Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

US

Parents Of Boy Who Fell Into Gorilla Zoo Exhibit Identified, Can You Guess What His Father Has?

A four year old boy recently fell 12 feet into a gorilla enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo and as a result the animal was shot dead.

Published

on

A four year old boy recently fell 12 feet into a gorilla enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo and as a result the animal was shot dead. Controversy has ensued as animal activists and civilians have chastised the parents for not watching their child more carefully.

The boy’s parents are 32 year old Michelle Gregg and 37 year old Deonne Dickerson. They are now being investigated by the Cincinnati Police Department for negligence. Dickerson has a litany of criminal convictions on his resume. His criminal record includes charges of burglary, firearms offenses, drug trafficking, disorderly conduct, criminal trespassing and kidnapping.

They sent out a statement via a public relations firm and Facebook. “We extend our heartfelt thanks for the quick action by the Cincinnati Zoo staff, we know that this was a very difficult decision for them, and that they are grieving the loss of their gorilla,” they said.

The video shows people screaming in the background. All of the raucous shrieking in he background appears to have agitated the gorilla, Harambe. At one point the gorilla can be seen holding the boys hand and attempting to hold him almost trying to protect him. After which the gorilla drags the boy through the water.

Harambe was a 17 year old, 400 pound silverback gorilla. Zoo Director Thane Maynard defended the zoos decision to shoot Harambe by insisting that the animals strength was a great concern. “This child was being dragged around and his head was banging on the concrete, this was not a gentle thing,” he maintained.

Maynard stated that the enclosures barriers were safe. The boy had to have climbed a three foot steel fence which has been intact for over thirty eight years. He further noted that the boy had to push through the bushes to get into the animals habitat. Indicating the boy intentionally went in. Which was further verified by witness reports.

It’s clear the zoo made the right decision in saving the child. But they never would have had to take fatal action if the boy’s parents had been watching him more carefully. While what they did certainly was not illegal the zoo should hold the parents liable.

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

US

You Won’t Believe Who Was Just Awarded Special Permission To Fly Drones Over U.S. Crowds And It’s BAD

Lock-n-load, people!

Published

on

The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) awarded the first waiver for someone to fly drones over large crowds of people. The recipient of this waiver is probably not who you would expect to see receive one. If you had to guess who received it, then you probably wouldn’t have guessed that CNN is the recipient.

If there’s one good thing about this, it’s that CNN can now tell the truth about the size of the crowds at Trump events! Nothing like a great overhead shot from a fancy HD drone camera, right?

Via Bloomberg:

CNN received a waiver allowing routine drone flights above crowds, a milestone for the industry seeking greater use of the remote-controlled devices for everything from insurance inspections to covering news.

It makes sense for places to access areas previously inaccessible in order to take photographs and videos of things people want/need to see. I can only imagine CNN getting caught up in something shady with this. You can bet they will be tempted to fly a drone outside the White House windows when Trump is sleeping and sneak some photos of documents. Knowing CNN, the media arm of the Democratic Party, they will try to crash a drone into Marine One while Trump is on board. There will definitely be someone getting in trouble when they do something inappropriate.

The approval is the first time the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has granted a waiver for unlimited flights over people, the news network said in an emailed statement. The standards used in the application can be applied to other applicants, potentially opening vast new uses by the media and other industries for so-called unmanned aerial systems, or UAS.

Imagine there are a 100 drones flying above a large crowd and they’re all fighting for airspace, then they crash into each other, then they fall and land on the people below causing injuries or worse. This sounds like a recipe for disaster just waiting to happen.

“This waiver signifies a critical step forward not only for CNN’s UAS operations, but also the commercial UAS industry at large,” said David Vigilante, senior vice president of legal for CNN.

It’s a critical step, but it’s also a step not necessary. Why do we need to fly drones over people? This opens the door for the overcrowded airspace, collisions, and drones landing on people.

Watching videos taken from drones is usually very cool, but I can’t imagine what it would be like when every news station has a drone and they’re all above our head at the same time and they just get annoying to people.

The FAA currently prohibits drone flights overhead, although its regulations allow for waivers if applicants can show there’s no risk of injury. Limited waivers have been issued to filmmakers and others for flights over contained areas after those on the ground consented.

The small device that was approved, a Snap drone, has internal rotors and is designed to break apart in the event of a crash to prevent injuries. Time Warner Inc.’s CNN and Vantage Robotics, the company that built it, say they spent two years designing and testing the drone.

The FAA should have left the regulation alone so flights over people was still banned and injuries were not an option. Even though the Snap Drone has internal rotors and breaks apart, there’s still the possibility of a physical injury caused if the drone falls on someone. That then opens the door for lawsuits likely ending in expensive settlements and companies losing money, cutting jobs, and relying on whatever is left of their business to keep them in action.

What happens if someone flying a drone over a crowd is not from a news network? What if they commit a horrible crime that injures or kills people? Will the FAA rescind the waiver once something bad happens? If that’s the case, then why should they wait for the something bad to happen? Why not eliminate this waiver and realize it opens a Pandora’s box to potential evil doing.

I don’t think we need the waivers, licenses, or ability to fly drones overhead. That seems like too much risk and an extremely high level of responsibility. I wouldn’t want someone flying a drone over my head, nor the heads of an entire crowd.

Everything about this sounds like a disaster in the making. Someone will take advantage of it and hide their illegal drone in with a crowd of news drones. Then someone bad will happen. Then people will ban drones. Then we’ll be back at square one and realizing the FAA should not have permitted this waiver to go into action.

I really cannot think of a news event, over people, that would require drone coverage shooting footage from the air. Flying a drone into the California wild fires would provide helpful reconnaissance and footage that we could not get otherwise. Flying drones into disasters in hopes to find people or gain helpful imagery for first responders makes sense, but flying them over people just seems a bit off.

The video below may be the appropriate response to CNN’s drones.

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Politics

It’s Official! Trump Just Enraged Dems Overnight With What Passed Behind Their Backs Without Their Vote

Published

on

Congress isn’t known for it’s work ethic; in fact it seems that they work the very hardest when they’re trying to get elected and take a whole lot of recesses after that. Unfortunately, between the long breaks and the conflicting parties arguments, getting legislations passed seems insurmountable at times.

This year though, Republicans have one distinct advantage; we have majorities in both houses of congress, and of course a Republican President. One of the major issues that both congressmen and the President campaigned on was tax reform. The American people are more than ready to see more responsibility from the federal government as to what they do with our tax dollars, and maybe a reduction in the amount they take.

Finally some progress is being made toward that end, and we didn’t need the Democrats to do it. The Hill reports about the budget that the House of Representatives passed, without the help of a single Democrat.

“House passes budget, paving way for tax reform: The House passed its 2018 budget resolution Thursday in a party-line vote that represents a step toward its goal of sending tax-reform legislation to President Trump.

In a 219-206 vote, lawmakers approved a budget resolution for 2018 that sets up a process for shielding the GOP tax bill from a filibuster in the Senate.

A total of 18 Republicans voted against the resolution, along with all the Democrats who were present.”

Here’s hoping those 18 Republicans get an ear full from their constituency about why they voted against a budget that would allow for tax reform. Regardless, the rest of the party proved that we can still get measures important to us passed, even if we have a few straggling defectors along the way.

“GOP lawmakers hailed the vote as meaningful because of the tax measure.

‘We haven’t reformed this tax system since 1986. We need to pass this budget so we can help bring more jobs, fairer taxes and bigger paychecks for people across this country,’ Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said during House floor debate.

Democrats lambasted it for the same reason.

‘This budget isn’t about conservative policy or reducing the size of our debt and deficits. It’s not even about American families. This budget is about one thing — using budget reconciliation to ram through giant tax giveaways to the wealthy and big corporations — and to do it without bipartisan support,’ said Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee. “

If by “the wealthy” they mean those not on welfare, than I’d have to agree. Those of us not on government hand outs (especially business owners) would like to hold onto more of the money that we make, instead of letting the government distribute it for us.

The reason this measure passed with the ease that it did goes back to that solid majority that Republicans have. The reason that we hold that position is because the Republican platform reflects that of the majority of Americans. We’re mostly middle class, hard working and looking for a break. We’ve gotten fed up with the liberal agenda, and we’re ready for relief.

Now that the House of Representatives have done their job, they pass it off to the Senate Republicans, in hopes that they’re going to be able to pass the tax reform legislation that is so desperately  needed without having to withstand a filibuster. Republicans only need 50 votes to get the job done, and since the party holds 52 Senate seats, the chances are promising.

We don’t yet know all the details of what the tax reform will bring, but Republicans noted the tax plan will have a $5 trillion cut in the next ten years. With this, Medicaid expenditures will be cut to about $1 trillion in the upcoming decade.

We do, however, have a few more details from our source about the coming changes:

 

 

Consumer bureau releases payday lending rule: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released a long-anticipated rule Thursday that’s meant to protect short-term, high-interest loan customers from being trapped with debt.

The CFPB’s action targets lenders that offer small loans with short payback timeframes and interest rates, often called “payday” loans. Such loans, which sometimes use car titles as collateral, are often used by low-income customers in need of extra money to cover basic expenses.

The CFPB’s rule is the final step of a years-long effort to hold payday and car title lenders to stricter standards that could hamper much of the industry. CFPB Director Richard Cordray called the rule “a stop to the payday debt traps that have plagued communities across the country.”

“Too often, borrowers who need quick cash end up trapped in loans they can’t afford.” Cordray said. “The rule’s common sense ability-to-repay protections prevent lenders from succeeding by setting up borrowers to fail.” I break down the 1,600-page rule here: http://bit.ly/2xldr2b.

Senate confirms Trump’s first Fed nominee: The Senate on Thursday confirmed Randal Quarles to serve on the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, where he’ll oversee the central bank’s financial regulation efforts.

Quarles, a top Treasury Department official under former President George W. Bush, will serve as the Fed’s first vice chairman for supervision, a position created by the Dodd-Frank Act to bolster federal oversight of major banks.

Quarles is the first member of the Fed nominated by President Trump, who’ll have several chances to reshape the central bank. Trump is currently mulling whether to replace Fed Board Chairwoman Janet Yellen when her term expires in February, and Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer is scheduled to leave the bank by the middle of October.

The Senate cleared Quarles 65-32, with 14 Democrats voting in favor his confirmation. No Republicans opposed Quarles, while Sens. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Dean Heller (R-Nev.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) were not present for the vote. Cochran is currently recovering from a medical issue, while Heller and Cortez Masto are in Nevada responding to the Las Vegas concert shooting that killed more than 50 people.

[H/T: The Hill]

Continue Reading

Featured

Shocking Vid Of 2nd Shooter Just Accidentally Leaked And Exposes MASSIVE Media Coverup

Published

on

Ever since the brutal massacre took place in Las Vegas on Sunday night after a deranged psychopath opened fire on concert goers, it’s been extremely difficult to get a straight story from the media. Many experts are crying foul over the media’s narrative that there was only one shooter, including the Las Vegas sheriff who says it was “impossible” and a  former Navy SEAL who said in a recent interview that the official story “does not add up.” Now a ground-breaking video from an eye witness has just leaked, leaving many astonished as to why the mainstream media is so incessant with pushing their whopper about a single shooter carrying out the massacre that night.

In addition to the Las Vegas sheriff scoffing at the idea of there being only one shooter, the man who was staying in the room right next door, Brian Hodge, an Australian, said he witnessed more than one shooter. “There were multiple people dead and multiple shooters. I was just hiding waiting for police to come get us. We were hiding in the bushes outside waiting for the police.”

Now Hodge’s eye witness account cannot be disputed any longer after the video that just leaked, much to the demise of the mainstream media who keeps pushing their biased agenda.

Wendy Miller was also caught up in the attack that night and reported to authorities that she and her husband were at a bar at a nearby hotel when they saw what they described as a “person of interest” rush past them.

“We managed to make our way back to our room…” she told The Courier-Mail.

“We are in lock down.”

“Our door is dead locked and a chair against the door.”

Ms. Miller said the man sprinted through her hotel after coming off an escalator from the Mandalay Bay.

The man that they [security] were chasing was wearing a security jacket like them,” she said.

Now a video has surfaced showing exactly what  Miller and her husband witnessed that night proving there was in fact more than one shooter carrying out the massacre.

“New video has surfaced purportedly showing a man in a yellow security vest within the crowd with what appears to be a firearm, and he takes a shooting position as the crowd flees from his area in a panic. The man is seen running up toward the crowd then crouching down, before a flash is emitted in front of him and people flee for their lives,” America’s Freedom Fighters reported.

WATCH:

This is extremely chilling. But perhaps more troubling is that the mainstream media keeps pushing the narrative of there only being one shooter even though mounting evidence is proving otherwise. Here’s what the former Navy SEAL, only identified as “Mike” had to say about the narrative of there only being one shooter, via Gateway Pundit:

“With this presser, I am finally getting a straight answer as to how long this guy was shooting.”

Shooting time: 10 minutes
Casualties: 600 +
Casualty Rate: 60/minute

“This means he had to be hitting one person every second for the entire 10 minutes. With changing mags on a AR platform, in semi-auto, 30 round mags, a trained operator might get, might, 240 rounds off per minute. In reality, closer to about 160 to 180 per minute. And of note, you do this to a civilian version of an AR, it will fail. Metal fatigue.”

“So there should be at least 600 expended rounds that were accurately placed. Add in all of the spray on the stage and surrounding structures, and the round count goes way up. That is going to be one hell of a pile of brass. And a fire hazard on any cloth. (That is one of the reasons you want to be on the left side of the range, and turn your collar up. Hot brass down your shirt burns like hell. It is also funny when it isn’t you.)”

“The numbers on this tragedy do not add up.”

Police scanners that night revealed that authorities knew immediately it was more than one shooter, and the eye-witness account of the man staying next door to Stephen Paddock is oddly being ignored by the mainstream media. As we exposed on Wednesday:

When frantic calls began to pour into 911 that night with news of an active shooting taking place at the concert near the hotel, initial eye witnesses claimed that there were multiple shooters firing down upon the crowd. But for some reason, the mainstream media keeps pushing the narrative that there was only one shooter involved, even though mounting evidence is starting to indicate otherwise.

Australian man Brian Hodge was staying in the room next to Paddock that fateful night, and what he witnessed is destroying the mainstream media’s narrative that the massacre involved only one shooter. After hearing gun fire coming from his floor, Hodge rushed outside and hid in the bushes and called for help. Hodge then said something shocking, certain that this massacre was not carried out by Stephen Paddock alone.

“There were multiple people dead and multiple shooters. I was just hiding waiting for police to come get us. We were hiding in the bushes outside waiting for the police.”

Adding, “It was a machine gun from the room next to me. My floor is a crime scene. They killed a security guard on my floor.”

Hodge isn’t the only person who believes there was more than one shooter that carried out the massacre. Many people are feeling uneasy about the official story that’s being pushed and are starting to suspect there’s something extremely fishy with the narrative the mainstream media is telling everyone. Even Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy is scoffing at the narrative that this was carried out by a lone shooter.

Looks like there’s much more to the story than the crooked media is letting on. Why would they continue to push the narrative of there being only one shooter? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!

 

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Trending