Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Six insane snippets from the Vegas shooting police scanner broadcast

What happened to coverage of the Las Vegas shooting?

Mysteriously, the tragic events at a country music festival in Vegas one month ago seem to have fallen off the radar of mainstream media. Now we only hear about sex scandal after sex scandal involving Hollywood icons. There have been some rumblings of the US Congress failing to act on regulating bump stocks as if that will somehow prevent these kinds of things from happening in the future. Still, several weeks went by without a single mention of the event by most mainstream sources.

Perhaps there were too many holes in the official narrative of what happened that fateful night. Continued coverage only kept contradicting the facts on the ground. The story made no sense. So many things did not add up.

To illustrate this point, we can do no better than to examine the most compelling piece of objective evidence available: the police scanner broadcast. Eighty-seven minutes and four seconds of police radio chatter reveals more about the Vegas shooting than just about anything else. And upon close scrutiny, it becomes clear that what mainstream media was telling us was not the truth, plain and simple.

I won’t speculate on the motives here. Nor will I look for a trail of clues leading back to who did this. Theorizing will have no place in this post. All that will be covered in the words to follow will involve the exact details of what the police were recorded to have said that night, plus a minimum amount of commentary. No conjecture, no interpretation, no bull.

Let’s begin, shall we?

Six most inexplicable snippets

19:47 – “Confirmed two shooters…”

This contradicts the narrative that Paddock was the only shooter. Was he even a real shooter, or was he a patsy? This is the first time the cops mention multiple shooters. But it is not the last.

20:45 – “Victims going into a pentagram…”

 This is one of the strangest parts of the entire broadcast. Yes, it really says that. Don’t believe me? Go and listen for yourself. It seems to be totally out of context, and I have no idea what the officer who said that was thinking. What motivated him to say that, and what was he referring to? Of all the things that could possibly be said, why this?

There are people who claim that these kinds of events are ritualized sacrifices on some level. These people don’t have a shred of evidence to base such claims on. I never gave a second thought to that kind of talk – wrote it off as the typical Internet chatter. But after finding this passage, I began to wonder if maybe, somehow, there’s a kernel of truth in such conspiracies.

22:34 – 22:40 – “Sunrise with one furniture six enemies shall three cities…”

There’s no possible way to make any sense whatsoever out of this one. I don’t even know where to begin. The title of this post is “six insane snippets from the Vegas shooting police scanner broadcast”. I think this quotation, coupled with the title, speaks for itself.

25:49 – 25:57“Know control about three minutes ago a black duly unknown truck looked like a Chevy…”

26:34 – 26:50 – “…Chevy ripped out of parking lot…”

Here’s something that was never reported on the mainstream news, not even once. Black ops teams have been known to drive black SUVs. Of course, they would be fleeing the scene after doing their dirty work. Yet why did law enforcement not pursue these individuals, no matter whom they were? The cops say a black Chevy ripped out of the parking lot, but they never mention any pursuit. So they just let it go?

39:26 – 39:34 – “we’re going to put a shotgun facing the RV that the suspect is supposed to be in…”

What? The suspect is in an RV? Not only was this one not on the TV, this was not reported anywhere. I’m sure some other fringe tin-foil hat blogger like myself covered it somewhere out there on the Internet. But I sure as hell haven’t heard a damn thing about this anywhere else. Who was this mysterious individual in an RV, and what was he or she doing? Why did they have a shotgun facing the RV? Where was the RV and why was it there? None of this makes any sense.

Vegas shooting gets more and more peculiar

In summary, these six snippets from the police scanner broadcast that fateful night shed some light on the insanity of the official narrative. Just from these few moments alone, it becomes obvious that what mainstream media told us cannot be true in the slightest. At the very least, they have lied by omission. There are a few additional points to briefly consider in order to confirm this reality.

  • The windows on casino resorts like Mandalay Bay are equipped with pressure sensors. The slightest impact upon them sends an immediate alert to hotel security with the exact room number the incident happened on. We have to ask ourselves: how could it possibly have taken 72 minutes for law enforcement to reach the shooter(s) with this technology in place?
  • There were at least two shooters. The police scanner broadcast confirms this, as does the photographic evidence of two windows ten rooms apart being shot out.
  • There’s no possible way one man could have carried dozens of rifles and thousands of rounds of ammo to the 32nd floor of Mandalay Bay. They say he used the freight elevator. In any establishment, customers are not allowed to use the freight elevator. Why would they be? If this is true, how did no one find curious the fact that this guy had dozens of heavy bags that needed to be lifted up to his room, even though he was staying there by himself?

So many things do not add up. There are so many holes in the story of the Vegas shooting. We may never know what really happened that night. But we can know with absolute certainty that Stephen Paddock was not the only shooter and that he likely was a patsy. There’s no way he could have gotten the equipment to his room. The real perpetrators probably got away in the black Chevy that the cops somehow decided not to pursue.

 

 

Trump Russia fiction and Neo-McCarythism

For at least an entire year now, media has been obsessed with the alleged Russian influencing of the #2016 election.  Does the Trump Russia connection really exist?

This mysterious and elusive Russian or group of Russians allegedly turned the tide of votes in Trump’s favor. They did so by hacking voting systems, thus they somehow interfered. Or they hacked the DNC, exposing the crimes of Hillary Clinton, and leaked the info to Wikileaks. Or there was “collusion” between the Trump administration and some shadowy figures over there in Russia. No, wait, those same shadowy figures created fake Twitter bots and purchased advertisements on Facebook that somehow convinced people to vote for Trump.  Trump Russia connections are all around us.  The following comes from a Time article with the ridiculous and hysterical title, “Trump’s many many many many ties to Russia” From Time:

Russian intelligence agencies have allegedly recently digitally broken into four different American organizations that are affiliated either with Hillary Clinton or the Democratic Party since late May. All of the hacks appear designed to benefit Donald Trump’s presidential aspirations in one fashion or another.

What was it again?

Can you remember exactly what “they” did? Has it ever been articulated just who “they” are? Is there any evidence that anything like this ever really happened?

The short answer to all the above is no. None of it has any factual basis in reality. The entire drama has been created out of thin air.  The Trump Russia meme holds no weight.

To be sure, this is not an endorsement for the Trump administration, although it will surely be interpreted as such by those caught up in dichotomous thinking. More than anything else, this is an indictment of the most influential media channels in America today. Forging month’s worth of news coverage from pure and utter fiction is shameful at best. To this day, not a single shred of evidence has ever been presented to substantiate any of the outrageous claims that have been made. No proof exists that Russia had anything to do with the 2016 election. Founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange has joked about the state of Western journalism in 2017:

And this has nothing to do with any Russian citizen or politician. The entire narrative somehow assumes that Russia and America are adversaries. Why should this be the case? No legitimate reason exists.

A whole lot of nothing

I’m not defending Trump, or Russia, or any person or group. I’m simply pointing out that so many countless hours of media coverage have been devoted to something that doesn’t exist. It’s as if a major portion of the Western world has been transfixed upon an empty stage with no actors, watching with anticipation and curiosity as nothing happens. And all who witness this empty stage have recalled it to be a performance of something grand and told all their friends about it.

Perhaps I should create a play or musical about nothing, starring no one. I will create buzz by declaring that Russia plans to interfere in the production of this play. If this idea gets traction as the “Trump-Russia collusion 2016 election meddling” meme has, my play will prove to be the most profitable theatrical production in recorded history.

 

Vegas Shooting and the Coming Restrictions on Freedom

Three weeks prior to the largest mass shooting in American history, a mysterious thread on one of the Internet’s largest messaging boards appears to have foreshadowed the event. 4chan.org allows users to post anonymously. The user, who referred to himself as “John”, somehow seemed to have known in advance that a violent event involving large numbers of people was imminent within Las Vegas.  Did he have foreknowledge of the Vegas shooting?

He warned people who live in Vegas to stay inside and avoid large groups. He seems to have believed that something would happen on Sept.11th or soon thereafter. How could anyone know this unless the event was planned and coordinated in advance? Was this yet another false flag to justify further increases in security and decreases in freedom?  Is this an indication that the coming economic crisis draws nearer?

I recommend reading the 4chan.org threads in detail. They describe the true motives behind the Vegas shooting. There are people who stand to profit from this if new laws end up being passed as a result.

Other ominous warnings, unanswered questions

In addition, someone else apparently unconnected to the alleged shooter also had foreknowledge of the violence. Sky News reports that 45 minutes prior to the first shots ringing out, a woman walked through the crowd saying “you’re all going to die tonight”. She was later escorted off the premises by security.

There is a host of unanswered questions regarding the Vegas shooting. Images clearly show two windows being broken. The windows appear ten rooms apart. Police scanner audio indicates that law enforcement saw at least two shooters, which corroborates the audio recordings of multiple weapons firing simultaneously. Why did it take police 72 minutes to find the alleged shooter? The suspect has been widely reported as taking his own life. Yet why does CBS report that a veteran led the police to him, saying that they “took him out”? How does someone smuggle twenty-three large rifles with a thousand rounds of ammo into a hotel room without anyone noticing the extra luggage? Why have we not yet seen any video from inside Mandalay Bay? The list goes on.

Such a high casualty event necessitates extensive planning and training. There is no possible way that one lone lunatic somehow smuggled 23 rifles into Mandalay Bay and let off over 600 rounds within 9 minutes killing 59 people.

Vegas shooting used by some to promote political agendas

As happens all too often after such tragedies, politicians and others immediately began exploiting the incident to push their own personal agendas. Within less than twenty-four hours of the last shots being fired, Hillary Clinton and others were calling for gun control. Late Night hosts Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert echoed similar sentiments. Why do these people not speak out regarding the violence that occurs on a regular basis in cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, etc.?

Media and “alt media” psychological operations

Within hours of the Vegas shooting, Alex Jones and his Infowars team began reporting about the conspiratorial aspects of the event.

One needs only to have scrolled through the hashtag on Twitter #alexjones during Monday afternoon to see the scores of news outlets that immediately began tweeting the “conspiracy theories” of Jones and his followers. It’s as if a mockingbird sang a sweet song of a ludicrous nature that got picked up by other mockingbirds. They all joined in a chorus of the mockery of Jones, and by extension anyone else who questions anything about the official narrative of events.

What does all of this accomplish? One thing in particular: anyone who questions the official narrative becomes associated with these questionable characters, and therefore is seen in a similar light. All dialogue around anything related gets shut down by the many masses of people tuned into the mainstream matrix.

In addition, it plays right into the divide and conquer strategy being deployed on so many levels at present. Jones and his followers also continue to promote the baseless idea that the shooter had Antifa literature in his room.   But wait, wasn’t this a false flag perpetrated by someone other than the shooter? Such glaring inconsistencies make it difficult to take this joker seriously.

Conclusions

All indications are that the Vegas shooting was a false flag carried out by black ops agents of some sort. Who carried it out is not as important as what it will be used to justify.

It will be used as an excuse to increase security protocol and infringe upon our freedoms. Metal detectors and X-ray imaging machines and the like will become mandatory in public places. Everywhere you go may soon resemble airport security.

Already, the Rose Bowl is seeing massive amounts of security -in response to what, exactly? If the shooter indeed acted alone, and had no obvious motive, what need exists for increased security at all? If one assumes the official narrative is true, then the actions being presented as a solution to or response of this attack do not make any sense.

This is nothing more than another giant leap forward into a police state. The terrible tragedy is already being exploited to that end. We must stop giving in to this fear. How can the public allow themselves to be manipulated to this extreme?

Of course, mainstream news has begun to show all of the false flag mass shooting of recent years in succession, implying that “something must be done”. “How can we continue to do nothing?” they ask, either directly or implicitly. As if anything can be done in the first place, other than limiting freedoms.

That may be the easiest way to distinguish these false flags from genuine, spontaneous acts of violence and terror. When it was planned and coordinated by the power structure, calls for more laws and regulation and pleas to “do something” immediately follow the incident. Meanwhile, people get shot and killed day after day in large metropolitan areas (and other areas) and no one says anything at all.

My next post will cover the police scanner broadcast in detail. There are many shocking details revealed within. Evidence exists there that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the official narrative has no basis in reality. More to come on that later.

Real people died and were injured in the Vegas shooting. Let us pray for the victims and their families. We owe it to them to ask the hard questions, investigate the evidence, and get to the bottom of things.

Professor Punishes Students’ Freedom of Speech – What Would You Do?




Freedom of Speech

Another week, another freedom of speech related controversy.

The OC Register provides a summary of the event: 

“An Orange Coast College student who secretly videotaped his instructor making anti-Trump statements was suspended from school and told to write a letter of apology as well as a three-page essay about the incident.

The college suspended Caleb O’Neil for the current semester and the summer term, saying he violated a Coast Community College District policy prohibiting recording someone on district property without that person’s consent.”Again, a conservative has been silenced. Have you begun to recognize a pattern by now?

Meanwhile, a radical professor seems free to make claims such as “it is an act of terrorism” to have voted for one political candidate over the other.   And she argues as a result we are “back to being in a civil war”. She even went so far as to say those “leading the assault are among us”. This implies that voting for a particular political candidate makes one a terrorist. As of the time of this writing, she has not faced any consequences whatsoever.

Inappropriate Context

Keep in mind that this all happened during a course on “human sexuality”.  Speculating on what motivated this rant, during this class, is not my place.  Although, doing so might lead to very entertaining conclusions (dear writers at The Onion – here’s some prime material for you).

So what happened to this innocent student as a result of taping a portion of this bizarre lecture on “human sexuality”? As mentioned above, he was suspended for the entire semester and into the summer. He also has to write a letter of apology and a three-page essay.

Does the teacher have to apologize to conservatives in her class whom she might have horrified with her radical rant? It seems that’s not a consideration.

By the way, the student recorded the rant for the very reason that he was scared of what might happen if someone found out he was a conservative.

We have entered an era where a college student can’t help but wonder, “Is this crazy person going to lash out at me or bump my grade down if she finds out I don’t agree with her radical statements?”    

As a result, he recorded part of the lecture, not so he could post it online, but to bring it to the attention of the campus administration. Students posted the video online only after the administration failed to act:

“O’Neil took the video to leaders from the school’s College Republicans, who, joined by attorney Shawn Steel, complained to the campus administration. A week later, saying they were frustrated that the administration had not acted on their concerns of a teacher using her  classroom as a bully pulpit, the campus Republicans posted video clips online, where they quickly became national news.”

 Of course, no one on campus reacted to such statements. They agreed with the whole of the teacher’s rant, more than likely.

As a result, little recourse remains for a student placed in such a situation. He was faced with the choices to either make the video public or continue to be silenced and live in fear. William Becker, O’Neil’s attorney for this case, explained the situation quite well:

“This is an attack by leftists in academia to protect the expressive rights of their radical instructors at the expense of the expressive rights of conservative students on campus,” said Becker, president of Freedom X, a nonprofit dedicated to preserving religious and conservative freedom of expression. 

A host of recent instances similar to this one might fit the same statement. Take for example the raging protests against now former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos.

In addition, it speaks volumes that an organization such as “Freedom X” even needs to exist in the first place.

Constitution Under Continued Attack

We already have something dedicated to preserving religious rights and freedom of expression. It has existed for over two centuries.  The Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights serves this purpose.

Yet decades of social engineering and indoctrination have chipped-away at all aspects of the document that first made America great. Once a shining beacon of liberty and prosperity, America has now been reduced to a squabble of bickering children.

All this fighting only distracts us from bigger issues that affect us all. This fury ought to be directed, for example, at central bankers hell-bent on impoverishing nations through devaluation of central bank-issued fiat currencies. Or in the case of the European Union, impoverishing an entire continent at once by putting it under the control of a single central bank and currency.

Dangerous Ideas

We must do everything necessary to maintain what little freedoms we have left. Do not allow those who practice intolerance in the name of tolerance to silence you.

We must stop the association of populism with terrorism.  it’s already legal in America to imprison anyone suspected of terrorism without proof or trial.  Therefore, there can be few ideas more dangerous than this.

All in all, college campuses appear to be stifling freedom of speech more than nurturing it. True, filming a professor during a lecture is against the rules.  However, this professor was not lecturing at all. She was ranting – on an inappropriate topic, in a dangerous way. Outrageous assertions, like suggesting that an election was an act of terror, belong on a blog or social media site. Not in a college lecture regarding human sexuality.  One ought to be free to make such assertions, but not in a context where it threatens another’s expression.

It becomes difficult to discern who has the right to freedom of expression when one’s right silences another’s.

What do you think? Was the professor out of line?  What would you do in such a situation?

Should the student have been suspended? Should they both be tried for terrorism?

Leave your thoughts in a comment below.

 

 

Protest Against Breitbart Editor Heralds the End of Freedom of Speech

“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. – Voltaire

The timeless words of Voltaire have been lost on today’s populace.

It seems people prefer to riot, vandalize, and set things on fire rather than allow someone to express an opposing viewpoint.

Last week, Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to give a speech at the University of California at Berkeley. His speech wound up being canceled due to widespread rioting and violence.

People were smashing windows, setting fires, and throwing fireworks at police. What a way to fight against violence!

Outside Agitators

It’s important to note that many of these protestors were not students at UC Berkeley.   One can discern that much by the ninja-like apparel they were wearing. Dressed in all black with black bandanas or masks around their faces, these people incited violence on a magnificent scale. Who knows if they were paid provocateurs or just anarchists looking for a good time? Both scenarios seem plausible.

The following comes from ABC: 

“…But officials said it was a smaller group of protesters dressed in black and in hooded sweatshirts that showed up as night fell to break windows with metal barricades, throw smoke bombs and flares and start a large bonfire outside the building with a diesel generator.

“This was a group of agitators who were masked up, throwing rocks, commercial grade fireworks and Molotov cocktails at officers,” said UC Berkeley Police Chief Margo Bennet.

Bennet said police determined at that point they couldn’t guarantee security, canceled the event and evacuated Yiannopoulos from the building.”

All this was done in the name of preventing “hate speech”, on the grounds that it might incite violence. And get this – Yiannopoulos’ speech was supposed to be about the very topic of violent protestors shutting out alternative viewpoints and silencing freedom of speech.

One can almost taste the irony and hypocrisy.

What’s most disgusting about this demonstration of hatred and intolerance is that it was rewarded. The speech had to be cancelled because of the violence. The message was clear: throw a temper tantrum, mix in some provocateurs, and you can silence anyone you want.

President Trump weighed in on the night’s events with the following Tweet:

“If U.C Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

According to Breitbart, UC Berkeley receives almost half of all its funding from the federal government. So Trump’s threat, if more than mere rhetoric (doubtful), would be quite a serious one, having severe ramifications upon the operations of the university.

Although the violence that led to the cancellation of the speech seems to have been induced by outside agitators, at least in part, it still speaks to the sad state of freedom of speech in America that college students would have any part in such a thing.

From free speech areas to safe spaces

When I was in college (not many years ago), there was a “free speech area” on campus. People used this space for all kinds of things ranging from musical performances, promoting political ideas, advertising businesses, playing music and dancing, or ranting on a PA about some topic no one really cared about. Even religious fanatics would come on campus preaching their ideas to a less than receptive audience.

No one threw a fit about it. No violence or protests ever ensued. For the most part, people either listened or walked away. It was that simple.

While some people ridiculed the idea of a so-called “free speech area” on the grounds that all areas ought to be designated as such under the constitution, in retrospect that criticism pales in comparison to what has been happening as of late.

Instead of free speech zones, campuses now have “safe spaces”. These can be seen as the polar opposite of a free speech zone. It seems some students have grown so sensitive to opposing viewpoints that they cannot tolerate even entertaining thoughts that counter their own.

It’s as if, when encountered by someone such as a religious fanatic, instead of walking away, people now either break down and cry or respond with violence.

And when a speaker some people don’t like comes to campus, a violent riot ensues. In the past, people who didn’t want to hear someone just wouldn’t attend the speech. Perhaps they’d encourage others to do the same. Why does that option no longer occur to people in certain instances?

I have inkling as to why.

Indoctrinating Intolerance

If you listen to the enraged screaming of violent rioters, the same theme often comes up regarding why they just cannot let someone speak.

They say that misogynistic, racist, homophobic, etc. speech cannot be allowed. They argue this on the grounds that it might incite violence. The very kind of violence they engage in and promote against those they say will cause such violence.

This kind of behavior has come about as a direct result of the radical feminist brainwashing machine. Indoctrination on college campuses has been happening for years. And it seems to have reached a peak as of late. (See The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know — and Men Can’t Say)

This school of thought promotes hatred against so-called “privileged” members of society. For the most part, that includes white heterosexual males.  Hatred must not be tolerated. When it comes to white males, however, hatred is not only tolerated but also justified, righteous, and even necessary.

The hatred stems from beliefs about patriarchal hegemony. Entire books exist on the subject. Yet distilled to its purest essence, it can be seen as the idea that all of society’s injustices stem from imperceptible privilege that allows certain people power, thereby marginalizing others. These people are men, but not gay or minority men.

If inequality and injustice arise from a single group of people, what solution exists?

The answer involves a single word: genocide.

Yes, there are radical feminists out there who advocate for genocide of all white males. And even if they did not, the logical progression of this idea system cannot lead anywhere else.

It’s flawless logic from the perspective of such ideology. Get rid of white males, and society will become equal, harmonious, peaceful, and magical.

This general concept has been repeated throughout history.  It progresses from the scapegoating of one segment of the population.  While details differ, the general process looks like this: 1) All of society’s problems fall upon one specific group. 2) This group gets perceived as having all power. 3) Envy ensues, leading to rage and hatred. 4) Hatred gives way to silencing (the step we are at now). 5) Silencing then increases, either to marginalization or genocide.

Distraction Epidemic

One would think that with labor force participation rates near forty-year lows, national debt including unfunded liabilities exceeding $200 trillion, central banks impoverishing the world, and issues such as geoengineering destroying the entire planet,  we’d be able to stop fighting and focus on issues that affect us all.

Yet as long as education focuses on indoctrination, and mainstream news focuses on division, there will never be solutions to the direst issues that have a detrimental impact upon everyone. Most will never even think about such issues.

In short, hateful rhetoric inspires reprehensible behavior. When freedom of speech becomes silenced, the group doing the silencing become perpetuators of the exact type of hegemony they claim to be rallying against.

What do you think? Is it okay to shut down another’s scheduled speech because you disagree with them? Have we as a society become so obsessed with tolerance that we have become intolerant? And does rhetoric perceived as violent deserve to be silenced with actual violence?

Leave your thoughts regarding the current state of freedom of speech in a comment below.