7UU

It has been revealed by a whistleblower who happens to be extremely high ranking at the NSA that the previously reported Russian hacked DNC emails were actually leaked internally by somebody working for the Democratic Party!

Bill Binney, an agent at the NSA states that the DNC emails were transferred much too quickly and that it would have taken hackers much longer.

According To Zerohedge

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Was the “Russian Hack” an Inside Job?

Assange-Russian-Hackers-01-600x280

Executive Summary

Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia.

After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that “telltale signs” implicating Russia were then inserted.

Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies [see here and here].

Russia-Did-It

Independent analyst Skip Folden, a retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US, who examined the recent forensic findings, is a co-author of this Memorandum. He has drafted a more detailed technical report titled “Cyber-Forensic Investigation of ‘Russian Hack’ and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers,” and sent it to the offices of the Special Counsel and the Attorney General. VIPS member William Binney, a former Technical Director at the National Security Agency, and other senior NSA “alumni” in VIPS attest to the professionalism of the independent forensic findings.

The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original “Guccifer 2.0” material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the “hand-picked analysts” from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the “Intelligence Community Assessment” dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.

NOTE: There has been so much conflation of charges about hacking that we wish to make very clear the primary focus of this Memorandum. We focus specifically on the July 5, 2016 alleged Guccifer 2.0 “hack” of the DNC server. In earlier VIPS memoranda we addressed the lack of any evidence connecting the Guccifer 2.0 alleged hacks and WikiLeaks, and we asked President Obama specifically to disclose any evidence that WikiLeaks received DNC data from the Russians [see here and here].

Addressing this point at his last press conference (January 18), he described “the conclusions of the intelligence community” as “not conclusive,” even though the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6 expressed “high confidence” that Russian intelligence “relayed material it acquired from the DNC … to WikiLeaks.”

J67JH

Obama’s admission came as no surprise to us. It has long been clear to us that the reason the U.S. government lacks conclusive evidence of a transfer of a “Russian hack” to WikiLeaks is because there was no such transfer. Based mostly on the cumulatively unique technical experience of our ex-NSA colleagues, we have been saying for almost a year that the DNC data reached WikiLeaks via a copy/leak by a DNC insider (but almost certainly not the same person who copied DNC data on July 5, 2016).

From the information available, we conclude that the same inside-DNC, copy/leak process was used at two different times, by two different entities, for two distinctly different purposes:

-(1) an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2017, that he had DNC documents and planned to publish them (which he did on July 22) – the presumed objective being to expose strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and

-(2) a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.”

o86,i,m

* * *

Mr. President:

This is our first VIPS Memorandum for you, but we have a history of letting U.S. Presidents know when we think our former intelligence colleagues have gotten something important wrong, and why. For example, our first such memorandum, a same-day commentary for President George W. Bush on Colin Powell’s U.N. speech on March 5, 2003, warned that the “unintended consequences were likely to be catastrophic,” should the U.S. attack Iraq and “justfy” the war on intelligence that we retired intelligence officers could readily see as fraudulent and driven by a war agenda.

The January 6 “Intelligence Community Assessment” by “hand-picked” analysts from the FBI, CIA, and NSA seems to fit into the same agenda-driven category. It is largely based on an “assessment,” not supported by any apparent evidence, that a shadowy entity with the moniker “Guccifer 2.0” hacked the DNC on behalf of Russian intelligence and gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks.

The recent forensic findings mentioned above have put a huge dent in that assessment and cast serious doubt on the underpinnings of the extraordinarily successful campaign to blame the Russian government for hacking. The pundits and politicians who have led the charge against Russian “meddling” in the U.S. election can be expected to try to cast doubt on the forensic findings, if they ever do bubble up into the mainstream media. But the principles of physics don’t lie; and the technical limitations of today’s Internet are widely understood. We are prepared to answer any substantive challenges on their merits.

You may wish to ask CIA Director Mike Pompeo what he knows about this. Our own lengthy intelligence community experience suggests that it is possible that neither former CIA Director John Brennan, nor the cyber-warriors who worked for him, have been completely candid with their new director regarding how this all went down.

Copied, Not Hacked

As indicated above, the independent forensic work just completed focused on data copied (not hacked) by a shadowy persona named “Guccifer 2.0.” The forensics reflect what seems to have been a desperate effort to “blame the Russians” for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. Since the content of the DNC emails reeked of pro-Clinton bias, her campaign saw an overriding need to divert attention from content to provenance – as in, who “hacked” those DNC emails? The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant “mainstream” media; they are still on a roll.

f

“The Russians” were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, “We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,” her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own “forensic facts” and prime the media pump to put the blame on “Russian meddling.” Mrs. Clinton’s PR chief Jennifer Palmieri has explained how she used golf carts to make the rounds at the convention. She wrote that her “mission was to get the press to focus on something even we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.”

Independent cyber-investigators have now completed the kind of forensic work that the intelligence assessment did not do. Oddly, the “hand-picked” intelligence analysts contented themselves with “assessing” this and “assessing” that. In contrast, the investigators dug deep and came up with verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of the alleged Russian hack.

They found that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.

BammieSilentCoup1

The Time Sequence

June 12, 2016: Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to publish “emails related to Hillary Clinton.”

June 15, 2016: DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.

June 15, 2016: On the same day, “Guccifer 2.0” affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the “hack;” claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints.”

We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to “show” that it came from a Russian hack.

imagesfrf

The Key Event

July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack.

It thus appears that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device. Moreover, the forensics performed on the metadata reveal there was a subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a “Russian hack.” This was all performed in the East Coast time zone.

“Obfuscation & De-obfuscation”

Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA documents that WikiLeaks labeled “Vault 7.” WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.

No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA’s Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015.

Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the “Marble Framework” program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as “news fit to print” and was kept out of the Times.

g5gr

The Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima, it seems, “did not get the memo” in time. Her March 31 article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: “WikiLeaks’ latest release of CIA cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.”

The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use “obfuscation,” and that Marble source code includes a “deobfuscator” to reverse CIA text obfuscation.

More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a “forensic attribution double game” or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi.

The CIA’s reaction was neuralgic. Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates “demons,” and insisting, “It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia.”

Mr. President, we do not know if CIA’s Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA’s Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. 

 

SCROLL DOWN TO “PUTIN ….” AFTER YOU TAKE THIS LINK

ARTICLE CONTINUES HERE AT AMERICAN TRUTH SEEKERS 

ats-logo-284x300

Advertisements

maxresdefault

During his most recent podcast Rush Limbaugh explained that he believes that The Deep State are secretly recruiting retired military Generals for a coup against the Trump administration.

According to AWD News

h7y5

Radio host Rush Limbaugh issued a speculative warning to his listeners that he believes the deep state and D.C. swamp dwellers could potentially be recruiting ex-military leaders to spearhead a revolution to depose President Trump, if all else fails.

During a segment covering ex-CIA head John Brennan’s statements at the Aspen Security Forum in which Brennan called upon members of the Executive Branch to effectively execute a coup if Trump fires compromised special investigator, Robert Mueller, Limbaugh offered the opinion that the D.C. establishment has abandoned virtually all rationality and respect for the democratic process due to an overwhelming hatred of the outsider President and could be prepared to take extreme measures to ensure he is removed from office.

index

Listen Here:

Article continues here:

To say that Barack Obama is an ideologue isn’t going to make national news at this point, that much is a given. Anyone with a pulse and an IQ over 6 has known that since before Obama took office in 2008, and even most liberals not registering any brain activity would have admitted as much once Obama secured his re-election in the 2012 election. It’s also not major news to say that Obama and his administration have been the most corrupt administration in recent memory, or that they subscribe to the philosophy of, “The ends justify the means,” the Constitution be damned…

0003h_-st-ny-hillary-clinton-table-woman-in-the-white-house-even-if-it-means

With all that said, if recent weeks have shown us anything at all, they have shown us that Hillary Clinton is infinitely more corrupt than Obama, even more of a sociopath, not to mention a stone-cold killer when you consider that FIVE of her political enemies died from very strange and mysterious deaths in the last SIX weeks alone, making the number of dead former Clinton associates totaling 67 people. Coincidences? Hardly! Well, it gets worse…

146ocf

Realtruenews.org reports:

Following the conventions, a pattern has emerged from the polling: Donald Trump has taken a commanding lead in all demographics. From the well to poorly educated and even out-performing Romney among women and Hispanics. According polling aggregates the only demographic Hillary is winning is African American single women and White College Males with advanced degrees in Social Sciences.

If that’s the case, then how is Hillary Clinton leading in all the polls considering THIS was the scene at the Democrat National Convention (below) WHILE Hillary was speaking (if you listen you can hear her)?

 

 

ISIS is a Hillary Clinton State Department creation.

Did you know that beyond the fundamantalism of their Wahhabi creed they are a mercenary army? That they are being paid salaries and being armed by our regional allies?

The failed state of Libya – now a breeding ground for ISIS and a jump off point for the influx of war-refugees into the EU – is not a Hillary Clinton/Obama feature?!

xvjq8

Hillary Clinton Is a Threat to All of Humanity

by James Corbett
grtv.ca
July 24, 2016

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Wall Street-backed warmonger whose potential election as President of the United States this November poses an existential threat not just to Americans but to all of humanity.

As First Lady and then as Senator, she actively supported the US’ illegal wars of aggression abroad:

BILL CLINTON: “Today, our Armed Forces joined our NATO allies in airstrikes against Serbian forces ,esponsible for the brutality in Kosovo.”

HILLARY CLINTON: “You know I voted for the Iraqi resolution.”

CLINTON: “The President understands this. He’s fully aware that it’s going to take a lot of patience and pain-staking planning and we’re gonna support him!”

CLINTON: “…including thousands of chemical weapons. Large volumes of chemical and biological stocks. A number of missiles and warheads. A major lab equipped to produce Anthrax.”

user812517_pic121694_1429026332

She not only admitted the US role in creating Al Qaeda:

CLINTON: “When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, we had this brilliant idea there we were going to come to Pakistan and create a force of Mujahideen, equip them with Stinger missiles and everything else, to go after the Soviets inside Afghanistan.”

But then, despite this admission, as Secretary of State her support of the war on Libya and the jihadis in Syria directly led to the rise of ISIS and the migrant crisis in Europe:

CLINTON: “The transition to democracy in Syria has begun and it’s time for Assad to get out of the way.”

“President Assad is not indispensable and we have absolutely nothing invested in him remaining in power.”

“I think based on definitions of war-criminal and crimes against humanity, there would be an argument to be made that he (Assad) would fit into that category.”

CLINTON: “Libya was a different kind of calculation and we didn’t lose a single person.”

CLINTON: “We came. We saw. He died! (laughter)”

Clinton_Corruption_6_479x750

She was the one who announced the US’ so-called “Asia-Pacific Pivot” that has seen more US forces being placed in the Asia-Pacific as a direct military threat to China:

CLINTON: “…and we look to the Asia-Pacific region, as we have for many decades, as an area where the United States in uniquely positioned to play a major role.”

CLINTON: “The United States is not seeding the Pacific to anyone.”

And she has stated in no uncertain terms that Russia and Iran will be militarily targeted in a Clinton presidency, and that the “nuclear option” is, as always, “on the table”:

CLINTON: “And we will make sure the Iranians and the world understand, that the United States will act decisively if necessary including taking military action.”

“There will have to be consequences for any violation by Iran and that the nuclear option should not at all be taken of the table. That has been my position consistently.”

CLINTON: “And Russia has to support the international community’s efforts sincerely or be held to account.”

CLINTON: “That Russia and China will pay a price. Because they are holding up progress, blockading it. That is no longer tolerable.”

c62b6dd5689d9566f50b01585dfb81c0

And unlike her many, many political statements of convenience that are merely a reflection of what is most politically acceptable at the moment:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Do you think New York State should recognize gay marriage?”

HILLARY CLINTON: “No.”

CHRIS MATTHEWS: “No … OK.”

CLINTON: “I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples.”

CLINTON: “I represented Wall Street as a Senator from New York and I went to Wall Street and in December of 2007 before the big crash that we had. And I basically said ‘cut it out, quit foreclosing on homes. Quit engaging in these kinds of speculative behaviors.’”

“Now who’s exactly the blame for the housing crisis? Now I think there’s plenty of blame to go around. Home-buyers who paid extra fees to avoid documenting their income, should of known that they were getting in over their heads.”

“I take a back-seat to no one when you look at my record on standing up and fighting for progressive values.”

“I get accused of being kind of moderate and center. I plead guilty.”

HILLARY CLINTON: “We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related emails.”

JAMES COMEY: “Lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her emails.”

CLINTON: “So that the emails were immediately captured and preserved.”

COMEY: “There was no archiving at all of her emails.”

fd0831a00c3e8e4af06176187ce4b04d

…we can be assured that these threats of potential nuclear world war by Clinton are not idle threats. A future Clinton president would be assured of a like mind in the new Prime Minister in the UK, who has stated in no uncertain terms that she is willing to launch a nuclear strike that would kill hundreds of thousands:

GEORGE KEREVAN: “Let me congratulate the Prime Minster on her new rule, but can we cut to the chase? Is she personally prepared to authorize a nuclear-strike that could kill 100,000 innocent men, women and children?”

THERESA MAY: “Yes. And I have to say to the honourable gentleman, the whole point of a deterrent is that our enemies need to know that we would be prepared to use it.”

Hillary Clinton is a neocon, a war hawk, a liar, an unindicted criminal and a Wall Street puppet. Why is it, then, that those on the so-called “progressive” left who would be warning against her if she had an “R” next to her name are instead lecturing other leftists that it is now their duty to fall in line and help her get elected?

NOAM CHOMSKY: “If Clinton is nominated and it comes to a choice between Clinton and Trump, in a swing state, a state where it’s going to matter which way you vote, I would vote against Trump, and by elementary arithmetic, that means you hold your nose and you vote Democrat. I don’t think there’s any other rational choice. Abstaining from voting or, say, voting for, say, a candidate you prefer, a minority candidate, just amounts to a vote for Donald Trump, which I think is a devastating prospect, for reasons I’ve already mentioned.”

JUAN GONZALES: “We in SDS refused to vote. We wouldn’t support McCarthy. We wouldn’t support Humphrey. Our slogan was “Vote with your feet, vote in the street.” I’m—I’m here to tell you that the slogan was right, the tactic was wrong. And I think that the country, in retrospect, there would not have been a substantive change, there would have been a positive change, if Nixon had not been elected. But you learn from your mistakes. Hopefully, other generations learn from the mistakes of those who came before them.”

ELIZABETH WARREN: We’re all here today because we’re with her. And we’re going to work our hearts out to make Hillary Clinton the next president of the United States.

BERNIE SANDERS: “She will be the Democratic nominee for president, and I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States.”

ca34404e-a9ed-42bf-ba5e-359f86adf2ff-large16x9_landscape1467468715hillarycorrupt

The message here is as clear as it is predictable and disappointing. Once again those with the influence to shape these events and ignite a genuine protest movement against Hillary’s coronation at the Democratic National Convention are falling back into their roles as partisan ideologues, advocating for “their” candidate over the “other side,” taking the two-party system as a fait accomplis and complicity with that system as the only way forward.

But as Michel Chossudovsky of GlobalResearch.ca points out, this election is fundamentally different. This time, the fate of the world hangs in the balance.

MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY: “In so many words Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy stance is ‘to blow up the planet.’ She has made statements to the effect that a first-strike nuclear attack against Russia or Iran is on the table. So that if she is in the White House she could in fact unleash the unspoken, which is World War 3. I think this is something we have to address both in terms of analysis and also political choice. That anyone who wants to blow up the planet is not ‘progressive.’

“Secondly, she has a criminal record. Not only in regards to the email scandal but also in relation to The Clinton Foundation, which is involved in fraud, money laundering, political cronyism, etc. It is amply documented.

“So that, in effect, the choice for the American people is to elect a war-criminal.”

0003h_-st-ny-hillary-clinton-table-woman-in-the-white-house-even-if-it-means

Too many people become attached to the personality of these political personas or fixated on the “D” or the “R” after their name. This clouds their judgement and stops them from seeing their policies and agenda for what they really are.

As Diana Johnstone, author of Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton points out, Hillary is best understood not as a person, but as the instrument for the think tanks, Wall Street financiers and other connected insiders who want to embroil the United States in more illegal wars and plunder the country and its people even further.

DIANA JOHNSTONE: “I mean Hillary to me is not even an interesting person. She is simply a shallow, ambitious woman. Who has decided to make herself the instrument of the Washington think-tank persuasion and is using that too pose as a great expert on world affairs to be elected as President. She simply is the embodiment of all that is terrible in American foreign-policy that has developed over the past decades.”

It is no hyperbole to say that the election of Hillary Rodham Clinton as president this November would be one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the United States, and perhaps the world. It is incumbent on people of all stripes–American and non-American, Republican and Democrat, progressive and libertarian, anarchists, and those who have never thought about politics a day in their life–to protest her nomination at the Democratic National Convention, work against her campaign for President, and avert the nuclear nightmare that is now coming into view.

The story continues here at its source (click here)72a26a5e1aa53908371a6684bed5888c

Marko Kloos

meme-why-do-you-need-an-assault-rifle

With the exception of those societies where the average citizen is armed as a matter of course, or societies where the bullies (state-sponsored or freelance) have a monopoly on personal weaponry while denying it to potential opponents and the average guy on the street. This thoughtful analysis simplifies the gun grabber debate and I recommend you give it a read then share the link. The teachable moment comes when you realize that there is no real difference between the gun grabbers of today (the progressive left and other cowards) and yesterdays most notorious bad guys.

Like Mao said, “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” In a repressive totalitarian system, the folks who hold power always make sure that they’re the only ones who can bear arms. They do this so they don’t have to bother with reason when convincing everyone to get along with the program, skipping straight to force. (People who don’t have reason on their side always favor force, of course. Sound like any group you know?)

That’s probably a big subconscious factor in why so many Leftists are against guns in the hands of the citizenry (and not a small number of right-wingers as well, although they tend to deny the RTBA to specific undesirable groups, not everyone.)

Read On!

15-0614-Gun-Grabbers

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

cb100515dAPR20151005084615
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

5b48c2fcd57fa8c977e7fecb214550ae
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat— it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

liberal logic
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force, watch too much TV where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

ggbg
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By  |  June 13, 2016, 08:39am  |  @lifeofgrace224

“ALL THE MUSLIM NEWS..IS A DECEPTION..TO KEEP YOUR EYES OFF THE BOLSHEVIKS IN YOUR GOV!!”

101eb91bfce0cd57e2468e18ced084f7

The false narrative emerging from the media seeks to make a few points, all of which are red herrings and straw men designed to take attention from the truth.

  • The shooter, Omar Mateen, was homophobic because he hated gays.
  • Mateen was unstable because he was mean and beat his wife
  • Mateen had too much unfettered access to guns
  • Mateen was not religiously motivated

Story after story references these points, and they quote each other liberally (take the pun as you wish). Fox News quoted a coworker at security firm G4S who called him “toxic” and “unhinged.” The Times of London quoted CNN, about his first wife, “He was mentally unstable and mentally ill.” Anti-gun New York Daily News quoted NBC News, who spoke to Mateen’s father Seddique Matteen, who insisted the rampage had nothing to do with religion.

aylan_kurdi_syrian_death_isis_us_uk_saudi_turkey_qatar_uae_rothschild_zionist_fault

The Washington Post also did a story on Seddique Mateen defending his son.

“He had a child and a wife, and was very dignified, meaning he had respect for his parents,” Seddique Mateen wrote, standing in front of the flag of his apparent birthplace, Afghanistan. “I don’t know what caused him to shoot last night.”

The shooter’s father has close connections with his native Afghanistan, and has traveled back there as recently as 2014, even interviewing Afghan President Ashraf Ghani in Kabul, according to the Washington Post. He made a series of Youtube videos praising the Taliban and railing against the U.S.

The Boston Globe appears to be at a complete loss as to Mateen’s motive for the killings, because there’s no actual proof (besides the killer’s own words pledging allegiance is ISIS) he was tied to any jihadist causes.

Al-Quaeda-is-CIA-108040349356

While Mateen claimed allegiance to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, no evidence had emerged by late Sunday pointing to actual ties to terrorist groups or a significant association with jihadist causes.

Yes, they actually wrote that. Apparently a confession isn’t evidence to them.

We can either accept the media narrative, that some unknown complex mix of motives drove this mentally ill man to buy readily available assault weapons and kill people he simply hated for no reason, or we can apply Occam’s Razor–the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Story Continues Here (Click)

The Media Is Spinning A False Narrative

donald trump make america great

Let me make sure you understand one very very important fact about elections in this country…OK maybe two. #1 In Presidential elections the establishment (aka the 1%, aka the globalists, aka the Illuminati etc. will stop at nothing until they are certain they own both horses in a two horse race  #2 Our Presidential elections are corrupt and fraud is rampant…and it’s not just dead democrats and illegal aliens voting who shouldn’t. With Trump still way out in front and still not controlled by the zio mafia who has taken over our government …expect to see a shit storm of lies, and negative Trump stories everywhere you turn, in every paper you read and on ever news station you watch…They want him out so Hillary can win and sink this country deeper into a hole than we can imagine, or ever get out off. Here is the unvarnished truth about Trump’s elect ability in November …don’t let the media dictate who you get to choose from this year. EP-150629545

IT’S ONLY TRUMP!!

Who can win it!

Ann Coulter

The only question for Republicans is: Which candidate can win states that Mitt Romney lost?

Start with the fact that, before any vote is cast on Election Day, the Democrats have already won between 90 and 98 percent of the black vote and 60 to 75 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote. Unless Republicans run the table on the white vote, they lose.

donald-trumps-campaign-says-this-poll-shows-hes-a-front-runner-in-2016
If there’s still hope, it lies with Trump and only Trump. Donald Trump will do better with black and Hispanic voters than any other Republican. But it’s with white voters that he really opens up the electoral map.

A Republican Party that wasn’t intent on committing suicide would know that. But Stuart Stevens, the guy who lost a winnable presidential election in 2012, says it’s impossible for Republicans to get one more white vote — and the media are trying to convince the GOP that he’s right.

donald_trump_2016_poster-r9456cb99b50a42dfb24eb9e9797f3152_kvl_8byvr_324

Stevens says Romney tapped out every last white voter and still lost, so he says Republicans are looking for “the Lost Tribes of the Amazon” hoping to win more white votes: “In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of white voters and won a landslide victory of 44 states. In 2012, Mitt Romney won 59 percent of whites and lost with 24 states.”

Apparently, no one’s told Stevens about the 50-state Electoral College. The national white vote is irrelevant. Presidential elections are won by winning states. (Only someone who got his ass kicked running an eminently electable candidate might not know this.)

Trump_2016_USA_FLAG_sticker

Excluding third parties and breaking it down to a two-man race, Mitt Romney won 88 percent of the white vote in Mississippi, but only 40 percent of the white vote in Massachusetts. What sense does it make to talk about his national percentage of the white vote with disparities like that?

Romney lost the white vote to Obama in five crucial swing states: Maine (42 percent of the white vote), Minnesota (47 percent), New Hampshire (48 percent), Iowa (48 percent) and Wisconsin (49 percent). He only narrowly beat Obama’s white vote in other important swing states — Illinois (51 percent), Colorado (52 percent), Michigan (53 percent), Ohio (54 percent) and Pennsylvania (54 percent).


Increasing the white vote in these states gives Trump any number of paths to victory.  Continue Reading this article at its source (Click)
The Car Guyz

Auto Industry Experts Playing for the Other Team ...You!

FOX News

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

The Rush Limbaugh Show

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

Breitbart News

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

Drudge Retort

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

Fathers' Rights Blog

by Jeffery M. Leving

therightwingextremist

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: