Sunday, July 25, 2021

SGT

83974 POSTS 0 COMMENTS

An Open Letter to Women Who Want Gun Control

0

by Daisy Luther, The Organic Prepper:

Dear Women Who Are Fighting for Gun Control:

Please give me just a few moments of your time so I can talk to you, one woman to another. We truly do want the same things. This is not an attack on you or the things you believe in, but rather, a discussion of empowerment.

I am sure that your heart is in the right place when you tell us that guns should be banned for the good of humanity. You see the aftermath of horrific events like the Pulse nightclub shooting and the concert in Las Vegas and you are horrified. I am too. You are convinced that the world would be a better place with no guns at all. I am not.

You hear the impassioned pleas from celebrities like the ones in the video below and you are inspired to take action to make America a safer place.

But I hear this and the hypocrisy of it makes me sick.

These people in the videos who are begging for our Second Amendment rights to be abolished to do not have anything in common with women like you and me. They are protected by gated communities with armed patrols. They have burly bodyguards. They have monitored home security systems that would rival that of the Louvre. Many of them are insulated and protected in their homes, their cars, and when they’re walking down the street.

But are you?

Or do you have nothing more than a locked door and the hope that the police will arrive in time standing between you and a home invader? Do you put your keys between your fingers when you walk through a parking garage, hoping that if someone tries to rape you that you’ll be able to gouge his eyes with it an run screaming for help? What would you do if someone broke into your home and was heading to your child’s room with the intent of doing harm? Would you just hide and pray that the stall door of the bathroom you were hiding in didn’t get kicked open by the criminal who had just opened fire on the restaurant you were in?

What is your plan?

I believe that your premise (personal safety) is valid but your conclusion (gun control) is wrong.

I beg you to read the following with an open mind.

Hiding, calling 911, and hoping you can inflict enough damage to protect yourself from someone, bigger, stronger, and meaner than you is not much of a plan.

If you really, truly want to be safe, equal, and empowered, what you need to do is get a gun, learn how to use it, and carry it everywhere. Encourage your daughters to do the same. Treat your girlfriends to a day at the range instead of a day at the spa. Give your mom a gift certificate for shooting lessons. Campaign to banish gun-free, target rich zones and stop relying on a flimsy lock and 911 for your personal safety.

There is no greater equalizer against a culprit intent on doing you harm than a firearm in the hand of a woman who knows how to use it.

Let me share a personal story.

I can tell you from personal experience that my daughter and I are unharmed today because I was carrying a gun one night.

It was after supper when the dogs in the back began barking. A car had come down my long private driveway and pulled to a stop. I live way down a long country road, and my driveway is the last one on the road.  Uninvited visitors are extremely rare. We’re too far out there for the usual smattering of Jehovah’s Witness, little girls selling cookies, and neighborly drop-offs of homemade jam.

I looked outside and saw that two men had gotten out and approached my daughter while one waited in the driver seat of the car. My daughter, 15, was doing some of the after dinner chores. I had a bad feeling immediately. I knew it, because I was adamantly told by that gut instinct that doesn’t hint something is wrong, but pounds your heart like a drum to get your attention, and screams it inside your head. 

I stopped for just long enough to grab my loaded Glock 19 and for the first time since purchasing it, I racked the slide and chambered a round for a reason other than target practice. For the first time, I did so because of another human being. I did so because there were 3 men out there with my child and they were bigger than both of us. They were undoubtedly stronger, and we were outnumbered, and I knew that there was the potential for something bad to happen.

I stuffed the gun into the side pocket of my hoodie and hurried out. I asked the men brusquely, “Can I help you?”

One was the talker. He was bearded, overly friendly, and ingratiating. The other hung back. He was blond, thin, and moved constantly. I never got a good look at the driver due to the tinted windows in the vehicle. But I noticed the older, beat-up vehicle had no license plate. Another warning sign that this was not right at all.

The bearded one, the talker, told me that his vehicle was overheating and that they needed to come in and make a phone call. I said, “No, you’re not coming in.”

He asked if they could at least have some water.

I wanted to hustle my daughter into the house right that moment and lock the doors and call 911 and wait for a speedy rescue, complete with sirens and flashing lights.

But they were closer to my daughter than she was to me, so that was not an option.

I let them have a bucket of water, even though I could tell that the car was not overheating. There was no smoke, no sweet smell of antifreeze. The bearded one kept up a friendly patter the entire time, pretending that the radiator cap was hot, jumping back as if to avoid billowing steam that didn’t exist. While he pretended to work on the car, the antsy blond fellow was whispering to the driver. Without me bringing it up, the chatty one said, “Can you believe our license plate just fell off? If you noticed we don’t have one, that’s what happened. We just discovered it at the gas station.”

“Wow, that’s a shame,” I said, playing along. “They’ll charge you an arm and a leg at the DMV.”

I finally positioned myself to the point that I was between them and my child. Whether they’re 5 or 15, in moments when you fear for them, they are your precious child, and they are every age they ever have been and ever will be. Any person who has ever loved a child can easily imagine the relief I felt.

“You need to leave.”

The bearded one looked hurt. The blonde one looked watchful. I still couldn’t get a good look at the driver.

“I just need one more bucket of water and then we’ll be on our way,” the bearded one said, putting his hands out in a manner meant to calm me down.

“No. You need to leave now.” I put my hand firmly on the gun at my side.

Suddenly, there was a shift. I wasn’t the one backing away. The bearded guy slammed the hood of the car and walked slowly backward to the passenger side, while the blonde guy got in the back.

I never drew my firearm.

I never pointed it at them.

I never shot them.

But the very sight of my hand on the butt of it, and the fact that I was clearly determined to use it if necessary was all the deterrent that was needed in that particular situation.

Suddenly, a woman and a child were more than 3 grown men wanted to tangle with.

Suddenly, we weren’t weaker. We weren’t victims. We had the power to protect ourselves.

Read More @ TheOrganicPrepper.ca

Gun Violence Would Immediately Plummet If We Just Called Off the War on Drugs

from The Anti Media:

Ending the War on Drugs would have a significant impact on the number of gun fatalities across the board.

(FEE) — With the horrific shooting that recently took place in Las Vegas, debates over gun control have been given center stage in our media and politics once again.

And while every pundit seems to have their own surefire way of combatting gun violence, they all gloss over the elephant in the room. Which is, although mass shootings have taken on a repulsive popularity recently, the gun violence surrounding the War on Drugs has created more casualties than every mass shooting in the US combined. And despite the fact that these commentators tirelessly argue the merits and faults of one another’s ideas, one thing is certain; we can and should end the Drug War, immediately.

What the Numbers Say

News outlets and politicians currently promulgating their agendas would like you to believe that every public venue in America carries an overt risk of involving you in the next mass shooting. The truth, however, is quite different.

There has been an average of 32,000 gun fatalities in America each year from 2003 to 2010. Of those deaths, 63{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} were suicides and accidents, leaving approximately 11,000 homicides a year. Of which, more than 13{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} were gang-related. Of the remaining homicides, victims of mass shootings made up only 1.5{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} – equating to 0.1{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} of all gun deaths and 0.3{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} of all homicides.

Now, if we are to believe the intentions of those pushing for an end to gun violence, it should be glaringly obvious that focusing on mass shootings, an issue that is responsible for one hundred times fewer deaths than gang-related homicides is an illogical way of achieving their goal.

Luckily, the immediate and long-term effects of ending the War on Drugs would have a significant impact on the number of gun fatalities across the board. The most immediate of these would result from reducing the number of people who are imprisoned for victimless crimes, thereby drastically cutting the number of children who grow up in single-parent households.

Currently, 46{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} of our federal prison populations consists of non-violent drug offenders, while a massive 70{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} of gang members grow up in broken homes. Even if only 5{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} of those who are currently imprisoned for drug crimes return to have a positive impact on their families, that’s over 100,000 fewer recruits for gangs across the country.

The Drug War has created an endless cycle, whereby people unnecessarily are thrown in prison, often leaving children behind to grow up impoverished in single-parent householdsand far more susceptible to join gangs. In this way, the War on Drugs ultimately contributes to more gun violence, more people ending up in prison, and the perpetuation of a generational cycle.

Read More @ TheAntiMedia.com

A Political Realignment is Necessary – The Real Struggle is Liberty vs. Authoritarianism

0

by Michael Krieger, Liberty Blitzkrieg:

Until the American public ceases bickering amongst itself along Democratic and Republican or “left” vs. “right” lines, we’ll continue to be divided and conquered by authoritarians who wield tremendous power throughout both sides of the traditional political spectrum. This isn’t to say there aren’t real, meaningful differences between those who classify themselves on the “left” or the “right,” but it is to say there’s a much bigger battle afoot and nothing’s going to get better until we frame the new political reality for what it is. The most significant, existential struggle at play in these modern United States is a battle between Liberty and Authoritarianism, and it’s extremely important you know where you stand.

While the entire Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution is crucial to our civil liberties, no right is more significant than the First Amendment. If we lose freedom of speech, it’s game over for our society, and we have to understand that authoritarians on both the “right” and “left” are taking shots at freedom of speech as I write this. As such, differences between “right” and “left” should be deemphasized because if we lose the First Amendment, we lose everything.

A major political realignment is not simply a good idea, it’s absolutely crucial to the survival of a thriving civilization here in the U.S. The historical struggle we face today is not Democrat vs. Republican, or right vs. left, but Liberty vs. Authoritarianism. 

Let’s get started by highlighting an extremely creepy proposal recently published, titled, Fool Me Once: The Case for Government Regulation of “Fake News. One of the authors is Ann M. Ravel, who was previously a Democratic Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

For the most part, the proposal outlines how social media should be regulated in order to track and categorize how advertisements on the platforms are created and distributed. It’s not until the end that the authors’ more Orwellian objectives become apparent. They write:

Government regulations to help voters avoid spreading disinformation

Educate social media users. Social media users can unintentionally spread disinformation when they interact with it in their newsfeeds. Depending on their security settings, their entire online social network can see items that they interact with (by “liking” or commenting), even if they are expressing their opposition to the content. Social media users should not interact with disinformation in their feeds at all (aside from flagging it for review by third party fact checkers). Government should require platforms to regularly remind social media users about not interacting with disinformation.

Similarly, after a social media user clicks “share” on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires “actual malice”, defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.

Nudge social media users to not view disputed content. Lawmakers should require platforms to provide an opt-in (or, more weakly, opt-out) system for viewing disputed content and periodically remind users of their options. We think the courts should uphold this as a constitutional regulation of political speech, but we acknowledge that it is a closer question than the more straightforward disclosure regulations above. The most analogous cases are to commercial speech cases (AdChoices and Do Not Call Registry, which was upheld). Commercial speech receives less protection than political speech.

Think about how creepy all of that is. They want social media companies to warn its users when they’re apparently interacting with “disinformation,” which I assume government will enthusiastically define at a later date. Even worse, a simple warning isn’t enough for them, the authors actually want social media companies to warn citizens they might be exposed to libel laws if they share a particular piece of content.

As such, it becomes crystal clear that when it comes to libel laws some Democrats have a lot more in common with Donald Trump than they’d like you to believe. Which basically proves my point — there’s a lot more agreement between authoritarians on the “right” and the “left” than meets the eye. Both types want the power to control what you see, what you read and how you think. Don’t let political labels fool you, anti-free speech is anti-free speech whether it comes from a Democrat or a Republican. The real battle is Liberty vs. Authoritarianism.

If that’s not creepy enough, let’s take a look at what’s currently happening at Facebook. From the Bloomberg article, Facebook Is Looking for Employees With National Security Clearances:

Facebook Inc. is looking to hire people who have national security clearances, a move the company thinks is necessary to prevent foreign powers from manipulating future elections through its social network, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Workers with such clearance can access information classified by the U.S. government. Facebook plans to use these people — and their ability to receive government information about potential threats — to search more proactively for questionable social media campaigns ahead of elections, according to the person, who asked not to be identified because the information is sensitive. A Facebook spokesman declined to comment.

Job candidates like this are often former government and intelligence officials or contractors. The status can carry over to private-sector jobs, as long as the position still requires access to sensitive information. Previously granted clearances become inactive when intelligence workers leave government employment, but they can be reactivated on Facebook’s behalf, the person said.

Facebook is about to be swarming with CIA personnel, assuming it isn’t already.

Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg said last month that Facebook plans to add more than 250 people across its teams that deal with security and safety for the social network and to more than double the team working on election integrity. He also said the company would seek to work more closely with government officials to get information on what to investigate ahead of elections.

It’s common for private companies, such as military contractors, information technology and engineering firms, to hire employees with U.S. government-issued security clearance. Candidates with top-secret clearance have been in high demand for years.

These types of employees are needed when private companies interact and share information back and forth with government agencies. If Facebook is going to cooperate with intelligence agencies to identify potentially problematic ads and share that information with the government, it will likely need workers with security clearance.

I’m not sure how to describe the above, but free market capitalism it’s definitely not.

Moving along, this post wouldn’t be complete without pointing out how much Donald Trump, and in particular his deranged Attorney General Jeff Sessions, despises the First Amendment. Here’s some of what he had to say on the topic yesterday.

From The Hill:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday said he could not make a “blanket commitment” to not putting journalists in jail.

During testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) asked Sessions if he could pledge to not place “reporters in jail for doing their jobs.”

“Well, I don’t know that I can make a blanket commitment to that effect. But I will say this, we have not taken any aggressive action against the media at this point,” Sessions replied.

“But we have matters that involve the most serious national security issues that put our country at risk,” he said, “and we will utilize the authorities that we have legally and constitutionally if we have to.”

The comments from Sessions come after President Trump, unhappy with a story published by NBC News, said last week that network licenses should be challenged. While the major networks do not have licenses themselves, their local affiliates do.

Read More @ LibertyBlitzkrieg.com

REPORTS: HELICOPTERS MAY HAVE BEEN USED DURING LAS VEGAS MASSACRE, HEAVILY ARMED MEN SEEN GEARING UP NEAR HELICOPTER ON NIGHT OF ATTACK

0

by Alex Thomas, The Daily Sheeple:

A shocking series of videos have been released over the last week that have many believing that multiple helicopters were used during the attack on the Route 91 music festival in Las Vegas that left 58 dead and over 500 injured.

While it is obviously impossible at this time to conclusively say anything did or didn’t happen during the attack, the fact that authorities have openly lied multiple times about the massacre increases the likelihood that they are covering up something big.

Could the cover-up involve the fact that helicopter “gunships” fired down into the crowd of concert goers while other shooters conducted attacks on the ground as reported by 5 different witnesses?

The following series of videos, at the very least, paint a picture of this being a shockingly real possibility.

Most researchers and readers of alternative media were first introduced to the possibility that helicopters were used in the attack after a video was released that seemed to show muzzles flashes coming from a helicopter that is aimed in the direction of the crowd.

As I reported early this week, “In an investigation where each day seemingly gets weirder than the last, the latest shocking revelation in the ongoing cover-up of what actually happened during the Las Vegas Massacre comes in the form of video footage that may prove that victims of the attack were fired upon from the air.”

“Astonishingly, new footage has emerged that may show muzzle flashes coming from the helicopter in what looks to be evidence that a team was firing into the crowd from the air on that fateful night.”

While the above video is important in its own right, researchers then began to analyze other video footage from the night and amazingly also found possible evidence of helicopters being used in the attack.

An in-depth investigation of one of the more viewed videos of the attack as it happened seems to also provide more proof. It is important to listen to the following video multiple times as the evidence can be hard to hear.

Read More @ TheDailySheeple.com

TO GET HURRICANE REBUILDING MONEY IN TEXAS, CONTRACTORS MUST PROMISE THEY WON’T BOYCOTT ISRAEL

0

by Zaid Jilani, The Intercept:

IF YOU’RE A Texan looking to rebuild in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, you’d better not boycott Israel.

That’s the message being sent by the state, which has banned any contractor who supports the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, or BDS, campaign from receiving state funds.

If you’re confused why the two things are related, look to a bill that Texas’s Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law in JulyHouse Bill 89prohibits the state from entering into contract with a business unless it “does not boycott Israel; and will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract.” The law applies even to businesses that would refuse to buy products made in illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land — as it defines Israel as both Israel proper and “Israeli-controlled territory.”

To see how this law works in practice, check out a sample application for a Harvey rebuilding contract from the city of Dickinson, Texas. The contract includes a section that requires the applicant to verify that they do not currently boycott Israel and will not do so during the duration of the contract:

Texas’s law is similar to the Kansas law that went into force this past summer. Under that law, a teacher is being punished for following her Mennonite Church’s guidance to boycott some companies that do business related to Israel’s occupation of the Palestinians. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit, saying that the law is unconstitutional.

As part of its legal complaint, the ACLU is citing the 1982 Supreme Court decision NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. This case revolved around a group of NAACP activists and others, who boycotted certain white merchants over demands for desegregation. The white merchants took legal action to attempt to recoup damages from the boycott. The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, which unanimously decided that the government can’t prohibit politically motivated boycotts.

“It is absolutely unconscionable for state and local governments to impose political litmus tests on disaster relief funds for people devastated by Hurricane Harvey,” Brian Hauss, an ACLU staff attorney based in New York, told The Intercept. “In this case, the City of Dickinson seems to be enforcing a Texas law that requires any state contractor, apparently including disaster relief recipients, to certify that they are not participating in boycotts of Israel. Like the law we challenged in Kansas, Texas’s law clearly violates the First Amendment. The government should not be denying disaster relief funds based on people’s political beliefs. We urge anyone asked to sign this certification to contact the ACLU of Texas.”

Read More @ TheIntercept.com

Coverup Questions Emerge Over Vegas Security Guard’s ‘Ellen’ Appearance

0

from ZeroHedge:

Following his sudden re-appearance on The Ellen Show after vanishing for 6 days, numerous questions remain unanswered about Mandalay Bay shooting hero Jesus Campos’ timeline and perhaps more concerning stil is that The Daily Mail reports that he was pressured into giving his only interview to Ellen DeGeneres because the giant company that owns the Las Vegas casino feared he would spill the beans about the shooting timeline if he was grilled by real journalists.

As we detailed previously, Campos had originally agreed to do five interviews, all on Thursday last week, but suddenly went missing,his union boss, who was helping set up the deal, told DailyMail.com in an exclusive interview. David Hickey, president of the Michigan-based International Union, Security Police and Fire Professionals of America, would not confirm that MGM was behind the decision, but said the company certainly influenced Campos.

‘I was in a meeting with MGM’s upper management and they were definitely concerned about how tough someone like Hannity would be on him and they voiced their opinions,’ Hickey said.

He said all sides had agreed parameters for the interviews. ‘Everyone knew he wasn’t to talk about security protocols, staffing or training or give out names of employees.’

But he said the company — that, like most of Vegas’s casino industry, obsessively controls what employees are allowed to say to the media — was pressuring Campos not to give too much away.

‘I thought they were being negative, telling him that someone was going to be tough and how they were worried about his health — it wasn’t the thing he needed to hear four hours before the interviews were going to begin.’

Hickey said he met with the MGM executives at a location in Las Vegas where Campos was staying. They met in the living room but he wanted a word with some of the management team in private so they went into the bedroom.

When they returned, Campos had gone, and Hickey said he hasn’t seen or heard from him since. The next thing he knew the security official had bailed on the five interviews.

Then he learned on Monday that instead of appearing on a news show he would go on Ellen.

‘It certainly wasn’t my choice that he should appear on that circus,’ Hickey told DailyMail.com.

Read More @ ZeroHedge.com

Nick Giambruno on the War on Cash and the Future of Cryptocurrencies

0

by Nick Giambruno, International Man:

Financial repression is a devious tactic.

At some point, every heavily indebted government uses it. It’s inevitable. And no entity on the planet is more indebted than the US government.

So, understanding what financial repression is and how to protect yourself from it is critical—whether you live in the US or any other indebted country.

Financial repression is a big umbrella term. You’ve probably heard it thrown around. Here’s a refresher from the Financial Times:

Financial repression is a term used to describe measures sometimes used by governments to boost their coffers and/or reduce debt. These measures include the deliberate attempt to hold down interest rates to below inflation, representing a tax on savers and a transfer of benefits from lenders to borrowers.

Financial repression is also used to describe measures to facilitate a domestic market for government debt and the imposition of capital controls. The combined effect of all these measures means funds are channeled to the government that would otherwise flow elsewhere.

The Financial Repression Authority recently had me on their show to discuss how this is playing out right now.

I’m sharing our discussion below.

If, like me, you value privacy and personal liberty, you won’t want to miss it.

Financial Repression Authority (FRA): Let’s begin with your thoughts on the war on cash. Where do you see that trending?

Nick Giambruno: I’m not going to mince words. The war on cash is evil. It’s an all-out assault on your privacy.

George Orwell once wrote, “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.”

Not exactly a cheery thought. Unfortunately, we may be headed toward this dark future… and soon.

It’s a world where privacy is dead, where the government knows everything about you. And we’re almost there.

The government already knows what you watch on TV, what you read on the internet, whom you call, and everything you do on your smartphone and computer.

It has a record of every penny you’ve ever earned, saved, borrowed, or spent. It knows where you’ve been, where you are, and where you’re going.

This is all possible thanks to the mountain of laws and regulations that sprouted from the war on (some) drugs, the war on terror, and so forth. Over the years, these schemes have incrementally destroyed your privacy.

Now, with the war on cash, the government is going in for the kill.

There’s not much about your life the government doesn’t already know. The last vestiges of privacy may vanish very soon. Once that happens, governments will have almost unbreakable control over the individual.

This is exactly the opposite of how a free society should work.

The war on cash does not protect you from drug dealers or terrorists. It only helps the government seize more power. This is why proponents of big government reflexively support it.

There’s also a psychological aspect to this relentless anti-privacy campaign. The government and its media allies have convinced the average person that “privacy” is a dirty word.

They’ve duped people into believing that only criminals and wrongdoers want privacy. “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about,” as the popular, but wrongheaded, adage goes.

Many have forgotten that privacy is fundamental to preserving human dignity and protecting individuals from government overreach.

Financial privacy is by far the most demonized aspect of privacy.

This is a huge clue. Governments wouldn’t hate financial privacy so much if it weren’t so important to individual liberty.

Politicians around the world see people as milk cows. They merely exist to be squeezed to the last drop. That’s why politicians are so eager to kill financial privacy. They’re building a giant tax farm and erecting electric fences to keep the cows and their milk from escaping.

Overzealous governments have been attacking financial privacy for decades. Now, they’re within striking distance of killing it once and for all.

The war on cash is their final push.

The death of privacy in general, and financial privacy in particular, will have far-reaching sociopolitical consequences. It will irrevocably skew the balance of power in favor of the government and against the individual.

I call it “the new feudalism.”

A world without privacy is a giant step backward for human freedom. It’s the new Dark Ages that Orwell grimly predicted.

That’s why the war on cash is such a disturbing trend. But it’s a growing trend, nonetheless—not just in the US, but around the world.

Read More @ InternationalMan.com

“Maximum Devastation” Homeland Security Chief Says ISIS Is Planning To Bring Down Planes In “New 9/11” Style Attack

0

by Alex Thomas, SHTFPlan:

ISIS is currently plotting a “new 9/11” style attack that would once again see American planes brought down in order to cause “maximum devastation” warned acting Homeland Security Chief Elaine Duke.

Speaking during a stop at the US embassy in London, Duke claimed that recent intelligence has shown that the terror group wants a “big explosion” like that of 9/11 rather than the horrific but geopolitically minor attacks seen in recent years.

“The terrorist organizations, be it ISIS or others, want to have the big explosion like they did on 9/11 . They want to take down aircraft, the intelligence is clear on that,” Duke said before going on to also warn that ISIS has in no means abandoned smaller scale attacks.

“However, in the interim they need to keep their finances flowing and they need to keep their visibility high and they need to keep their members engaged, so they are using small plots and they are happy to have small plots.”

Duke went on to add that the increase in smaller scale terror such as van or knife attacks doesn’t mean the group has given up on aviation.

“Creating terror is their goal and so a van attack, a bladed weapon attack, causes terror and continues to disrupt the world – but does not mean they’ve given up on a major aviation plot.”

According to the UK’s Mirror, Duke went on to say:

Mrs Duke went on to add that terrorists could use a laptop to blow up an aircraft – and is just one of many threats facing airlines all over the world.

She added that it was important to target terrorists in their homes, keep them moving and fearful of attack, therefore allowing them less time to sit and work on bigger plots.

She said: “We have worked on some strong measures that we can’t talk about. We are trying to play the away game and that is working against them in their terrorist safe havens and homes.

“We do have some terrorist groups on the move, you just saw the take-over of Raqqa and so if we can keep them declining and moving they have less time to sit and prepare.”

In the past most in the alternative media would question whether information coming form the homeland security chief should be trusted so despite the fact that Donald Trump is obviously president there always runs the risk that information such as this could be used to sway and scare the public into accepting further wars.

Read More @ SHTFPlan.com

Are MGM & Mandalay Bay Calling the Shots on what is Being Released to the Public and What Isn’t?

0

by Tim Brown, Freedom Outpost:

A Las Vegas shooting survivor and California attorney believes the MGM and Mandalay Bay are behind the scenes calling the shots on what is released to the public and keeping the American people in the dark concerning serious questions that should be addressed and specific video evidence, along with documentation that would reveal their part in allowing alleged shooter Stephen Paddock to be holed up in the Mandalay Bay hotel before the deadliest mass shooting in American history.

On Thursday, Brain Claypool of Claypool Law Firm, joined me on The Sons of Liberty radio show to talk about what he experienced and specific questions he has with regard to the transparency, or lack thereof, which we are receiving from the investigation into the shooting.

You can listen to the podcast of the show by clicking here.

According to Claypool, who is representing at least one Vegas shooting victim and is willing to represent others to have the truth come out, he believes there is a massive coverup that is being orchestrated by MGM and Mandalay Bay and has good reason to believe so.

“It is my belief that the MGM/Mandalay Bay is tampering with evidence and concealing crucial evidence,” said Claypool.  “The MGM changed the timeline by altering the 9:59 ‘manual’ entry of when security guard Jesus Campos said that he was first shot at my Paddock.  The fact that Jesus Campos has oddly vanished since the shooting strongly suggests that MGM is hiding evidence and is worried that Campos will tell the truth about when shots were first fired.”

“Why is MGM hiding Campos?” he asked.  “They are manipulating him and the evidence to minimize liability. Where is the 9:59pm manual entry. Why hasn’t the public seen this entry? Why is nobody being transparent in the investigation? When people are shot by police officers and they have either dash cam or body cam video it is now routinely released to the public to promote transparency.”

Claypool also targets the failure to release surveillance video that Mandalay Bay has.

“Here, we have the worst mass shooting in the history of our country and not a single person both in law enforcement or political is demanding the release of surveillance video of Paddock in elevators and otherwise to help the grieving public get answers to crucial questions,” he said.

Claypool also asks about housekeeping records for Paddock’s rooms.

“Why hasn’t MGM released housekeeping records to prove that Paddock’s room was cleaned and nothing out of the ordinary was noticed?” Claypool questioned.  “What hasn’t anybody in the US asked for a security task force to dig into this and conduct an ‘independent’ investigation?”

Read More @ FreedomOutpost.com

Intellihub Exclusive: On scene investigator banned from Mandalay Bay, MGM, for life AFTER HE DISCOVERED THIS!

0

by Shephard Ambellas, Intellihub:

A comprehensive investigation with pictures from inside the Mandalay Bay after the Las Vegas shooting

LAS VEGAS (INTELLIHUB) An independent investigator working on the Las Vegas shooting case was staying at the Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino when he was abruptly and ‘formally trespassed from all MGM Resorts International Properties’ within 24 hours of his check-in.

The investigator, who likes his anonymity, goes by “@Nick_Falco” on Twitter and has posted a series of tweets confirming his claims that he was indeed banned from the property ‘for life’ by MGM management around 7:30 p.m. Saturday evening.

Falco told Intellihub exclusively that he received a phone call from the front desk of Mandalay Bay shortly before 7:30 p.m. in which a female operator instructed him to answer his hotel room door where four men (two armed guards, a security guy, and an FBI agent) simultaneously met him. Falco was then told to pack up his belongings before the FBI agent conducted a subsequent inspection of his room.

Soon after the independent investigator says that he was then escorted over to the main entrance of the Mandalay Bay where a security guard stood him in front of a camera and verbally read him the trespass.

 The lobby inside of the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Resort Las Vegas. (Prayinto/Flickr)
The lobby inside of the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Resort Las Vegas. (Prayinto/Flickr)

During Falco’s visit, he was able to prove that leaked online version of Stephen Paddock’s room service receipt was, in fact, “authentic” after comparing it to a receipt he himself received after ordering room service Saturday morning.

Doing a better job than most actual career journalists, Falco also reported that “there’s a surveillance camera in each main elevator” of the Mandalay Bay and added that there is “nowhere to hide.”

During his short-lived investigation, Falco dispelled online rumors that ‘Paddock used his girlfriend’s employee ID to access the fright elevator’ which is inaccurate because the buildings freight elevator doors are not secured nor do they have a sign posted on them restricting the general public from entering or using them.

‘Some People have said Paddock used service elevator w his girlfriend’s ID — this is FALSE,’ Falco tweeted.

Read More @ Intellihub.com