What Happens in Vegas Stays In Vegas

Folks,

Tucker Carlson of Fox News is still covering the Las Vegas shooting,

On the other hand, the rest of the idiots in the MSM and political class have – quite suspiciously – dropped the Las Vegas shooting and their inane calls for gun control like a hot potato.

Inquiring minds want to know: why would they do such a thing, especially given their collective lust to seize arbitrary control over all guns?

I suspect it’s because their “investigation” has been totally compromised and their cooked-up narrative has totally fallen apart due to such absurdities as: (1) press conferences being given by a visibly nervous sheriff; (2) embarrassing timeline discrepancies and revisions; (3) confirmed reports of unilaterally wiping eyewitness cell phone videos and pictures clean; (4) allowing a break-in into Stephen Paddock’s house; (5) refusing to fully share the mystery note found in Paddock’s hotel room; (6) refusing to share any meaningful video footage of Paddock; (7) preventing serious reporters, like Laura Loomer, from being present and asking questions at press conferences; (8) and the strange disappearance and reappearance of Jesse Campos –  and his 8:00 minute long interview with MGM connected Ellen DeGeneres, where she all but announced the death of the narrative by ending the interview with the bizarre comment that Jesse would never tell his story again.

Moreover, the lone gunman narrative has crumbled by an emerging expert consensus – based on careful analyses of video and audio footage – that at least one belt-fed weapon was used and that at least two shooters were firing.

But arguably the biggest killer of the elite manufactured, gun-confiscation enabling “lone wolf” narrative is the avalanche of testimony from honest, intelligent, reliable and independent civilian and police eye-witnesses that there were multiple shooters at multiple locations:

Finally, something tells me the FBI and Las Vegas Police won’t be sharing their own audio, video, ballistic, forensic, and medical and autopsy reports any time soon.

The good news is that, by all appearances, the narrative is dead and with it the elite gun control agenda.  Both were killed by the rapid, internet mediated communication of facts and logic by honest folk who only want the truth.

The bad news is that a real investigation will probably never get done and we’ll probably never get to the truth of what happened.

I suppose what happens in Vegas is destined to stay in Vegas.

Best,

Joe

Advertisements

Netflix Wants to Corrupt Your Children

Folks,

The people who presume to rule us and shape our culture are sexual perverts and freaks who are systematically initiating us into their sex cult.  Well known deviants like Harvey Weinstein, Hugh Heffner, Bill Clinton, Jeffrey Epstein, Dennis Hastert, Tom Foley, Jacob Schwartz, Ed Murray, Larry Craig, Anthony Weiner, Victor Salva, and Roman Polanski are only the tip of the iceberg.  This helps to explain (the otherwise hard to explain) rapid and near complete success of the sexual revolution, recently culminating in so-called homosexual marriage.  But the public celebration of homosexual sodomy is not the end of the sexual revolution.  No, the freaks have bigger plans, plans that include the sexualization of children and their eventual absorption into the sex cult.  For the latest evidence of this, I give you Netflix’s new show “Big Mouth”,

Sick. Netflix is openly waging war against the purity, innocence and virtue of children.  You can learn more about the filthy agenda of the creeps at Netflix by reading the below articles.

https://vigilantcommunity.com/mediamadness/netflixs-new-show-big-mouth-pushes-the-sexualization-of-children/

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/09/26/creepy-new-netflix-show-sexualizes-children-pedophilia-runs-rampant-society/

Best,

Joe

 

Does Forensic Acoustic Analysis Prove There Was a Second Shooter?

Folks,

Mike Adams, The Health Ranger, has produced a video report on his forensic acoustic analysis of the Las Vegas shooting.  To make a long story short, based on the analysis he concludes that there had to have been a second shooter.  It’ll be interesting to see if other acoustic analyses tend to confirm or dis-confirm Mr. Adams’ analysis.  Moreover, it’ll be interesting to see how the nincompoops in the MSM respond and how the FBI and law enforcement authorities respond, especially given how they’ve been forced to revise their self-serving timeline to reflect the reality – uncovered by the alternative media –  that Paddock checked in before September 28th and shot the security guard before firing on the concert crowd.  Anyhow, be sure to watch The Health Ranger’s presentation for yourself:

For more expert analysis on the Las Vegas massacre, be sure to listen to the below interviews with former Army Intelligence officer James Wesley Rawles and former SEAL Craig Sawyers:

Whatever you think of the above videos one thing you can take to the bank is that the FBI and MSM are not telling you the truth and don’t care about the truth.  All they care about is building up their privilege, prestige and power.

Best,

Joe

The First Las Vegas Lie Publicly Exposed

Folks,

As reported here the other day, the official timeline for Stephen Paddock is false and a lie (the notion that the authorities made an honest “mistake” is laughably stupid).  He checked in on September 25th, not September 28th.  This lie would not have been exposed but for the intrepid efforts of the alternative media, as the bozos in the MSM can be counted on to only ask approved questions and regurgitate approved talking points.  Indeed, if not for the alternative media the official check-in time would have been tightly woven into the approved narrative and eventually taught in government run high school history classes.  Anyhow, here’s video of the authorities being forced by investigative journalists from the real media into admitting that Paddock checked in on September 25th,

This is progress.  But the bigger question remains: why did the FBI and authorities lie about Paddock’s check-in time, and why do they refuse to seriously address the apparent fact that he had a guest?  Let’s hope the alternative media can get to the bottom of that.

Finally, inquiring minds want to know: what else are the FBI and authorities lying about?

Best,

Joe

 

 

Have the Authorities Been Caught in a Direct Lie About the Las Vegas Shooting?

Folks,

According to law enforcement authorities and the FBI, Stephen Paddock checked into the Mandalay Bay alone on September 28th.  But a growing body of evidence – specifically, valet entries and a room service receipt –  indicates that he checked in as early as September 25th and that he had a guest,

https://www.prisonplanet.com/valet-entries-prove-paddock-checked-in-3-days-before-date-given-by-authorities.html

I wonder what else the authorities and FBI are lying about?  Anyhow, why would authorities hide the three day discrepancy and evidence of a guest?  Maybe it’s because there was more than one shooter and that (for some reason) is a problem for the folks running things.  Regarding that possibility, the MSM and authorities are doing their best to suppress it in the minds of the masses – mostly through lies of omission – but eyewitness testimony and other evidence about multiple shooters continues to spill out.  The latest eye witness report about multiple shooters comes from a young man named Gio Rios,

http://www.kitv.com/story/36515536/kauai-girl-survives-vegas-shooting

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/las-vegas-mass-shooting-eyewitness-there-were-four-to-five-shooters-attacking-multiple-hotels_102017

In closing, the evidence continues to mount that something smells about the Las Vegas shooting and that the authorities and MSM are lying to us by commission and omission – presumably in an effort to push and cement in the minds of the masses an approved (and self-serving) narrative about what happened on that tragic day.

Incidentally, I was quite surprised at the rotundity of the Hawaiian news team.  Apparently,  body standards for news anchors and reporters are markedly different in Hawaii.

Best,

Joe

How the MSM is Attempting to Conceal Reality and Get us to Uncritically Accept the Lone Wolf Shooting “Narrative”

Folks,

Rocky Palermo was wounded during the Las Vegas shooting.  Erin Burnett of CNN interviewed him,

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/10/04/rocky-palermo-las-vegas-shooting-survivor-bts-ebof.cnn/video/playlists/victims-and-heroes-of-las-vegas-massacre/

Basically, she gave a standard MSM emotion laden interview designed to tug at heart strings, manipulate people’s feelings, and distract folks away from thinking critically.  Put simply, Ms. Erin Burnett didn’t ask Mr. Palermo serious questions about the shooting.  I wonder why?  Maybe it’s because if she did CNN’s viewing audience would have been shocked into some serious thinking after hearing him say there were multiple shooters,

https://theblast.com/las-vegas-victim-multiple-shooters-theory/

Boy would his testimony have upset the approved “lone wolf” narrative which hardened into place within a couple of hours after the shooting.  Nothing to see here CNN viewers.  Move along.  The problem for CNN and the rest of the morons who pretend to be journalists is that in the age of electronic gizmos and gadgets, people’s testimony has a way of breaking free:

Eye Witness At Las Vegas Shooting States “There Were 7 Confirmed Shooters”

Exclusive: Eye-Witness Goes Against The Official Las Vegas Story

Vegas Shooting Survivor Witnessed Two Gunmen Slaughtering Innocents

Las Vegas: Bellagio Hotel Guests And Staff Confirm Multiple Shooters

What’s truly maddening is that instead of using their vast resources to do a systematic and independent investigation into what happened in Las Vegas – an investigation that would include serious interviews with eyewitnesses, casino staff, first responders, medical staff and various weapons, audio and forensic science experts – we get puff interviews and hastily written and logically fallacious articles designed to squelch all critical debate and discussion,

If only Linda Qiu would put on her thinking cap and do some serious research and investigating before telling us all that there’s “nothing to see here; move along ….”  But if she did that, she probably wouldn’t be working at the paper of record much longer.

The narrative comes first.  Then we cherry pick some facts to fit it.  Then we marginalize and mock anyone who asks questions.  Then we slowly tell some truth decades later. That’s the MSM modus operandi in a nutshell, and it’s on full display with the Las Vegas shooting.

I only hope I live long enough to see the multi-million dollar Ken Burn Jr. PBS documentary that finally tells us it’s okay to think there was more than one Las Vegas shooter.

Best,

Joe

Multiple Shooters?

Folks,

Eyewitness reports, police radio traffic, and expert analyses of video and audio from the Las Vegas shooting suggest there may have been at least two shooters and that a belt fed weapon was used (along with other cartridge fed automatic weapons).

Watch the below video and audio footage and commentary from a taxi cab driver from Mandalay Bay on the night of the shooting which seems to indicate at least two shooters (from the 24:00 min mark):

Here’s a five minute compilation of eyewitness testimony about multiple shooters:

Listen to former SEAL team leader Craig Sawyer’s analysis that multiple shooters were involved in the attack (6:13 minute mark):

Here’s another eyewitness report claiming multiple shooters:

An Aussie claims there were multiple shooters:

It seems the police thought there were at least two active shooters as well:

Finally, be sure to watch this analysis of video and audio footage from the Mandalay Bay shooting, as it suggests a belt fed weapon was used and that at least two active shooters were laying down simultaneous fire:

Interestingly, the police have acknowledge that Mr. Paddock probably had an accomplice and that he may have been “radicalized”.

Best,

Joe

A Lay Catholics Attempt to Understand the Main Controversy Surrounding Amoris Latitia

Folks,

Most faithful Catholics know about Pope Francis’s apostolic exhortation Amoris Latitia and the controversy surrounding it, especially as it pertains to the pastoral care of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics receiving the Eucharist.  The latest round in the controversy comes in the form of a letter – a filial correction – written by lay Catholic scholars which alleges that Pope Francis, by his actions and omissions, is propagating heretical interpretations of Amoris Latitia.  It is important to note that the authors of the letter acknowledge that Amoris Latitia can be given an orthodox interpretation and application.  Hence, they are not arguing – as some others have – that Amoris Latitia itself teaches heresy.  Rather, they are arguing against the propagation of heresies rooted in misinterpretations and misapplications of Amoris Latitia.

After reading the relevant sections of Amoris Latitia, the filial correction, and commentary from all sides of the debate, I offer my simple, inexpert summary of what the main issue appears to be.  That is to say, in what follows I present a simple and clear lay outlining of what appears to be the primary problem that should be understandable to faithful Catholics.  My purpose is to try my best to understand and clarify the main point of contention created by Amoris Latitia and the many interpretations swirling around it.  I make no pretensions at elucidating every problem surrounding Amoris Latitia, let alone solving any of them.

We start with a Catholic marriage.  The husband and wife separate and obtain a civil divorce.  At least one of the spouses (spouse A) civilly remarries and engages in sexual activity with his or her new spouse.  In Church language they live as husband and wife.  Objectively speaking, the new civil marriage is adulterous and mortally sinful. With the preceding in mind, there appear to be three possible paths to the Eucharist for spouse A (and similarly situated spouses):

Path 1: Spouse A simply presents himself to receive the Eucharist

Path 2: Spouse A goes to confession, makes a bad confession, and presents himself to receive the Eucharist

Path 3: Spouse A goes to confession, makes a good confession, and presents himself to receive the Eucharist

As I understand it, some faithful Catholics, like the authors of the filial correction, are essentially arguing (or fear) that Amoris Latitia is being misinterpreted and misapplied to normalize paths 1 and/or 2 – reception of the Eucharist by civilly remarried Catholics in the absence of a good confession – and that this is totally unacceptable, even heterodox, and that it threatens to undermine all of Catholic moral teaching and discipline and lead souls to eternal perdition.  Rather, these faithful Catholics seem to be arguing that only path 3 can be harmonized with Catholic teaching and practice.  Moreover, they would probably also argue that path 3 should be further modified to guard against scandal and protect and reinforce Catholic teaching on the dignity of the Eucharist and indissolubility of marriage:

Path 3a: Spouse A goes to confession, makes a good confession, and presents himself to receive the Eucharist in a discreet manner

My guess is other modified versions of path 3 are possible that would be acceptable to faithful Catholics who are concerned about questionable stuff that is being said and done in the name of Amoris Latitia.

In closing, the above represents a lay but educated Catholics effort to understand and clarify what the primary problem is with Amoris Latitia, it’s various interpretations, and the recently publicized letter of filial correction.  It goes without saying that I am am hardly an expert in these matters and may have entirely missed the mark.  Having said that, the experts should be aware of the messages getting through to the faithful –  the faithful flock who need to be fed, cared for and guided by their shepherds.

These are strange and confusing times for faithful Catholics and the Church’s leaders and Her supreme teacher, with one voice, need to authoritatively explain Church teaching and discipline on the sacraments of marriage and the Eucharist in a clear, concise and confident manner.  Souls are at stake.

Best,

Joe