Mailvox: change is inevitable

Farmer Tom doesn’t like it and he is seriously thinking about taking his tractor and going home:

This place is really going down hill in a hurry.

The host is now full on Trump supporter.

The vast majority of the guests seem to be so uninformed as to not know who Nate is?

I guess it’s time to find somewhere else to hang out.

I liked the place when “The Yellow Bus” was new.

Some things have changed, and not for the better.

Translation: I’m a Christian conservative and I don’t like it if things aren’t going in the way that I approve at all times. If anyone feels this way, then don’t comment here. Stick to reading and stay out of the discourse. I have never been concerned with the opinion of those who prefer to stomp off in a huff or retreat to snarky sniping than to offer substantive criticism and to articulate their positions, no matter who they might happen to be.

Of course, it may be nothing more than FT not wishing to stick around to defend his self-assured Iowa prediction, as the most recent RCP average has: Trump 25.7, Cruz 22.3, Carson 15.7, and Paul behind !Jeb!.

I’m personal friends with the Iowa campaign managers for Trump and Cruz. I know Carson’s Iowa guy, Huckebee’s guy, hate the a-hole who was Perry’s guy. Met several times Rubio’ s guy, once in his Senate office.

I know these people and the insides of the system.

I can tell you right now that Trump will not win Iowa, he will get second or third.

1. Carson
2. Trump
3. Cruz
4. Probably Rand because the RP people will hang to the end.

Maybe he is right. Maybe he is not. I have no idea; I don’t do political predictions anymore. Regardless, the fact that you’ve been here for years means that I will occasionally cut you some slack, not that I will overlook it when you’re behaving like a run-of-the-mill anklebiter or a prima donna. I find it somewhat frustrating when Ilk demonstrate that, despite years of reading here, they still can’t manage to control their emotions, construct proper syllogisms, or gracefully accept being shown to be wrong.

As I told FT in the comments: This place has not changed, but the world has. In this electoral campaign cycle, Trump is the only candidate who matters, and it is not because of who he is or what he might do if he wins.

This is basic game theory. As I have said repeatedly in the past, there are only three issues that matter today. In their current order of importance, they are:

  • Immigration
  • Gun Control
  • Federal Reserve

We can ignore the latter. None of the candidates even understand the issue and none of them are likely to do anything about it. Trump, being a maverick, is the only one who might even look at the issue, but that’s totally speculative and therefore irrelevant.

On guns, Clinton and Sanders are terrible, Ben Carson is bad, and most of the Republicans, including Trump, are both good and reliable. I’m not at all concerned about Trump saying he would take a serious look at the no-fly list, that was in response to a question about Islamic terrorism and in no way indicates that he has any interest whatsoever in sailing against the populist pro-gun position.

Nate said that we would have come down hard on another candidate who said the same, which is true, because unlike all the other candidates, Trump speaks off the cuff and without having his statement massaged by fifty consultants. If Bush said it, you can bet he’s looking to push anti-gun. In the context that Trump did, he’s wondering why known terrorists are permitted to arm themselves; he’s more likely to jail or deport them than attack gun rights.

More importantly, no one is going to do anything about gun control. Obama has been calling for it non-stop, they’ve been staging multiple false flags to try to drum up popular support – yes, they have, there is no question about it – and yet people are gunning up like never before. Gun control is the most important issue, but it is not one that is any more relevant in this particular election than is the Federal Reserve. I trust every single Republican candidate in this regard, including Ben Carson, who has completely changed his rhetoric on the subject once being confronted with the American public’s cast-iron will on the topic.

That leaves immigration. And here, Trump is the only candidate who is even beginning to address the scope of the existential problem. All the Democrats, and more than half of the Republicans, actually want to make it worse. Even if you don’t support him, or trust him, the mere fact that he is in the race has changed the debate on the subject more than the combined efforts of every anti-immigrationist, every open-borders skeptic, and every anti-free trade economist. He has been a literal Godsend in this regard, no matter what happens in the end.

In short, Donald Trump has radically changed the culture, and culture always trumps politics. And that is why petty sniping about the usual politics is not only pointless, it demonstrates that you are too stuck in an intellectual rut to even understand what the rest of us are discussing.

A dialogue with Scott Adams

To put it into context, I was quoting this piece by Adams to which I had already linked:

Vox Day ‏@voxday
“I would accept up to 1,000 dead Americans, over a ten-year period, to allow Muslim non-citizens to enter this country.” @ScottAdamsSays

Scott Adams ‏@ScottAdamsSays
What’s your number?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Mine is zero. False dilemma. Plenary power doctrine permits Muslim immigration ban. 124 years of precedent.

Scott Adams ‏@ScottAdamsSays
The legal question can be separated.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
It can be, but it shouldn’t be. That IS the context, after all. Look, it’s a good question. Just bad answer.

emilio rodriguez ‏@emiliorrubio
Mine is also 0. Seeing as we gain NOTHING from muslim immigration. It’s no benefit for a cost.

Scott Adams ‏@ScottAdamsSays
Nothing except respect for people of different religions (freedom). Do you value that at zero?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Yes, because I know military history. Muslim immigration into Dar al-Harb means war. Always.

Scott Adams ‏@ScottAdamsSays
It’s a risk assessment about saving more than lives than you kill (in the long run).

Vox Day ‏@voxday
You need to reassess. Because the correct answer is definitely and absolutely zero.

Scott Adams ‏@ScottAdamsSays
Religious intolerance has bad history. Are you sure it always ends well?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Not always, but sometimes. If there was no intolerance at Vienna, at Lepanto, and Tours, no Enlightenment.

Scott Adams ‏@ScottAdamsSays
Would you expel legal Muslim residents in the country under the same principle of safety over principle?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Yes. And I predict that every single Western country will within three decades. Reconquesta 2.0.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
False dilemma, though. Your principle doesn’t exist legally, and it’s your principle, not mine.

Scott Adams ‏@ScottAdamsSays
Opinion noted. See my book, The Religion War (sequel to God’s Debris). Speaks to that scenario, in fiction.

Now, if you wish to analyze this, what you’ll see is Adams engaging in pseudo-dialectic, while I am utilizing dialectic in a rhetorical manner. With its 140-character limit, Twitter is a very poor medium for complex communication, but it does have the benefit of stripping away the ability to engage easily in word games. The simplicity of the medium makes communication cruder, but more direct.

Adams is not an SJW, but here he argues in a similar manner, simply moving the goalposts each time his point is successfully dealt with. However, Adams is an intellectual in the true sense; he likes to play with ideas so one should never assume that what he is saying is necessarily what he genuinely believes.

Adams knows the choice he puts forth is a false dilemma; it is based on a false foundation of the United States being a polity that enforces complete religious freedom. This is nonsense, as the transmutation of “Congress shall make no law” into “a moment of silence in public schools is outlawed” suffices to demonstrate. And Muslims are already banned from immigrating as “people who practice polygamy” as per the 1891 statute.

That’s why Scott wants to leave the legal aspects out, because they also render his dilemma moot. He tries risk assessment, but that’s even worse ground for him both rhetorically and dialectically due to the 1,300-year history of Muslim violence. So he tries to go to the abstract, but as numerous people on Twitter pointed out, “respect” is not synonymous with “granting permanent residence rights and citizenship”.

In the end, he’s forced to argue from incredulity concerning an proposition that no one has even made yet, but even there, he’s on shaky ground because most Americans would happily repatriate every Muslim in America tomorrow. While he does do a good job maintaining frame, the problem with doing so as your argument keeps shifting is that you eventually wind up looking like one of those whom Aristotle described as being unable to learn from information.

Muslim immigration ban is constitutional

Furthermore, there is even precedent for it:

Is an immigration ban on Muslims unconstitutional? Probably not. The Supreme Court has held consistently, for more than a century, that constitutional protections that normally benefit Americans and people on American territory do not apply when Congress decides who to admit and who to exclude as immigrants or other entrants. This is called the plenary power doctrine. The Court has repeatedly turned away challenges to immigration statutes and executive actions on grounds that they discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, and political belief, and that they deprive foreign nationals of due process protections. While the Court has not ruled on religious discrimination, it has also never given the slightest indication that religion would be exempt from the general rule.

There is even precedent for Trump’s plan. In 1891, Congress passed a statute that made inadmissable people who practice polygamy (directed, at the time, at Mormons), and in 1907 extended this ban to people who “who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.” While Congress later repealed the latter provision (the former seems to be still on the books), no court–as far I know–ruled it unconstitutional.

Plenary power doctrine. Shove that in the face of every cuckservative who blathers ignorantly about the unconstitutionality of Trump’s proposed policy. There is more than a century of precedent demonstrating otherwise. Anyone who says a religious immigration ban is unconstitutional is either ignorant or lying.

Furthermore, the Federalist Papers make it clear that the several States have the ability to pass religious bans as well. And in a MSNBC poll, 92 percent of Americans 18-24 said Trump is not going too far in his proposal to ban all Muslim immigration.

After all, they’re the ones who would have to live with them.

How many dead Americans are you willing to pay?

In order to permit Muslims to live in the West? Scott Adams calls out the virtue-signalers:

I propose that instead of calling fellow citizens racists or idiots we do a deeper dive into the risks and put a price tag on our preference for religious intolerance. If the risk of future terror attacks is tiny, most of us would prefer maintaining our respect for religious differences.

But if the risk is more than tiny, can you put a price on your love of religious tolerance? In other words, how many dead Americans are you willing to accept? I’ll go first.

Personally, I would accept up to 1,000 dead Americans, over a ten-year period, to allow Muslim non-citizens to enter this country. My calculation assumes we are better off accepting some degree of tragedy in the name of freedom. That is often the case with freedom.

If you believe there is no risk from allowing Muslim immigration to continue as is, please explain that thinking in the comments. I have not seen that argument yet.

And if you believe there is some risk of a Muslim terrorist slipping through our current system of screening, what level of American deaths do you consider an acceptable tradeoff?

And keep in mind that you are not offering to die for freedom, since your personal odds of dying in a terror attack are negligible. What you are offering is a higher risk that other people will die so you can live in a country with uncontested religious freedom.

My answer is straightforward: Zero. We don’t have uncontested religious freedom; we already have people refusing to let Christians on sports teams freely pray. That being the case, we Christians have absolutely no duty to abide any religion or religious practice of which we don’t approve.

As The Duck observed on Twitter: “If you told American colonists they had to allow mosques because
religious diversity they would have laughed, then tarred & feathered
you.”

Cuckservative: initial responses

The sales have been exceptional. The reviews have been excellent, by which I don’t mean that they said the book is great, although they mostly do, but in their attention to detail and their substance. Sadly, some observers are just not taking it well.

Phil Sandifer ‏@PhilSandifer
Man, Vox Day must be spending an awful lot of his daddy’s money to drive up his new book’s Amazon ranking this high.

To which there can really only be one response.

Otherwise, the usual SJWs have been stunned into silence; the observable fact that I not only have considerably more support than they do, but actually happen to be in harmony with the popular zeitgeist at the moment is rather more than they are equipped to rationally process. The success of SJWs Always Lie was bad enough, as far as they were concerned, but to follow it up with an even bigger success of broader appeal is simply beyond imagining.

There has been only one real criticism aimed at the book to date, namely, the absence of footnotes. It’s a legitimate point, and I will address it, first as if I were Red Eagle, and second in my own inimitable fashion.

Cuckservative makes a strong rhetorical appeal to defend historic America, but its weak point is that you have to read it as an appeal addressed to you, the reader. It’s not factual ammunition for you, the already-convinced reader, to use in a debate with the unconvinced, because the authors have omitted footnotes. Cuckservative uses a lot of facts, and Vox Day has said on his blog that he’s got solid sources for everything, and that omitting references gives critics less to attack. That’s fine if you believe he’s not bluffing, and I do; but “one of the authors says he has a source for that, but he won’t say what it is” doesn’t fly in a serious argument.

Ann Coulter’s Adios America will supply facts by the ton when it comes out on Kindle. Meanwhile Cuckservative is the best current statement of the militant right-wing case against mass immigration and against ineffective “respectable” conservative politics regarding it.

Imagine, if you will, that you are a married man. You’ve worked a long day. You’re tired and you’re not in the mood for explaining yourself or getting into an argument with your wife, so when she asks you if you want Chinese for dinner, you have two choices. Either A) you simply say no, or B) you tell her no and you explain why.

If you say no, that ends the debate. Perhaps she suggests something else, perhaps you do, either way, there is no need for discussion. But if you go with option B), you have given her the opening to take issue with why your position is incorrect and to attempt to convince you that you really do want Chinese. Whether she manages to convince you or not, you’re in for an argument, and most likely, you’ll end up eating Chinese even though you didn’t want to.

Now, in case the analogy has escaped you, the reasons for not wanting Chinese food are the footnotes and the wife is the critics. Here endeth the lesson.

From my perspective, books are discourse. I expect and anticipate criticism both fair and foul. I remember when Ann Coulter was absolutely pilloried for having endnotes rather than footnotes. I also know that not having footnotes allows me, or the Cuckservative reader, to call out the critic who attempts to cast doubt on them.

The correct response to the critic who claims that something in Cuckservative is wrong is to ask him what the correct answer is. If he wishes to deny that the Danish army’s measured average IQ has fallen by 1.5 points, ask him for the correct delta. Ask him if it has risen, fallen, or stayed the same. He will not be able to do so, thereby discrediting himself and revealing that he is not an honest interlocutor.

The only people who actually need the footnotes are those who are attempting to undermine the arguments presented in the book by disqualifying the source data. Red Eagle and I simply made their task more difficult by denying it to them. If you want to cite a source, then cite our book. That is sufficient.

But perhaps my chief reason for not providing my sources, which are, of course, impeccable, is my experience with TIA. Simply because I cited my source, many people who read the book took my original arguments and credited them to the source, who, ironically enough, made precisely the opposite argument in the face of the data they had collected.

For much of the world before the 17th century, these “reasons” for war were explained, and justified, at least for the participants, by religion.
– The Encyclopedia of Wars, p. xxii

No, they really weren’t. I make mistakes, but I seldom make the same mistake twice.

UPDATE: My co-author speaks for himself:

This isn’t an academic treatise, it isn’t a book report we’re submitting for approval and critique by authority, and it isn’t a defensive, plaintive rearguard work in the cuckservative style.

We’re on the attack. Let the lefties and cuckservatives be on the defense. Let them impotently quibble and whine about us failing to cite our sources. Let them do their own homework if they want to argue or nitpick, and let them be the ones who try to qualify themselves.

Preach, preacher!

He hit send?

An incredulous Spacebunny asked the obvious question after Shaun King made the quixotic decision to email the indefatigable Milo about his attempt to bury the skeletons in his social media past:

Shaun King Just Sent Me The Greatest Email Any Journalist Has Ever Received

Here is a set of responses Shaun King just sent me after I asked why, following our report today, he was deleting thousands of tweets from his social media profile.

Shaun King, readers will recall, is a salaried employee of the New York Daily News, where he is employed as “senior justice writer.” In the email, he claims:

  • Volunteers from 150 countries are manually deleting every one of the 70,000 tweets King has sent
  • King has spoken to “legal counsel” at “several British media companies” all of whom told him I have “actual psychological challenges/difficulties”
  • I am “strangely obsessed with him” and that I “love, hate, worship and despise” him
  • “White supremacy” drives NRA gun policies
  • “Racial symbolism is present throughout the world” … including “depicting Jesus as an effeminate European”
  • The “game of pool” is another example of “racial symbolism”
  • I am “obsessed” with King’s children because I “want kids but know that you would be such a terrible father that you choose instead to be obsessed with Shaun’s kids”

Presented without further comment — because I am currently struggling to form words. Except to note that King’s latest strategy of responding in the third person, making vague allusions to an “administrative team” who apparently helps him out with his email, is almost as funny as his claim that people from 150 different countries are currently logged in to his Twitter account manually deleting every tweet he has ever sent…

I can’t say I’m not a little disappointed. But I hope that the photo montage I sent of my “Burt Reynolds on a bearskin rug” impression in honor of Milo 100k still managed to make the top ten.

Kicking the cuckroaches

Donald Trump knows what the American people want a lot better than the cuckroaches in the media who claim to be “opinion leaders” do:

Donald Trump acknowledged Monday during a raucous South Carolina rally that his call for barring all Muslim foreigners from entering the United States is “probably not politically correct.”

But he had three words for his critics: “I don’t care.”

And if his South Carolina rally — with its whoops and cheers — was any indication, that support will stick.

Six of eight Trump supporters at the rally who spoke with CNN said they supported the Muslim travel ban, which has drawn swift criticism from other Republican and Democratic presidential contenders alike who slammed the proposal as contrary to American values of religious tolerance. And the two supporters at the rally who disagreed said they were still likely to vote for Trump.

By contrast, here is the Littlest Chickenhawk’s take on what he calls Trump’s desperation, which is only one of the many cuckservative hissy fits being thrown in response to Trump’s moderate proposal.

Desperate Trump Drops Ugly Policy Bomb: Ban All The Muslims Abroad

That can mean only one thing: it’s time to trot out a headline-grabbing, nonsensical policy proposal.

To that end, Trump released a statement today calling for a ban on entry to the country for all Muslims. He said this would include Muslim servicepeople serving overseas, as well as Americans traveling abroad. He did not create a timetable, or a list of requirements to be met at which point such a ban would be lifted. Instead, he explained, “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred [of Americans by members of the Muslim world] is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it faces, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

Asked about what prompted the statement, Trump said simply, “death.”

In other words, Trump believes the only way to stop terror attacks like those that happened in San Bernardino would be to ban Muslims from entering the country. That’s idiotic, for at least three reasons.

American Citizens Have Citizenship. Trump is not referring only to foreign Muslims. He says his ban applies to “everyone.” If that’s the case, why would he quash the rights of millions of Muslim Americans, many of whom serve in the police and armed services? How would he propose to take away rights without due process? And why in the world would he? This is truly frightening  and disgusting stuff. Up until now, it’s been the left calling for Americans to give up their rights. Not anymore.

There Is A Difference Between Profiling And A Religious Ban. Looking at religious practice as one component of Islamic terrorism makes sense, given the association between religious practice and Islamic terror. But Islamic practice is necessary, not sufficient, for Islamic terrorism – in other words, there are lots of Muslims who aren’t terrorists, obviously. Being Muslim should not be an outright disqualifier for entering the country if we are actually capable of vetting you. That’s why Ted Cruz’s suggestion of a moratorium on Muslim immigration from countries like Syria makes sense, but Trump’s global ban makes no sense. Our security services will have to be much better than a total Muslim ban if we hope to keep Americans safe anyway, considering the threat of homegrown terrorism – we’ll have to discriminate between Muslims who are a threat, and those that aren’t. There are a billion Muslims on planet earth. Banning all of them is simply impractical, as well as immoral.

Kiss Our Intelligence Apparatus Goodnight. We need to work with Muslims both foreign and domestic. It’s one thing to label Islamic terrorism and radical Islam a problem. It’s another to label all individual Muslims a problem. That’s what this policy does. It’s factually wrong and ethically incomprehensible. Donald Trump has just transformed into the strawman President Obama abused on Sunday night.

So no, this isn’t a good idea. It’s a rotten idea all the way around: legally, ethically, practically. Trump’s supporters need to realize at some point that knee-jerk extreme reactions to events of the day don’t substitute for good judgment. It’s ugly when it’s President Obama looking to grab guns from American citizens without due process, and it’s ugly from Donald Trump. Given the poll numbers, it’s not clear whether Americans will get wise to that truth.

It’s a bit disappointing to see that Ben Shapiro, who has admittedly grown up a bit since his Littlest Chickenhawk days when he was all keen on sending all young male Americans who weren’t Ben Shapiro to war in the Middle East, falling back into generic #cuckservatism here. Ben wasn’t in my league back in our mutual WND days, and he still isn’t today. Allow me to demonstrate:

  1.  Trump isn’t “desperate”. It is his critics, like Shapiro, who are growing increasingly desperate. Ben is projecting. “The latest Rasmussen Reports (Dec. 4) weekly Trump Change survey finds that 68%
    of Likely Republican Voters believe Trump is likely to be their party’s
    nominee next year, up from 53% two weeks ago.”     And recent events in San Bernardino only helped Trump’s cause.
  2. It is not “idiotic” to say that banning Muslims from entering the country is the only way to stop terror attacks like the one that occurred in San Bernardino because doing so would have stopped the terror attack in San Bernardino. That being said, it’s true, that won’t stop all Muslim terror attacks; the only way to do that will be to repatriate all Muslims to the Dar al-Islam. Which, sooner or later, is exactly what will eventually happen across all the parts of the West that stay West.
  3. The Preamble to the Constitution trumps both the Constitution and the Amendments. The citizenship that can be granted by the stroke of a government pen, can be taken away by the stroke of a government pen as well. Citizens are not nationals and the Nation trumps the State.
  4. There are a billion Muslims on Earth. None of them have to live in the West. It is neither immoral nor impractical to suggest that Muslims should live in the House of Submission and to refuse to permit them to bring war to the House of War. Furthermore, it is not only impractical, it is both ahistorical and utterly impossible, to expect large quantities of Muslims to live in the West in peace. They will not. They never have. Shapiro is demanding the Muslims stop being Muslims, a much greater offense to them and their religion than not permitting them to colonize the West.
  5. Our foreign intelligence apparatus in the Muslim world is practically nonexistent anyhow. And it obviously escapes Shapiro that we will not need a domestic intelligence apparatus spying on Muslims if there are no domestic Muslims on whom to spy.

Speaking of cuckservatives and their propensity for betraying the American national interest, Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America has risen to #134 on Amazon, and after surpassing the 2015 nonfiction National Book Award winner by Ta-Nehesi Coates, is now the #1 bestseller in all Politics & Social Sciences. It is also the #1 hot new Nonfiction release.

    Reconquesta 2.0 is coming

    Donald Trump’s proposal is a good start, but it is only a start:

    Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump on Monday called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” the most dramatic response yet to the string of terrorist attacks that have Americans increasingly on edge.

    Trump released a statement citing polling data he says shows “there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population.”

    This isn’t the first time that the West has had to deal with the challenge of Muslims invading the West. There are two choices, the Bosnian way or the Spanish approach.

    Pick one.

    “Western civilization is under attack”

    The author of the Foreword to Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America, Mike Cernovich, throws down the gauntlet in introducing the book to his readers.

    Western civilization is under attack and we have no support from mainstream conservatives.

    Republicans control Congress. They are the majority party in both the House and Senate. What have they used their power for? Are they advancing American interests? They call themselves conservatives, and yet it seems there is nothing about America that the wish to conserve.

    Conservatives insist we open our borders to all who come. We must change our ways for immigrants, which has led to poor rates of assimilation.

    All too often immigrants bring values from their inferior countries to the United States.

    Saying Western Culture is superior, according to prominent figures on the right, is racist, xenophobic, and bigoted.

    How did I go from someone who hates writing politics to one of the leading figures of the right?

    I had no choice but to take up arms after being betrayed by so-called “conservatives” and others on the “right.” No one would stand up for my rights – for our rights as men.

    Rather than have our backs, conservatives watched with glee while SJWs tried screwing us over.  Even though Republicans control Congress, radical feminists appeared to discuss “rape culture” and how to destroy the rights of men. Not a single Republican spoke out against the hysteria of rape culture.

    We all sensed we had been betrayed, although we didn’t know what to call our new enemies.

    Then, in at the heights of Olympus, a meme emerged. This meme was brought to the light – Cuckservative.

    Read the whole thing over there. Mike is second to no one, not even Milo, in setting the tone. And I very much like his idea for dropping the term “Alt Right” in favor of “Militant Right”. Not only is it reminiscent of the Church Militant, but because we are more than the alternative to the traitorous cuckservatives, in fact, we are the only remaining answer, the only possible chance for survival, and political militancy is increasingly required if Western civilization is to survive intact.

    Tens of millions of Americans are not gunning up because they are concerned about an overpopulation among the deers and squirrels on the continent, but because the Zombie Apocalypse is approaching.

    Evidence of a false flag

    ISIS commended the “three lions” of San Bernardino. All the early news reports talked about three shooters. I personally heard the police on the scanner talking about three suspects, including one taken into custody. So, where is the third shooter? And more importantly, why did an eyewitness report seeing three tall male shooters?

    We now know that ATF investigators recovered police issued firearms from the alleged shooters. This key detail was leaked by 2016 GOP Presidential Candidate Carly Fiorina during a press interview after she had overheard a newsroom report that doesn’t fit the official narrative.

    We also know that active shooter drills actually took place near the crime scene just days before and possibly even on the same day of the mass shooting as reported by Mac Slavo.

    Additionally details from an eyewitness, who came forth on the day of the shooting, may have been overlooked by investigators and suggest that there were actually ‘three white shooters’ instead of the radicalized husband and wife natural-born killer team portrayed in some mainline reports.

    The witness, Sally Abdelmageed, worked at Inland Medical Center where the attack took place and saw it all unfold firsthand. It’s also important to note that Abdelmageed is likely not lying and that this quite possibly might be the most accurate eyewitness account publicized to date. After all how can two shooters, a man and a petite woman, be mistaken for three white military men with athletic builds?

    In a phone interview with CBS Abdelmageed explained:

        “I heard shots fired and it was from you know an automatic weapon. […] very unusual. Why would we hear shots? As we looked out the window a second set of shots goes off […] and we saw a man fall to the floor. Then we just looked and we saw three men dressed in all black, military attire, with vests on they were holding assault rifles. As soon as they opened up the doors to building three […] one of them […] started to shoot into the room.”

    When asked what the gunman that shot into the room looked like the eyewitness replied:

        “I couldn’t see a face, he had a black hat on […] black cargo pants, the kind with the big puffy pockets on the side […] long sleeve shirt […] gloves […] huge assault rifle […] six magazines […] I just saw three dressed exactly the same”.

    “You are certain you saw three men,” the newscaster asked Abdelmageed.

    “Yes,” said Abdelmageed.

        “It looked like their skin color was white. They look like they were athletic build and they appeared to be tall.”

    Now, who is more likely to be lying, this woman or the government? Which party has a longer track record of being less than entirely honest. And the strange behavior of the married couple makes a lot more sense if one considers the possibility that they were simply patsies who were flushed and then identified; the way in which the police found them struck me as just a bit odd at the time.