FBI Releases New Photos of Crooks’ Gun, Explosives
On Wednesday evening the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) released images of Donald Trump’s failed assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks’ firearm and improvised explosive devices (IEDs), according to Fox News.
The image of the firearm shows an AR-15 simi-auto rifle, chambered in the usual 5.56 / .223 caliber, equipped with a single Picatinny rail atop the hand guard and receiver, a red-dot sight and peculiarly, mounted rear of the ejection port, what appears to be a side-mounted rear iron-sight paired with a side-mounted front iron-sight mounted directly aft of the basic-looking muzzle device.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3bq5L23jW8
The inclusion of the uncommon side-mounted sights indicate that Crooks either used, or intended to use the rifle sideways with it’s right side up, likely to project a lower profile when firing in the prone position atop the roof he was perched upon.
The magazine was removed in the image and a chunk was missing on the adjustable-length buttstock where a counter-sniper’s round impacted it. Note that the buttstock is extended in this image.
In a second image, the firearm is disassembled and the buttstock is no longer extended and the end of the buffer tube is visible through the buttstock’s missing chunk, showing that when the counter-sniper’s round impacted Crooks’ rifle (when he was using it) the buttstock was in the extended position as the buffer tube appears undamaged by the impact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3bq5L23jW8
The inclusion of the backpack shows viewers how the disassembled rifle was able to fit into it, as it is not a folding stock rifle. AR-style rifles utilize a buffer tube at the rear of the receiver making them not conducive for folding stocks. A buffer tube is not present on AK-style rifles, allowing for folding stock mechanisms.
Perhaps the most peculiar image however is one that the FBI released of Crooks’ car’s trunk, showing what is allegedly an IED.
Exclusive Report: Trump Blames Biden Harris Administration For Assassination Attempt
Alex Jones breaks down a video clip of former President Donald Trump suggesting the Biden administration was partially responsible for the assassination attempt against him on July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania.
?BREAKING: Trump Blames Biden Harris Administration For Assassination Attempt pic.twitter.com/lsmUPqKqRA
— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) August 29, 2024
Also:
ALERT: Alex Jones Warns Elon Musk Not To Travel To The EU
Alex Jones issues a dire warning to Elon Musk, saying he should not step foot in any EU country as the globalists clearly want to lock him up and interfere with his pro-human ambitions.
?ALERT: Alex Jones Warns Elon Musk Not To Travel To The EU pic.twitter.com/fY3ClGn8fN
— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) August 29, 2024
Jones wrote in a follow-up post, “Mark my words, if Elon Musk lands in Brazil or the EU he will be arrested. The UK and Australia are also suspect. The tyrants are desperate and they’ve been openly talking about their desire to throw Musk under the prison. They arrested the head of telegram for “allowing criminal activity on the platform.” Both Brazil and the EU categorize free speech as criminal.”
Mark my words, if @elonmusk lands in Brazil or the EU he will be arrested. The UK and Australia are also suspect. The tyrants are desperate and they’ve been openly talking about their desire to throw Musk under the prison. They arrested the head of telegram for “allowing criminal… https://t.co/EPV1p64zxv
— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) August 29, 2024
Related:
Live Show: Russia-Ukraine & Israel-Palestine Conflicts Both Escalating As Biden Takes Vacation
“The American Journal” is live every weekday from 8-11 am CST.
IDF ‘wipes out five terrorists including top commander’ in mosque shootout as UN calls for ‘immediate’ end to Israel’s biggest West Bank offensive in 20 years https://t.co/vhEVXSVwXl pic.twitter.com/ZWawUwtFDD
— Daily Mail US (@DailyMail) August 29, 2024
Follow The American Journal on Telegram:
Victims of the Covid Frankenshot Tell Their Horror Stories — This is A Warning to All
On the Wednesday show Alex Jones took a heartbreaking call from a vaccine victim about the pain he’s now suffering.
Infowars recently reported on a new documentary about an athlete who’s health has been ruined after taking the Covid vaccine.
Don’t miss:
Why It’s Fair to Blame Wokeness on Atheism
(LifeSiteNews) — Non-woke atheists have a problem – their worldview opens the door for wokeness.
Colin Wright is an evolutionary biologist and an atheist who holds to the truth that sex is binary.
He is also critical of transgender drugs and surgeries for minors and left academia due to hostility he faced for his factual views (though unorthodox in higher ed) about sex and gender. He recently suggested atheists are not to blame for the growth in wokeism.
“It’s possible that the decline in Christianity created a void that wokeness rose to fill. But who/what is to blame for that?” he wrote on X (formerly Twitter).
“It is the fault of atheists for lacking belief? Or is it the fault of Christianity for not being very factually believable?” he wrote on August 21.
A day earlier, Helen Pluckrose posted an essay on Wright’s Substack page, “Reality’s Last Stand,” titled “Atheism Did Not Cause Wokeness.” Pluckrose is a British author who is critical of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
She participated in the “Grievance Studies” hoax, where she, along with Portland State University Professor Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, had fake papers published. The papers were ostensibly about feminism, gender studies, and other socially leftist ideas, but were actually nonsense to prove the low publishing standards in academia.
“As we (anti-woke atheists) clearly see that wokeism is terrible for society, can we not admit that Christianity was better and consider going back to it?” Pluckrose wrote. “Absolutely not, no.”
While agreeing with Wright, she appears to take a contradictory stance that religion is rising, and so is wokeness, therefore atheism cannot be to blame.
This is a fallacy – a town can have 10,000 people, 5,000 of whom are morbidly obese and 5,000 who run 5 miles a day.
She was challenging the “Substitution Hypothesis of Wokeism,” which, in her words, “holds that people need a religious structure to bring them community, purpose and meaning, and, as religion declines, they seize onto another quasi-religious structure to take its place, and this is wokeism.” (Wright agrees that community and “ceremony” are needed).
Her short essay essentially argues that America has high levels of religiosity (based on a survey about prayer) and low levels of atheism. Therefore, if wokeness is higher in America, it cannot be due to atheism.
Let us first define wokeness.
Two types of wokeness
There are two types of “wokeness” – sexual wokeness and racial wokeness.
To “stay woke” was a warning for black Americans to “be aware of racially motivated threats and the potential dangers of white America,” as reported by Vox.
It might be more accurate to say the potential dangers of racist white people, not “white America” in general. It was used in a 1938 song about “nine Black teenagers in Scottsboro, Arkansas, who were accused of raping two white women,” according to Vox.
In the sense of being aware or staying “woke” to actual injustices against people on the basis of race, Christians should be “woke.”
However, the term woke has taken on two other meanings. It now encompasses a broader array of racial politics that includes terms like “microaggressions” and “white privilege.” When corporations “go woke,” they embrace “diversity, equity, and inclusion” and hold “white privilege” trainings, for example.
Wokeness also pushes unjust ideas, like separating people on the basis of race and providing college scholarships only to non-white students. Christians must oppose these ideas because they discriminate on the basis of race and unjustly divide human beings.
But since Wright’s work focuses more on transgender and “sexual identity” issues, let us assume he is talking about atheism and sexual wokeness. This would include false ideas like the “gender unicorn,” that boys can become girls, and declaring your “preferred pronouns.”
Atheism creates the opening for wokeness
So, does atheism cause wokeness? At its core, atheism would appear to just be the belief that there is no God.
But this suspicion of religion, which logically follows from not believing in God, then leads atheists to have a need to develop their own belief system. Atheism must extend beyond just the wrong idea that there is no God – I assume that’s why we need “New Atheists.”
Pluckrose wrote in her essay:
Rather than trying to get people to all hold a shared belief system, let’s work for a consensus on better managing the different belief systems any society of humans will inevitably have. Let’s strengthen and enforce the liberal principle of, “You may believe what you wish but you must not force it on me.” Let’s expand and enforce the secular principle of separation of Church and State to include separation of wokeism and state (and any other ideology and state).
Notably, this is a shared belief system. It might be called “Enlightenment values” or “classical liberalism.” When people “work for a consensus” on how to manage “different belief systems” and “strengthen and enforce” a “principle,” that is a shared belief system.
But it suffers from an error in that its end is to have a system of beliefs without any other moral structure besides just letting people do what they want. A libertarian would make the same mistake in viewing anything that comes from a free-market capitalist system as inherently good. The ends don’t justify the means, but also the means don’t justify the ends.
Pluckrose should realize her error, because what she is fighting against, it seems, is people making wrong choices. Pluckrose wanted to expose academia for promoting what she viewed as nonsense ideas. But why? Why does she not respect their right to publish nonsense?
Because, I assume, that while she believes in free speech, she also wants to combat errors.
What might be troubling Wright and Pluckrose is that they see the gender nonsense – and it is coming from their own atheist friends or at least people who are not conservative Christians.
They should acknowledge that the people they were fighting the most in academia were not Latin Mass-attending Catholics or Evangelical Christians, but either declared atheists or nominal Christians (i.e., Unitarians).
After all, a Lutheran, a Catholic, or a Jew can look at Genesis and see “Male and female, He created them.” Christians can look to their church for guidance on important moral topics like abortion, marriage, and human sexuality.
Atheism at least opens the door to wokeism.
Several thought experiments can help Wright and Pluckrose see this.
If someone asked them where to send their kids to college so they would not go woke, would they pick A. A secular liberal college known for promoting atheism or B. A conservative Christian college?
If they had a big expose on the transgender drug industry, would they find a more receptive audience at the annual American Humanist Association conference or a Family Research Council event?
In other words, why is it that sexual wokeism has taken such a hold within atheist communities?
Because without a guiding structure, anything can flourish.
While there are examples of Catholic parishes and organizations going woke, it still seems generally true that the more dogmatic and structured a religious group is, the less likely it is to embrace wokeism.
In other words, while Pluckrose lumps all religions together into one, we can create a spectrum.
On one side would be the Catholic Church, then the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and high church Anglicans. We can go down the line until we end just before atheism, at Unitarian Universalists.
This latter group believes basically what Pluckrose, an atheist, believes.
“Our beliefs are diverse and inclusive. We have no shared creed,” the Unitarian Universalist Association explains. “Our shared covenant is expressed through the inseparable and deeply interdependent shared values of interdependence, pluralism, justice, transformation, generosity, and equity.”
The first sentence is almost the same as Pluckrose’s philosophy: “Rather than trying to get people to all hold a shared belief system, let’s work for a consensus on better managing the different belief systems any society of humans will inevitably have.”
But again, this falls apart easily – how would Unitarians handle some members who wanted the church to oppose abortion while others wanted it to take a stance in support of abortion? One view must win out – even not taking a stance is implicitly being pro-abortion.
Ultimately, this is where Pluckrose and Wright’s vision fall apart – someone’s ideas are correct, and someone’s ideas will win out politically. Those are not always the same, unfortunately.
They would acknowledge this – that sex is binary, yet public schools and our laws sometimes teach that gender is on a spectrum.
This is why it is not possible to have a values-neutral public square. Pluckrose said she wants to separate “wokeness” from the “state.” But this requires having a value system and, in a way, forcing a belief onto someone.
For example, if a school board forbids teachers from talking to kindergarteners about sexuality, it is forcing this belief onto them (but for good reason). It is not respecting the views of teachers who believe kindergarteners should be talked to about sexuality.
Some view must ultimately win – let us hope and pray it is a Christ-centered worldview and not a woke and atheist one.