundation for Economic Education points out, another study that used the adjacent island nation of New Zealand — where there are fewer restrictions on guns — as a control found that both had roughly the same decline in mass shootings. “Gun control advocates have built their entire case about Australian gun control on lazy data analysis, or perhaps no data analysis at all,” argues Iacono. “If anything, Australia proves the complete opposite of what advocates of gun control want.”

He added, “A national gun confiscation scheme which reduced the civilian firearm stock by an astounding twenty percent and nobody can seem to find any clear evidence it caused a meaningful effect on the firearm murder rate? That’s not only embarrassing, it goes against everything they believe about the nature of the relationship between guns and murder rates.”

Then, when we consider this longstanding fact that more guns have yielded less crime, leftists’ case really begins to unravel. Not that they’ll stop shouting from the rooftops about it anyway — their newest cause is to repeal the Second Amendment. Our response? Molon labe.

The leftist viewpoint — shared, apparently, by the New York Times’ token “conservative,” Bret Stephens — doesn’t come close to meeting the smell test. Stephens’ anti-gun prejudices lead him to use faulty numbers, including counting five years’ worth of murder statistics to give himself a number that finally exceeds the annual toll in auto accidents. Even at this emotion-driven moment, this is all the gun-grabbers have.

Should we remind them yet again that stridently anti-gun Europe, whose elites would love to see our pesky Second Amendment consigned to the dustbin of history, suffers more mass shootings on a statistical basis than the U.S. does? Europe’s restrictions don’t allow a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with one. As we often point out, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Stephen Paddock reportedly spent about 11 minutes firing at the crowd before a security guard finally made it to his room. Local police were even further behind.

In the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, Congress will certainly feel pressured to “do something,” with the most likely outcome a feel-good ban on bump stocks. Even the NRA doesn’t have a problem considering that, and a Republican lawmaker already has the bill set to go.

Despite the statistics that have shown a trend toward more security, our government cannot make us perfectly safe — though armed citizens certainly have made us safer. Even if the government took away all the so-called “assault weapons,” deranged individuals bent on causing mass casualties would find a way to do so. One need look no further than the 85 people mowed down last year by a jihadi with a truck in Nice, France.

Incidents like these are a problem of evil. Instead of debating the repeal of the Second Amendment — which was, after all, placed in the Bill of Rights as a check against a tyrannical government having all the firepower — we should be discussing the lack of self-control that our culture seems to encourage. There are still many laws on the books that extend the command of “you shall not murder,” and perhaps the first order of business should be to restore a much-needed respect for life.

 

Study: 73 Percent of DACA Illegal Aliens Live in Low-Income Households

October 7, 2017

John Binder

10/6/2017

Source …..

The vast majority of illegal aliens shielded from deportation through the Obama-created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program are living in low-income households.

A study by Harvard scholar Roberto Gonzales outlined by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) shows that 73 percent of illegal aliens covered by DACA are living in low-income households, qualifying for free lunch at American public high schools, as well as other federal welfare benefits.

Additionally, Gonzalez’s research found that nearly the same amount of DACA recipients who earned a four-year degree from a university, 22 percent, ended up dropping out of high school, 21 percent, leaving them without any education beyond the eighth grade. Another 20 percent of DACA recipients have no education beyond high school and do not plan to attend college.

Also, the myth from the open borders lobby and corporate interests that DACA was necessary to allow illegal aliens to legally work in the U.S. is debunked in the study, which reveals that more than half of DACA recipients, 51 percent, were already working before they obtained their temporary amnesty status.

CIS Director of Policy Jessica Vaughan said that before Congress and President Trump’s administration give amnesty to millions of eligible illegal aliens, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) should review the well-being of the DACA population. Vaughn notes:

Before considering amnesty legislation, Congress needs to obtain more information about the DACA beneficiaries in order to better understand the potential impact of an amnesty, and to help determine if the eligibility criteria for an amnesty should be different from the DACA rules. USCIS has information on the communities of residence, educational levels, marital status, mode of entry to the country, criminal histories, and English proficiency of DACA applicants. This committee should request a compilation of this information for the public to review. In addition, USCIS should conduct a survey of a random sample of DACA recipients to learn more about their employment history, educational achievements, and socio-economic progress.

Currently, DACA illegal aliens hold upwards of 700,000 jobs in the U.S. As Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s open borders group, FWD.us, mistakingly pointed out, by not giving amnesty to DACA recipients and simply allowing their work permits to expire, those hundreds of thousands of jobs could open up for unemployed American workers – as Breitbart Texas correctly reported.

 

DACA Allowed Illegal Alien to Work at Summer Camp Where He Allegedly Molested Child, Collected Child Porn

October 7, 2017

John Binder

10/6/2017

Source …..

An illegal alien, thanks to the Obama-created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) temporary amnesty program, was allowed to work in a children’s summer camp, where he eventually was accused of molesting a child and collecting child pornography.

Edgar Covarrubias-Padilla, a 27-year-old illegal alien DACA recipient, was noted in a Senate Judiciary Committee on DACA by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who called the case an example of the “exploitation and abuse” within the temporary amnesty program.

In 2015, Padilla was under investigation by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for child exploitation, all while allowing him to keep his DACA protected status to work in the U.S. and avoid deportation.

The investigation into the illegal alien went on for months before he was permitted to work at the Walden West Science Camp for fifth and sixth graders in Saratoga, California, as CBS San Francisco reported.

Then, while known at the summer camp as “Papa Bear,” the illegal alien covered by DACA allegedly molested a 14-year-old child and collected and distributed child pornography.

Grassley said the illegal alien should have never been allowed to remain in the U.S. and work at a children’s summer camp under DACA while he was being investigated for child exploitation.

“Although considered to be ‘potentially egregious to public safety’ months before his arrest, he was nonetheless given a work permit,” Grassley said.

After the DACA recipient’s arrest on the child porn and molestation charges, the family of a 10-year-old boy at the summer camp filed a suit against the Santa Clara County Office of Education, which ran the summer camp, for failing to protect their children from the alleged pedophile.

“The fact that the county already had this rule in place is a testament to how important it is not to allow an adult to be with a child alone. In this case, that adult happened to be a pedophile,” the family’s attorney said in a 2015 statement.

The family attorney said that children at the summer camp were actually encouraged by administrators to go visit the illegal alien DACA recipient when they were not feeling good or when they were homesick.

A former official at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency, which runs the DACA program, said the fraud rate for the temporary amnesty is astronomical.

“Based on what I had seen and what I discussed with my colleagues, the fraud rate is 40 to 50 percent. It’s possible that it was higher,” the former USCIS official previously told Lifezette, as Breitbart News reported.

Since DACA’s inception, more than 2,100 DACA recipients saw their protected status revoked for being involved in gang activity or suspected/convicted of a felony. Due to a loophole in the DACA program, more than 39,000 illegal aliens have been able to obtain Green Cards and more than 1,000 have been naturalized.

 

Judicial Watch Sues Justice Department for Mueller Russian Special Counsel Budget

October 7, 2017

Judicial Watch

10/5/2017

Source …..

Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning the budget and administrative records of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-02079)).

The lawsuit was filed after the Department of Justice failed to respond to an July 10, 2017 FOIA request seeking the following:

  1. A copy of the budget prepared and submitted by Robert S. Mueller III or his staff in his capacity as appointed “Special Counsel to oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and related matters.” Temporal scope of this request is from 17May2017 to 10July2017.
  2. A copy of all guidance memoranda and communications by which the Justice Management Division will review the Special Counsel’s Office’s “Statement of Expenditures” prior to or for the purpose of making each public. Temporal scope of this request is from 1June2017 to present.
  3. A copy of each document scoping, regulating, or governing the Special Counsel’s Office appointed under the leadership of Mueller III. Temporal scope of this request is from 17May2017 to present.

On July 7, 2017, The Washington Post reported that Special counsel Mueller submitted a proposed budget to the Justice Department, “but officials declined to make the document public and committed only to releasing reports of the team’s expenditures every six months.”Judicial Watch is pursuing numerous additional FOIA lawsuits related to the surveillance, unmasking, and illegal leaking targeting President Trump and his associates during the FBI’s investigation of potential Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election.

“The Mueller special counsel investigation is growing with seemingly little concern about costs to the taxpayer,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Is the Justice Department hiding basic budget information about the Mueller special counsel operation because taxpayers and Congress would be outraged by the costs?  Mr. Mueller is not above the law and he shouldn’t be able to keep his budget secret.  No one else in DC seems to be providing oversight of the Mueller juggernaut, so once again it is up to the citizens group Judicial Watch is going to court to demand accountability.”

 

Refugees Resettled in U.S. from Detention Centers Known for Rape, Pedophilia

October 6, 2017

John Binder

10/5/2017

Source …..

Middle Eastern refugees accused of rape and pedophilia are among those that the United States could be resettling across American communities, as President Trump’s administration has failed to shutter the Obama-forged U.S.-Australia refugee deal.

Former President Barack Obama signed the Australian-U.S. refugee deal during his last months in office — promising to take 1,250 Middle Eastern refugees off Australia’s hands.

The refugees are being held in detention centers on Manus Island and Nauru Island and despite Trump’s original statement calling the deal “a dumb deal,” the first group of roughly 50 of the mostly male, Middle Eastern refugees are expected to be resettled in the U.S. this week, as Breitbart News reported.

But, because the deal was struck under Obama, the vetting procedures of the foreign refugees – who are actually illegal aliens in Australia – are potentially a far stretch from the “extreme vetting” for refugees that Trump promised during his presidential campaign.

Among the refugees living in the Australian detention centers where the U.S. is choosing which foreign nationals to resettle are accused rapists and sexual predators.

In January, a refugee from Sri Lanka living in the detention centers, raped an 18-year-old high school student multiple times after taking her to a nearby hotel, according to Loop. The girl tried to runaway to a relatives home, but suffered so much blood from the brutal rape that she eventually fainted.

In another case in March, law enforcement officials confirmed that a 28-year-old Pakistani from the detention center had been charged with raping a 10-year-old girl, the Guardian reported.

Just a month later, refugees from the detention center were accused of trying to lure a five-year-old boy into the facility, causing an uproar in the local community about the danger to which the foreign nationals have become to children, as News Corp Australia Network reported.

Although the Trump administration has promised to use rigorous vetting procedures, refugee resettlement expert Ann Corcoran told Breitbart News that the federal government simply relies on the personal stories of refugees, as there is limited documentation of who the individuals are and their backgrounds.

“We have no idea who these people are. We’re not calling back to Syria and asking for these peoples’ criminal record,” Corcoran said. “There’s no record to look at. They could be flat out lying, making up names. We have no clue.”

After the refugees are resettled in the U.S. in the next fiscal year, the families of those refugees will get priority migration status to either come to America as refugees as well, or come as legal immigrants through the current immigration system which is based on family chain migration.

 

California Becomes ‘Sanctuary State’ with Gov. Brown Signature

October 6, 2017

Michelle Moons

10/5/+2017

Source …..

California officially became a sanctuary state for illegal aliens on Thursday with the stroke of Gov. Jerry Brown’s pen.

Senate Bill 54 will go into effect in January 2018. Brown signed the bill entitled the “California Values Act” and released a signing statement. Brown explained what the bill does and does not do.

The bill prohibits local law enforcement from asking about immigration status in the course of routine interactions and prohibits them from complying with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer requests.

“The bill further directs our Attorney General to promulgate model policies for local and state health, education, labor and judiciary officials to follow when they deal with immigration matters,” wrote Brown.

“This bill does not prevent or prohibit Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Department of Homeland Security from doing their own work in any way,” said Brown in the signing letter.

According to Brown, “The bill does not prohibit sheriffs from granting immigration authorities access to California jails to conduct routine interviews, nor does it prevent cooperation in deportation proceedings for anyone in state prison or for those in local jails for any of the hundreds of serious offenses listed in the TRUST Act.”

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders responded to questions about the bill during Thursday’s press briefing, “I hope that California will push back on their Governor’s, I think, irresponsible decision moving forward.”

Brown signed several other immigration-related bills into law on Thursday: AB 21, AB 291, AB 299, AB 343, AB 450, AB 699, SB 29, SB 68, SB 156, and SB 257. A statement from the Governor’s office touted Brown’s signing of legislation to fund legal services for illegal aliens “seeking naturalization and deportation defense,” to provide health coverage for illegal aliens, the “California Dream Act” and a law to provide California driver licenses to illegal aliens. Brown also signed legislation giving $30 million in financial aid and legal services to “immigrant students” and those who fall under the soon-to-be-discontinued federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

 

San Juan Mayor Feuding With Trump Turned Her Back When Asked to Swear to Uphold the Constitution

October 5, 2017

Rachel del Guidice

10/4/2017

Source …..

A 2013 video shows the mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico, turning her back when asked to swear to uphold the Constitution.

On Saturday, President Donald Trump called out Carmen Yulín Cruz, the mayor, for her “poor leadership ability” in a tweet. The day prior, Cruz had been critical, saying, “If anybody out there is listening to us, we are dying, and you are killing us with the inefficiency.”

Cruz first became mayor of San Juan, the capital of Puerto Rico, in 2013. When taking the oath of office, Cruz delayed repeating the words that she would “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States,” turning her back to the woman administering the oath for a long moment.

The English and Spanish versions of the oath read as follows:

I, Carmen Yulin Cruz Soto, as mayor of San Juan, solemnly swear that I shall uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and Laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico against any domestic or foreign enemy; that I will render fidelity and adherence to them; and that I assume this obligation freely and without mental reserve or purpose to evade it; and that I will perform well and faithfully the duties of the position or employment that I am about to exercise. So help me God.

Yo, Carmen Yulin Cruz Soto, como alcaldesa de San Juan juro solemnemente que mantendré y defenderé la Constitución de los Estados Unidos y la Constitución y las Leyes del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico contra todo enemigo interior o exterior; que prestaré fidelidad y adhesión a las mismas; y que asumo esta obligación libremente y sin reserva mental ni propósito de evadirla; y que desempeñaré bien y fielmente los deberes del cargo o empleo que estoy próximo a ejercer. Así me ayude Dios.

Article VI, Section 16 of Puerto Rico’s Constitution states, “All public officials and employees of the Commonwealth, its agencies, instrumentalities and political subdivisions, before entering upon their respective duties, shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.”

After turning her back and pausing, Cruz does swear to defend the Constitution, and then enthusiastically repeats to uphold the Puerto Rican Constitution.

“During June of this year, when the leading newspaper in Puerto Rico polled people on the island about her performance as mayor, she had an abysmal 24 percent approval rating,” says Ken Oliver-Méndez, former assistant secretary of state of Puerto Rico.

“She is known for maligning and stoking sentiment against the United States, and people know that if it were up to her, Puerto Rico would not even be part of the United States. She has said on record that in her party, there is no room for people who believe in the permanent union of Puerto Rico and the United States,” Oliver-Méndez, director of Media Research Center Latino, added. Oliver-Méndez, who previously headed the speechwriting team of former Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Fortuño, unearthed the 2013 video.

Cruz called Trump’s visit to Puerto Rico to survey the damage of Hurricane Maria “insulting,” Politico reported.

“This was a PR, 17-minute meeting,” Cruz said. “There was no exchange with anybody, with none of the mayors. And in fact, this terrible and abominable view of him throwing paper towels and throwing provisions at people, it really—it does not embody the spirit of the American nation, you know?”

On Twitter, Trump defended his stance of the visit to Puerto Rico.

The Daily Signal requested comment from the San Juan City Hall and the office of Rep. Jenniffer González-Colón of the New Progressive Party. González-Colón is Puerto Rico’s only representative in Congress.

Full video from Cruz’s 2013 ceremony:

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/28482108

 

Can the Government Keep Us Safe?

October 5, 2017

Andrew P. Napolitano

10/5/2017

Source …..

Here we go again. The United States has been rattled to the core by an unspeakable act of evil perpetrated by a hater of humanity. A quiet, wealthy loner rented a hotel suite in Las Vegas, armed it with shooting platforms and automatic weapons, knocked out two of the windows, and shot at innocents 32 floors below. Fifty-nine people were murdered, and 527 were injured.

The killer used rifles that he purchased legally and altered illegally. He effectively transformed several rifles that emit one round per trigger pull and present the next round in the barrel for immediate use (semiautomatics) into rifles that emit rounds continuously when the trigger is pulled — hundreds of rounds per minute (automatics). Though some automatic rifles that were manufactured before 1986 can lawfully be purchased today with an onerous federal permit, automatic weapons generally have been unlawful in the United States since 1934. Even the police and the military are not permitted to use them here.

I present this brief summary of the recent tragedy and the implicated gun laws to address the issue of whether the government can keep us safe.

Those who fought the Revolution and wrote the Constitution knew that the government cannot keep us safe. Because they used violence against the king and his soldiers to secede from Great Britain, they recognized that all people have a natural right to use a weapon of contemporary technological capabilities to protect themselves and their liberty and property. They sought to assure the exercise of this right by enacting the now well-known Second Amendment, which prohibits the government from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms.

When the Supreme Court interpreted this right in 2008 and 2010, it referred to the right to keep and bear arms as pre-political. “Pre-political” means that the right pre-existed the government. It is a secular term for a fundamental, or natural, right. A natural right is one that stems from our humanity — such as freedom of thought, speech, religion, self-defense, privacy, travel, etc. It does not come from the government, and it exists in the absence of government.

The recognition of a right as fundamental or natural or pre-political is not a mere academic exercise. This is so because rights in this category cannot be abrogated by the popular will. Stated differently, just as your right to think as you wish and say what you think cannot be interfered with or taken away in America by legislation, so, too, your right to own, carry and use arms of the same sophistication as are generally available to bad guys and to government officials cannot be interfered with or taken away by legislation. That is at least the modern theory of the Second Amendment.

Notwithstanding the oath that all in government have taken to uphold the Constitution, many in government reject the Second Amendment. Their enjoyment of power and love of office rank higher in their hearts and minds than does their constitutionally required fidelity to the protection of personal freedoms. They think the government can right any wrong and protect us from any evil and acquire for us any good just to keep us safe, even if constitutional norms are violated in doing so.

Can the government keep us safe? In a word, no.

This is not a novel or arcane observation but rather a rational conclusion from knowing history and everyday life. In Europe, where the right to keep and bear arms is nearly nonexistent for those outside government, killers strike with bombs and knives and trucks. In America, killers use guns and only stop when they are killed by law-abiding civilians or by the police.

The answer to government failure is a candid recognition that in a free society — one in which we are all free to come and go as we see fit without government inquiry or interference — we must be prepared for these tragedies.

We must keep ourselves safe, as well as those whom we invite onto our properties.

Surely, if the president of the United States were to have appeared at the concert venue in Las Vegas to address the crowd, the Las Vegas killer would never have succeeded in bringing his arsenal to his hotel room. Government always protects its own. Shouldn’t landowners who invite the public to their properties do the same?

Add to government’s incompetence its useless intrusive omnipresence. In present-day America, the National Security Agency — the federal government’s domestic spying agency — captures in real time the contents of every telephone call, email and text message, as well as all data sent over fiber-optic cables everywhere in the U.S. Thus, whatever electronic communications the Las Vegas killer participated in prior to his murders are in the possession of the federal government.

Mass surveillance is expressly prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, but the government does it nevertheless. It claims it does so to keep us safe. Yet this exquisite constitutional violation results in too much information for the feds to examine in a timely manner. That’s why the evidence of these massacres — from Sandy Hook to Boston to Orlando to San Bernardino to Las Vegas — is always discovered too late. At this writing, the government has yet to reveal what it knew about the Las Vegas killer’s plans before he executed them and executed innocents.

This leaves us in a very precarious position today. The government cannot keep us safe, but it claims that it can. It wants to interfere with our natural rights to self-defense and to privacy, but whenever it does so, it keeps us less safe. And in whatever arena it keeps us less safe and falsely fosters the impression that we are safe, we become less free.

 

BREAKING: Law enforcement says Las Vegas shooter “did not act alone” … new details

October 5, 2017

10/4/2017

Source …..

In a stunning statement that adds further weight to many of the questions raised by Natural News and other independent media leaders — the only remaining real journalists in America — Clark County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo publicly affirmed his belief that Stephen Paddock did not act alone.

“…[H]e had to have some help at some point,” Sheriff Lombardo is now quoted as saying by the UK Express.

Natural News and other independent media outlets have been the only investigative journalists in the country to ask real questions that expose the gaping holes in the “official” narrative of what happened at the Mandalay Bay massacre. Websites like SGTreport.com, TheEconomicCollapseBlog.com and The Daily Sheeple have detailed the ludicrousness of the official story with articles like “MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Official story of Las Vegas shooting unravels; physical impossibility of lone gunman senior citizen makes narrative ludicrous.” Michael Snyder has also published, “16 Unanswered Questions About The Las Vegas Shooting That The Mainstream Media Doesn’t Want To Talk About.”

Now, Sheriff Lombardo echoes that very story in saying, “Maybe he was a superhuman who figured this out all on his own but it would be hard for me to believe that.”

This statement affirms exactly what I wrote on Natural News just two days ago, saying, “The only way he could have carried out this shooting is if he were transformed into a human superweapon through a magic wand. I’m calling this ‘Mission IMPOSSIBLE’ because of the physical impossibility of a retired, untrained senior citizen pulling this off.”

The fact that law enforcement is now supporting the contention that Stephen Paddock did not act alone throws a curve ball to the FBI, which claims they somehow pulled of a miraculous investigation that cleared Paddock of ties to international terrorism groups, all in a record time of less than twelve hours. The astonishing speed of the FBI’s announcement confirms they are lying, of course. The FBI can barely complete an office memo in 12 hours, much less conduct an exhaustive investigation into international terrorism in that time frame.

Informed Americans, already suspicious of the FBI’s involvement in allowing Hillary Clinton to get away with committing multiple felony crimes via destruction of her classified emails, are now beginning to wonder whether the FBI is now actively covering up the truth about the Las Vegas Mandalay Bay shooting.

Caller on the Michael Savage show describes TWO shooters, including one who walked through the crowd, spraying gunfire in every direction

To date, dozens of eyewitnesses have gone public with their belief that multiple shooters were involved, spraying them with gunfire from multiple directions. Earlier today, a caller to the Michael Savage show offered intimate details into her harrowing escape under fire — (and unlike Hillary Clinton, this woman was actually under real sniper fire) — where she was forced to hide while others were gunned down all around her. According to this caller, a second gunman firing a distinctive “low-sounding” gun was walking through the crowd, spraying gunfire in every direction while approaching her concealed position.

You can hear her detailed audio description at MichaelSavage.com. In her own words:

There was somebody walking in the crowd, spraying their guns back and forth and shooting people, and he was getting closer. The shots would stop, the officer got up and walked out, and I heard his radio because I was right there, and we heard, “We have active shooters,” and then my officer who was protecting me said, “Where is he? Where is he? Do you see him? Is he behind us? Do you have a visual?

It sounded like somebody was actually walking from the crowd, from west to east, through the crowd and shooting, because everybody was going one direction, because there was no way out. Then they would stop, and there would be higher pitches, and then no sound, and then the sound would start again, and they were on top of each other… they sounded at the same time, and the one that was lower kept getting closer sounding to us… I’m thinking, Oh my God, it sounds like there’s somebody on the ground that is shooting… Mandalay Bay was on our right, and the girl that was standing right beside me got shot straight in her stomach, and how did this bullet come straight down and make a left turn and hit her in the stomach?

The FBI, of course, maintains the “lone gunman” theory, almost invoking the same cover-up logic ripped right out of the assassination of JFK. Yet numerous eyewitnesses on the ground continue to speak up with testimonies and firsthand accounts of multiple shooters.

Were you aware the FBI routinely plots mass shooting, bombings and acts of terrorism on U.S. soil?

Few Americans are aware that the FBI actively plots a wide assortment of domestic terrorism scenarios in the United States for the purpose of recruiting targeted individuals into taking part in the plot, then arresting them as “terrorists.” Remarkably, this shocking reality was documented by none other than the New York Times in 2012, which detailed the FBI’s terrorism “sting” operations while asking whether it is appropriate for the FBI to be engaged in the plotting, planning and pseudo-execution of such mass terrorism crimes.

Natural News has also covered the ongoing domestic terrorism plots that are schemed up by the FBI:

From 2011: FBI ‘entrapment’ tactics questioned in web of phony terror plots and paid informants

From 2012: FBI nabs five mastermind geniuses after teaching them how to blow up a bridge in Cleveland

From 2015: The FBI is amazingly good at halting terror plots dreamed up by the FBI

In 2013, the Kansas City City documented yet another astonishing story about the FBI ginning up its own mass murder terrorism plots, then inserting some hapless (often homeless) person into the driver’s seat just in time to be arrested and charged as a terrorist. That Kansas City Star article, authored by Ian Cummings, is entitled, “FBI undercover stings foil terrorist plots — but often plots of the agency’s own making.”

This pattern and history of the FBI dreaming up mass terrorism plots in the United States brings up the obvious question: Was the Mandalay Bay shooting actually schemed up by the FBI in an attempted sting operation gone bad? And is the FBI now attempting to cover its tracks to avoid the massive backlash that would ensue if the truth about such a monumental failure were learned? There’s no evidence yet to suggest the FBI planned this attack, of course, but the criminality of former FBI head James Comey — combined with the FBI’s current suspicious behavior and suspicious cover-up — have many people beginning to ask a whole new question: Is the FBI somehow complicit in this heinous crime?

(For the record, I personally know several retired FBI agents who are outstanding individuals, and many agents within the FBI are determined, courageous, pro-America patriots who would never go along with such a nefarious plot. However, as with any federal agency, there are also other sub-groups within the FBI who abuse their power and operate with no such ethics. And there’s no denying the FBI was recently headed by a traitor and criminal cover-up artist named James Comey.)

The FBI is also withholding critical evidence and lying to all Americans

The FBI, of course, is withholding critical evidence, just as they did following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, after which the U.S. government seized all security video tapes and held them in perpetuity, making sure the public would never see them.

Among the evidence items currently being covered up by the FBI and hidden from the public:

  • Ballistics details about the bullets recovered on the ground. What is their caliber? Are they all the same caliber? How many bullets have been recovered?
  • Where is all the expended brass that should be on the floor of the hotel room of the supposed shooter? Instead of thousands of pieces of expended brass, the media is so far reporting only “dozens” of pieces of brass. How can a shooter fire thousands of rounds of ammunition but produce only a few dozen pieces of expended brass?
  • Where is the video that we’ve all been told the shooter took of himself carrying out the shooting?
  • Where is the rest of the audio from the police breaching the door of Paddock’s room? The audio that has so far been released to the public ends abruptly just as the door is breached. We never hear the actual confrontation between police and Stephen Paddock.
  • Where is any supporting evidence to prove that Paddock shot himself in an act of suicide? Do the ballistics of the bullet in his head match his own gun? Why do many people suspect that Paddock was murdered and staged as a scapegoat by other military-trained or paramilitary individuals who actually carried out the sustained attack?
  • What other materials were recovered in Stephen Paddock’s hotel room? The FBI isn’t releasing any details, even though unconfirmed rumors claim that the room was filled with Antifa material. That could be disinformation, but why won’t the FBI confirm or deny it?
  • Why hasn’t the FBI told us how Paddock obtained his full-auto weapon? Was it self-modified in violation of federal law, or did he acquire it through the complex system involving the ATF, tax stamps and background checks?

Until the federal government starts sharing more details with the public, the real journalists of America — the independent media — will continue to ask legitimate, thoughtful questions about the tragic event that took the lives of 58 innocents. What We the People won’t stand for us being lied to yet again by an incompetent bureaucracy that seems to have been increasingly infiltrated by anti-American operatives who deliberately hide or destroy evidence in order to run their political narratives about the actual motivations behind the shooting.

Not only has America now arrived in an extremely disturbing moment in history where it’s no longer safe to attend an outdoor concert, but most of us have also lost any remaining faith in the FBI to tell the truth. (That credit goes to James Comey, a professional liar and deep state operative who covered up the crimes of Hillary Clinton and Obama regime officials such as Loretta Lynch.)

We pray for the victims of this shooting, and we honor the efforts of local law enforcement, first responders, and all the spontaneous heroes who helped save lives and shield the innocent. Now, we must get to the bottom of what happened, why it happened, and learn how to stop these dangerous, heavily medicated individuals before they strike again. And no, the answer does not involve stripping all the law-abiding citizens of America their Second Amendment rights.

Read Shootings.news for more updates as this saga unfolds.

 

%d bloggers like this: