Aside from the complacency that Sam Faddis detailed in his Podcast, both the New Orleans and the Las Vegas incidents raise some interesting questions that are also worth crying over. I choose crying over laughing, because there’s nothing evenly remotely funny about any of this.
Regarding the Las Vegas incident, it's hard for me to believe that a man who has undergone and successfully completed the rigors of special operations' training and deployment and who was able to achieve the rank of MSG in that very difficult world would be capable of the clown show, FUBAR that occurred there. It is astounding that a man who was as highly trained and committed to defending the constitution as Livelsberger’s experience and position in the Green Berets would have required, failed so miserably in carrying out the terrorist attack. The target was seemingly politically motivated because the hotel was owned by a person who had once been and would again soon be Livelsberger’s Commander in Chief, a position which he, as an active member of the military, was duty bound to respect and obey. Further, the incident was a FUBAR, clown show because the "bomb" was so amateurishly designed that a 13 year old kid could have done better.
Here's a couple of bizarre thoughts: Livelsberger was somehow coerced into buying the weapons, renting the Tesla (that choice by itself adds an element of weirdness to the affair, unless the batteries were thought to provide an additional explosive element), and offing himself before setting off the incendiary device; perhaps Livelsberger is an actual case of the Manchurian candidate; or, maybe he was killed, his ID's and credit cards stolen, and the car was remotely operated with his dead body at the wheel–wonder if he had his seatbelt fastened–for some nefarious purpose. All of which scenarios would make interesting movies, but, in the real world, they just don't make sense. Unless, of course, you have a very devious mind, which leads you to a far out, crazy theory that Livelsberger was framed so that the Biden imposter could point to a true blooded, white male, MAGA, non-Muslim hero as justifying his administration’s lawfare war on conservative, MAGA Christians, and balance out the jihadist attack in New Orleans. Of course, that’s ridiculous! What administration would be capable of that?
The New Orleans terrorist is easier to explain, because, at some point, he had become a radicalized jihadi. The two incidents do serve to point out the uncomfortable proposition that the U.S. military may be harboring and training those that, instead of protecting us, will become our worst nightmare. I seem to remember that after the big guy took over, the military was shut down bottom to top for several days so that all of those right wing, Christian terrorists could be rooted out. Even though in 2009 Army Major Nidal Hasan, another avowed jihadist, killed 13 at Fort Hood, it doesn't seem that those with Muslim extremist ideologies/sympathies were given much attention, or, worse, deliberately ignored–as was Hasan.
Just thinking out loud, but perhaps the military should be looking for anyone who might use their training and skills to harm fellow Americans rather than adopt some woke garbage that targets those who don't accept woke garbage as part of their pledge to support the Constitution and kill foreign and domestic enemies. While Muslims have certainly served honorably, the majority of graves at Arlington and/or other national cemeteries were and are filled by Christians. Given the challenges that this country will face in the near future (i.e., China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Korea), perhaps the military brass should leave Christians alone unless, and only if, there is real evidence that they are a threat. Just musing here, but shouldn’t that be the standard that should have been and should be applied to all service personnel regardless of their religious beliefs? What a novel idea!
I think Livelsberger either was a guy with Trump derangement syndrome who decided to "go out with a bang" as a protest, not necessarily to kill anyone else, or else he could be a victim in this case. He could have been coerced or tricked into renting the truck, then killed and sent in the self driving truck while already dead.
Consider that there almost certainly exists footage from hundreds of stop light cameras along the way that would show whether he was alive and alone at each point along the way.
Jeff Childers noted that the FBI agent at the press conference was pretty clearly an inexperienced DEI hire. She unequivocally said it was not a terrorist attack when any halfway competent agent would have known to have said they couldn't make a determination yet.
If she is running the investigation there is a very strong change she simply doesn't know what she is doing. One question is whether she IS in charge, and if so, who has decided to let her stay in charge, and why.
If she is not in charge, one does have to shake one's head at the contrast between this investigation and the one into the Trump assassination attempt. In that investigation, they are giving us almost no information with the excuse that it's an ongoing investigation, but they are also pretty much saying Crooks (now deceased) acted alone, so why would the investigation still be open?
Aside from the complacency that Sam Faddis detailed in his Podcast, both the New Orleans and the Las Vegas incidents raise some interesting questions that are also worth crying over. I choose crying over laughing, because there’s nothing evenly remotely funny about any of this.
Regarding the Las Vegas incident, it's hard for me to believe that a man who has undergone and successfully completed the rigors of special operations' training and deployment and who was able to achieve the rank of MSG in that very difficult world would be capable of the clown show, FUBAR that occurred there. It is astounding that a man who was as highly trained and committed to defending the constitution as Livelsberger’s experience and position in the Green Berets would have required, failed so miserably in carrying out the terrorist attack. The target was seemingly politically motivated because the hotel was owned by a person who had once been and would again soon be Livelsberger’s Commander in Chief, a position which he, as an active member of the military, was duty bound to respect and obey. Further, the incident was a FUBAR, clown show because the "bomb" was so amateurishly designed that a 13 year old kid could have done better.
Here's a couple of bizarre thoughts: Livelsberger was somehow coerced into buying the weapons, renting the Tesla (that choice by itself adds an element of weirdness to the affair, unless the batteries were thought to provide an additional explosive element), and offing himself before setting off the incendiary device; perhaps Livelsberger is an actual case of the Manchurian candidate; or, maybe he was killed, his ID's and credit cards stolen, and the car was remotely operated with his dead body at the wheel–wonder if he had his seatbelt fastened–for some nefarious purpose. All of which scenarios would make interesting movies, but, in the real world, they just don't make sense. Unless, of course, you have a very devious mind, which leads you to a far out, crazy theory that Livelsberger was framed so that the Biden imposter could point to a true blooded, white male, MAGA, non-Muslim hero as justifying his administration’s lawfare war on conservative, MAGA Christians, and balance out the jihadist attack in New Orleans. Of course, that’s ridiculous! What administration would be capable of that?
The New Orleans terrorist is easier to explain, because, at some point, he had become a radicalized jihadi. The two incidents do serve to point out the uncomfortable proposition that the U.S. military may be harboring and training those that, instead of protecting us, will become our worst nightmare. I seem to remember that after the big guy took over, the military was shut down bottom to top for several days so that all of those right wing, Christian terrorists could be rooted out. Even though in 2009 Army Major Nidal Hasan, another avowed jihadist, killed 13 at Fort Hood, it doesn't seem that those with Muslim extremist ideologies/sympathies were given much attention, or, worse, deliberately ignored–as was Hasan.
Just thinking out loud, but perhaps the military should be looking for anyone who might use their training and skills to harm fellow Americans rather than adopt some woke garbage that targets those who don't accept woke garbage as part of their pledge to support the Constitution and kill foreign and domestic enemies. While Muslims have certainly served honorably, the majority of graves at Arlington and/or other national cemeteries were and are filled by Christians. Given the challenges that this country will face in the near future (i.e., China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Korea), perhaps the military brass should leave Christians alone unless, and only if, there is real evidence that they are a threat. Just musing here, but shouldn’t that be the standard that should have been and should be applied to all service personnel regardless of their religious beliefs? What a novel idea!
I think Livelsberger either was a guy with Trump derangement syndrome who decided to "go out with a bang" as a protest, not necessarily to kill anyone else, or else he could be a victim in this case. He could have been coerced or tricked into renting the truck, then killed and sent in the self driving truck while already dead.
Consider that there almost certainly exists footage from hundreds of stop light cameras along the way that would show whether he was alive and alone at each point along the way.
Jeff Childers noted that the FBI agent at the press conference was pretty clearly an inexperienced DEI hire. She unequivocally said it was not a terrorist attack when any halfway competent agent would have known to have said they couldn't make a determination yet.
If she is running the investigation there is a very strong change she simply doesn't know what she is doing. One question is whether she IS in charge, and if so, who has decided to let her stay in charge, and why.
If she is not in charge, one does have to shake one's head at the contrast between this investigation and the one into the Trump assassination attempt. In that investigation, they are giving us almost no information with the excuse that it's an ongoing investigation, but they are also pretty much saying Crooks (now deceased) acted alone, so why would the investigation still be open?
Crying & shaking my head in amazement