Las Vegas Massacre Truth Exposed!

The following sentences are the opening remarks in a new article explaining why we've not heard the truth behind this tragic event.

The “official” narrative you’ve been fed by the FBI and Las Vegas officials about the massacre at Mandalay Bay that claimed 58 lives is purely fiction, a polished story contrived to cover up the disturbing facts surrounding the worst mass shooting ever in the United States, according the FBI insiders and high-ranking intelligence officials.

And now, after months of corporate-infused spin by MGM Resorts and outright lies from officials in the FBI and the Las Vegas Metro Police Department, federal agents and intelligence officials are spilling the beans about what really happened on and before the Oct. 1 massacre.

“It’s a movie script that was written after the shooting to rewrite what really happened,” one FBI agent said. “The investigation is an entirely different story that we are not allowed to talk about. If we do and get caught, we get fired and probably charged (criminally).”

But why the cover up?

The answer to that is perhaps even more complicated than the revelations surrounding the shooting, which can only be explained as shocking and troubling to everyday Americans not connected to the law enforcement community and political machine that has become today’s FBI. While few if any bright Americans believed the official back story of the supposed Stephen Paddock rampage, the truth — it turns out — is even more bizarre than fiction here.

In fact, it’s downright frightening.

Now, you may be thinking, "Oh sure, this is just another piece by someone with a conspiracy theory in their parent's basement sitting in his pajamas making up some story." Okay, granted this has occurred in the past in some instances, but just think about this... what's been the past administration's standard position whenever anyone connected to the Islamic faith, or Muslims? How have they handled it?

As you read through the rest of the article's points beyond what I've inserted from it above, ask yourself why, what are the reasons behind such a cover up? What other revelations have we already, and most likely will in the future, learn the past administration has engaged in in the way of a cover up?

More importantly, these revelations uncover a culture within the F.B.I. of intimidation and threats to agents within the bureau attempting to do the job they were hired to do, find the truth. Why are superiors in the F.B.I. doing this? To quote Pres. Obama, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide." - Barack Hussein Obama, - August 21, 2010. Also, a month ago Tucker Carlson's show had the attorney for victims and a congressman from Pennsylvania on about this very issue... watch that exchange here; very interesting!

Here's why I believe this is happening. If you read through the list of 45 goals of the Communists in the U.S., you'll find goal #35 is being worked on through this incident. The F.B.I. is being deliberately discredited and made to look bad in the eyes of the public via these revelations. I wonder, is this the "Deep State" pulling strings? No, I'm not a former F.B.I. agent, just a retired teacher who loves his country which have given him and its citizens the freedoms and liberties everyone else in the world risks their lives to be part of by whatever means possible to them. I believe there is truth to the saying, "History repeats itself.", just think about the new facts which have come out of the released documents on the JFK assassination of 1963 when I was in 5th grade.

It will be most interesting to learn what new information comes out of this site's ongoing investigation on this matter.

Single Payer Health Care

The problems of a single payer health care system have been with us for longer than most Americans  know, or will admit. 

With the recent experience of Obamacare and its ramifica-tions, this issue came to the forefront of the nation's aware-ness. However, when Congress passed into existence the Veterans Administration in 1930, the nation's first single payer model was established. True, it was only for a specific sector of the populace, but it has become the prime example - even in a capitalist society - of just how horrible it can be when it comes to service of patients.

Back when it was established, and through the '30s, '40s and even into the '60s, the V.A. was generally considered decent and reasonable because it was taking care of the medical needs of our men who had served in our military. Despite advances in the medical field, the government funded agency has, over time, experienced difficulty with sufficient funds to implement those changes and new technology. Advance-ments in technology have always been expensive.

Then too, time and the rotation of staff retiring and being replaced by newly trained staff coming into the system, combined with the introduction of new programs and layers of management to run them, this bureaucracy grew to mammoth proportions. With that growth, especially post Vietnam, Gulf War, and Afghanistan, the influx of patients needing care across a growing array of conditions of care needed, the combination has proven disastrous for the level of service they've received... in more than one way.

The latest, and most disturbing situation we've become aware of was in certain cities around the nation during the Obama administration. Those V.A. facilities management being so bad that too many veterans died as a result of waiting for treatment for their condition. In some situations, it has been found that leadership was setting policy to "doctor" their data reported to V.A. headquarters.

Now, three to four years later, the same top Director who's been carried over into the new federal administration, is feeling the heat and changing much of the older, less competent management from the ranks. Fortunately for veterans, few, if any, have died in the interim. Let's hope continued improvements are made, but it's still the model of U.S. single payer health care where bureaucracy is its worst.

Constitution/Federal Law V. State of California

The same issue which the Civil War was fought over - state's rights versus federal law - is now coming to a head in the state of California. More recently, as Rush Limbaugh pointed out during his radio show today, it is similar in many ways, to the deep south of the early 1960s with Gov. George Wallace and Bull Conner of Alabama refusing to abide by new federal laws passed in Congress to allow African-Americans to attend all white schools. So, what was happening in the deep south of the '60s, is now reversed for the west coast of 2018. As Dick Morris puts it, John C. Calhoun would be proud.

With A.G. Jeff Sessions speaking in Sacramento, CA yesterday to announce the federal government's lawsuit against the state for Oakland Mayor Libby Schaff alerting the community of illegal aliens about coming ICE raids, Governor Brown has exposed the true sentiments and points of defense liberals are taking about this battle. For liberals, it's not about the issue of rule of law, but about using standard socialist "red flag" labels of "white supremacy" while conveying this image of illegals as tax paying, hard working, law abiding people.

Here's text from an article, which includes a video, making some points about this issue reported on NBC News:

The NBC reporter failed to mention that the reason it was a safety concern for ICE was because they weren’t able to arrest illegal immigrants at local jails and courthouses and had to go to their homes. Almaguer also failed to mention that the 800 illegal immigrants that got away when Schaaf tipped off her community were criminal aliens.

But Almaguer did tout the state’s so-called “sanctuary” status: “A sanctuary state, California limits cooperation between local and federal immigration enforcement.” He followed that up with a clip [of] Brown’s defense of the policy: “They've been part of the economy. Millions of people. Now they treat them like animals and round them up and dump them in cells or on the border.”

Notice how liberals use after the fact circumstances - "millions of people" - and disregard the basic truth that these people came into the country against existing laws, and are therefore illegal, and still are, but speak of them as though they have more rights than legal citizens.

Here's what NumbersUSA's most recent email stated about this:

Yesterday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions laid down the law -- literally -- in person, to law-enforcement officials in California's state capital of Sacramento.

Sessions declared America has had enough of criminals being shielded from federal law enforcement by unconstitutional "sanctuary" laws. No more letting criminals out of the jails directly back into the population, sometimes to kill innocent victims like Kate Steinle.

To make it stick, the Justice Department is taking California to court. The lawsuit was filed Tuesday.

Sessions told law-enforcement officials that the Justice Department is suing California "to fight these unjust, unfair, and unconstitutional policies." He added, "we are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America."

So yes, the Trump administration is acting to protect Americans. But it needs Congress to act. Last week, the White House officials said President Trump remains committed to passing the Goodlatte bill, which would shut down this whole sanctuary city rebellion, as well as greatly reducing unhelpful immigration.

H.R. 4760 would authorize the administration to withhold funds from sanctuary cities and allow individuals to sue local governments when they are harmed by aliens released by sanctuary jurisdictions.

Are we going to defend ourselves against rogue states and cities that let foreign criminals go free on the streets??

Are we going to stop Congress from dithering while all Americans are in peril??

Are we going to build an immigration policy that works in the interest of the American people??

The "sanctuary" laws in California are absurd. One actually penalizes private employers with stiff fines if they cooperate with ICE officials, double-check their employees' immigration status, or decline to inform employees of pending ICE enforcement efforts. Another bars law-enforcement from voluntarily transferring detainees to federal custody, or informing the government of release dates. How radical do you have to be to keep convicted criminals from being deported, as federal law states they should be?

Just last week, the mayor of Oakland tipped off hundreds of criminals that federal agents were coming to apprehend them. Who would ever have thought they'd see the day when government officials actively abetted criminals avoiding arrest?

"Here's my message to Mayor Schaaf: How dare you?" the Attorney General said. "How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of law enforcement to promote a radical open borders agenda?"

But don't just blame California. These officials commit such brazen acts of lawlessness because they're confident that they will be protected by Washington lawmakers who lust after cheap, exploitable labor. The Washington politicians think you'll accept whatever they do. You need to prove to them that they're wrong.

Curtailing sanctuary city/state policies is only one of several HUGE benefits of Chairman Bob Goodlatte's H.R. 4760. Other key provisions:

●Makes E-Verify mandatory for all employers.

●Cuts legal immigration by ending chain migration.

●Criminalizes visa overstays.

●Tightens the "credible fear" standard to reduce asylum fraud.

●Fixes loopholes in the law regarding unaccompanied alien children.

●Gives a non-citizen amnesty for 690,000 DACA recipients, in exchange for all of the above.

This showdown between state and federal government policies may very well be the springboard for civil war. It could get pretty nasty soon.

The Attention Span of A Gold Fish!

That's about how long, three seconds, the American voting pubic has for recalling what their politicians say on issues of national importance. If a liberal has a president in the White House, then it's alright to say one thing on that issue. But, if their opposition is occupying the White House, then they simply revert to the opposite position on it, knowing that the public will not remember that the other position was taken only a few years ago.

Don't believe me? Watch this video. While your picking your jaw up off the floor in reaction to the hypocrisy you're hearing, look below the video frame and read the title of the video in order to confirm that you're not mistaking the person speaking and saying what he's saying. 

This politician, since someone who does this habitually is only a politician and doesn't have any integrity, clearly has no qualms about being two faced; a liar, which obviously is necessary to be a Democrat, or Liberal/Progressive.

We, the American people, get what we tolerate!

The Unraveling, or, They're Not Your Children Anymore!

A civilized society adheres to the rule of law. After all, if there is no rule of law, there are no rules at all, control of civility is lost. This is what I believe is now developing post Parkland.

Loss of control happens very gradually, but intensifies -  exponentially - over time. It begins with those in society who are young, ignorant, impressionable and have had others provide them with a model of conduct that gives them reason to believe their desired results will happen if they do the same. To those who know history well, this is a repeat of a time in Europe around 80 years ago using the understanding that youth, as they begin growing out of childhood and into early adulthood, have a strong desire to belong and be included in whatever is popular.

In this case, high school students are organizing after seeing their peers on the other side of the country in Florida, protest for gun control. Now, high school students in the Puget Sound Region, and no doubt Portland, OR of the Pacific Northwest have planned a school walk-out in protest, and supposedly force their school districts to do something to make them safer. And, of course, the media's helping to promote this notion by covering it on their nightly news, while two students from the high school of the latest massacre are making the cable show circuit.

To any adult who's a parent responsible for their child's safety, that's akin to their child telling their parent that they're going to engage in unsafe sex unless they're given free condoms. After all, schools have long been gun free zones that only now is coming under considerable scrutiny from some in the political right.

Because our current culture has deteriorated to the point of the students dictating the terms of the situation when their level of experience, discernment and wisdom are questionable for the most part, I believe what we are now seeing is a circumstance that has spun out of control.

Of course the schools and school districts are going to cave to any discipline being applied to those who skip class to attend an organized rally. The last thing liberally controlled schools want to have in the news is press that makes them appear as though they're not supporting their students concerns. After all, the vast majority of districts across the nation have essentially cornered themselves in a position of having to support such an action.

But the deeper concern I have here is in looking down the path where this is ultimately going. It's the same problem that's plagued our country for decades, the slippery slope which builds momentum over time of greater and greater unruly actions for getting what they demand. If one takes such a situation to its natural end, then ultimately public education ends up much like it was at Evergreen State College in Olympia last year where the president of the college was held hostage and caved to their demands.

Education then, has effectively become a tool of revolutionary activism and no longer a place of learning skills which develop critical thinking for a civilized society, but indoctrinates them. The rule of law is no longer relevant, whereas, mob rule is.

Solution to Gun Control

In 1865, a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .

In 1881, a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States - who later died from the wound.

In 1963, a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F.
Kennedy, President of the United States.

In 1975, a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.

In 1983, a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.

In 1984, James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.

In 1986, Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

In 1990, James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.

In 1991, George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen , TX.

In 1995, James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

In 1999, Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

In 2001, a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W Bush, President of the US.

In 2003, Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

In 2007, a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

In 2010, a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

In 2011, a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

In 2012, Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.

In 2013, a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown ,CT.

As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

[June 2017, James Hodgkinson, and disgruntled Bernie Sanders supporter, shot and wound several players, including Rep. Steve Scalise, during a congressional baseball game in Virginia.]


Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservative was involved in any of these shootings and murders.

SOLUTION:

It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

We don't need gun control, we need Democrat control.

Guns don't kill people, Democrats do!

Was it Trump's, or Obama's administration that had over 500,000 felon's names deleted from the database? 






8 stubborn facts on gun violence in America

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The following snippet pasted from an email I received from a legislator in the Seattle area said the following... note the air that is conveyed in these sentences of, "Yes, we progressives are doing what it takes to save our state from these horrible injustices we face." But, especially note the last few lines and how they honestly believe their intervention will be honored by all the criminals who already own "bump stocks".
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

Other progressive priorities

The Pacific Ocean and our inland sea are their own ecosystems. Atlantic salmon do not belong there. I am thrilled to tell you that the Legislature responded to the catastrophic net pen collapse last summer by passing a bill to phase out farming of nonnative finfish in our waters.

We passed the Fair Chance Act, which will reduce government spending by helping people become more productive members of society. The best way of preventing a person who has been incarcerated from reoffending is to get them to work. This will help those who have paid their debts to society become productive members of society.

And tomorrow the governor will finally sign into law a ban on bump stocks, taking this carnage-inducing technology out of the hands of those who would do us harm.

---

Your voice in Olympia,

Gael

The Answer To The Question

I suspect every reader has, sometime in their life heard this question, or wondered it yourself. However, because of who provided the answer, not as many, if only a few, are aware of the answer he provided to this question. The premise of this question presumes that Christianity's existence is to eliminate its foe; evil. No, Jesus told us in the Lord's prayer that we ask to be delivered from its influence on our lives, not to eliminate it.

So, here it is, with the answer...

John 3:16