The investigation of the shooting in Las Vegas continues. A crime scene so massive and with so many different scenarios will be completely covered and no question will go unanswered. Sheriff Joseph Lombardo is doing a masterful job and both he and other investigators have worked countless hours attempting to find out the what and why of what happened.

As always, we will not get all the answers that the American people are seeking. In the aftermath of the worst mass shooting in American history it is imperatives that the answers are clear, concise and honest. I am convinced that at the end of all the investigations, and the media has moved on to the next major story, there will still be questions about why this happened and how did it happen.

Questions remain, some may be just conspiracy and some may be factual. In either case, they are questions that need to be answered. One question is that the authorities are stating that Paddock did not check in until September 28th. A question arises when individuals who work at the Mandalay Bay assert that Paddock ordered room service on the 27th for two people. Who was that other person and why are authorities stating that Paddock did not check in until the 28th? Sources at the Mandalay Bay are claiming that Paddock actually checked in on the 25th.

Paddock, an out of shape former accountant with no military training is not capable of pulling this off by himself. With no experience in guns, ho could he have fired as rapidly and accurately as he did. As a military veteran and have experience with fully automatic weapons, they can be hard to control, jam easily and tend to overheat. Using an automatic weapon effectively takes extensive training and experience in the use of such weapons. Being a retired accountant senior citizen, I do not understand how Paddock had the skill or the stamina to fire for so long.The overheating is also a reason why suppressors (silences in Hillarys vernacular) are never used on such weapons. They have a tendency to melt and more quickly jam the gun.

How is law enforcement convinced that there was only one shooter? There are pictures that clearly show rifle fire from a lower window. And why are there recordings of law enforcement talking of another possible suspect on the fourth floor?

At the scene of the crime, why were all the exits blocked. Those 22,000 happy concert goers found themselves trapped, with ability to get out or to seek cover. The ten foot walls kept the multitude of people in the fire zone with no way out.

I have been to Las Vegas many times, living in Southern California and I can not understand how anyone, much less Paddock can carry so many weapons and ammunition into a room without being seen.

Even Trey Gowdy, the no nonsense Representative from South Carolina is skeptical. In Rep. Gowdy’s words, he is skeptical that the amount of premeditation  and can not believe that a single person could have done this without assistance.

Further questions include: why so many rifles and weapons if there was only one shooter. Were the rifles that were there for another shooter? Were they all Paddock’s weapons and was he funded by others to have that so many weapons?

Paddock was found dead in his room by a self inflicted gunshot wound. Law enforcement states that he shot himself when they blew the door open to his room. Is there a ballistic report on the bullet that killed him that will close out that part of the investigation?

The broken windows on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay are the supposed site where the firing of the bullets that killed 58 people took place. Automatic weapons have a very pronounced flash, why were there no flashes from the 32nd floor? I have not heard whether flash suppressors were used, but even then there would be some flash. There are purported to be flashes from the 4th floor, but that has not been confirmed. The audio of the online videos and other videos it clearly be heard overlapping gunfire from two different weapons. Barring any further explanation, how can Paddock be responsible for all the carnage.

Paddock has no criminal history in either federal, state or local law enforcement.  He had no affiliation with any activist group that is known of, although there are reports that Antifa literature may have been found in his room. Paddock was not politically active, or even religiously affiliated. Paddock did not have the ability of the meticulously planning, coordination or funding an attack such as this.

The final question I have is – has the Australian man,  Brian Hodge,  who was in the room next to Paddock been interviews and will that investigation be made public? He as stated “There were multiple shooters, and this same gentleman also provided information about the shooting that took the life of a security guard, supposedly shot by law enforcement.

Or another witness also from Australia, Wendy Miller who was staying next to the Mandalay Bay at the Luxor, where she described the security police chasing a Security Guard, or someone dressed as one, down the escalator that comes from the Mandalay Bay to the Luxor. Is there any information about this being given to the public about this.

These are questions that may be factual and need to be cleared by the end of the investigation. There are those that are already declaring this a “false flag” operation that is meant to lead to further gun control and eventually to a civil war. Hopefully Law Enforcement, both local and federal are aware of all these anomalies to the description they want the public to believe. Attention must be paid to those who are doing the investigation. 

Views: 7

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service