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: 22

Comment

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

Join Tea Party Command Center

LIGHTER SIDE

ALERT ALERT

Clinton Donor And Tax Cheat Tied To Russia

“Do as we say, not as we do.”

That seems to be the slogan for Hillary Clinton and her political allies, and it’s especially apt in light of new information about one of Clinton’s largest campaign donors.

While the left is still trying to attack President Trump and his family over unproven business dealings and largely debunked connections to Russia, a new report indicates that it was Hillary Clinton’s team who were doing those exact things.

“Fox News has learned that one of the top donors to the ‘Hillary Victory Fund’ (HVF) in 2016 was a Los Angeles-based attorney who is alleged to have misused company funds to create his own $22 million real estate portfolio,” that outlet reported on Thursday.

“He has also been considered by California to be one of the state’s biggest tax cheats, and allegedly has ties to the (Russian) Kremlin,” Fox continued.

The man’s name is Edgar Sargsyan. His deep pockets greatly benefited Clinton’s campaign, with contributions of at least $250,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund in 2016.

He was also in charge of an elite fundraising dinner to benefit Clinton, where donors paid $100,000 per couple just to attend the ritzy event. But in true Clinton fashion, the money apparently went missing.

Sargsyan is now “being sued by his former company for allegedly diverting those funds to start his own real estate company,” according to Fox.

Now, people are asking hard questions about Clinton’s buddy Sargsyan, including whether his contributions were part of a pay-to-play scheme and if he had shady connections to foreign governments.

“Nobody gave to the Hillary Victory Fund out of the goodness of their heart or some generalized desire to help 33 random state parties,” pointed out attorney Dan Backer from the Committee to Defend the President.

“They did so to buy access and curry influence — something the Clintons have been selling for nearly three decades in and out of government,” he continued.

Trying to buy political influence is sadly common, especially when it comes to the Clintons. What is raising more red flags than normal, however, is the evidence that Sargsyan is no run-of-the-mill campaign donor.

“The really scary question is, what did this particular donor with this strange web of connections hope to buy for his quarter-million dollars?” Backer asked Fox News.

That web of connections is strange indeed.

The Committee to Defend the President is now alleging that SBK, a major Sargsyan-linked company “is an investment firm that is affiliated with United Arab Emirates president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, and its international affiliate has business interests in Russia,” according to Fox.

“Among its dealings was a bid to finance $850 million for a major bridge project to connect Crimea with Russia,” the group claims.

“He worked for SBK, and SBK appears to have bid on some Crimean/Russian bridge project,” Backer said. “That’s usually an indicator of political favor and connections.”

It raises several chilling questions: Was Sargsyan paying a quarter million dollars to Clinton for political favors, and — more disturbingly — was that money actually from sources in Russia in order to smooth the way for its construction plans?

Nobody knows for sure. What is clear, however, is that there is a pattern of dirty money surrounding the Clintons, with the “Uranium One” and “Clinton Foundation” scandals just two of the most well-known examples.

“It reinforces how fast and loose the Clinton machine was when it came to ‘Hoovering up’ these megadonor checks, not just from questionable Hollywood and Wall Street elites but potentially from foreign influence peddlers using who knows what money,” Backer told Fox News.

“It reinforces the need to take a long hard look at not just the unlawful money laundering process, but the way in which they were solicited as well,” he continued. “The Clintons have never shown a great deal of concern for whomever it was cutting the checks — whether it’s foreign influence peddlers or Hollywood smut peddlers like Harvey Weinstein.”

If those claims are even partially true, then America dodged a bullet in November of 2016 — and it’s worth keeping the pile of foreign-connected Clinton scandals in mind the next time the left tries desperately to tie Donald Trump to Russia. Perhaps they should look in the mirror.

SLAVEHOLDER??

Washington Post Compares
Jeff Sessions To Slaveholder’

The Washington Post compared Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “slaveholders” after he quoted the Bible on Thursday while discussing his department’s policy of prosecuting all illegal immigrants who cross the border.

Sessions made the statement during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

WaPo ran a story entitled “Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families” by general assignment editor Keith McMillan and religion reporter Julie Zauzmer on Friday.

Rather than detailing the statistics Sessions cited in the speech that explain the immigration policy, the story quoted John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.

“This is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made,” Fea said.

Sessions spent much of the speech discussing the numbers behind current immigration policy, including separating families at the Southwest border.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said.

“Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

“The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute aliens if they came with children,” Sessions said.

“It was de-facto open borders if you came with children. The results were unsurprising. More and more illegal aliens started showing up at the border with children.”

Sessions laid out the numbers in the speech.

“In 2013, fewer than 15,000 family units were apprehended crossing our border illegally between ports of entry in dangerous areas of the country,” he said.

“Five years later, it was more than 75,000, a five-fold increase in five years. It didn’t even have to be their child that was brought, it could be anyone. You can imagine that this created a lot of danger.”

The U.S. has the “opportunity” to fix its broken immigration system now, Sessions said.

“I believe that’s it’s moral, right, just and decent that we have a lawful system of immigration,” he said. “The American people have been asking for it.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service