Police are looking for multiple shooters who killed four people and injured 17 over the weekend in a “targeted” shooting in an entertainment district in Alabama. The shooting occurred at around 11:00 p.m. Saturday in the Five Points South neighborhood in Birmingham as police say multiple shooters opened fire on a man they were hired to kill. Police have not yet named any suspects or made arrests in the case.  “We believe this was a targeted shooting,” said Birmingham Police Chief Scott Thurmond at a press conference on Sunday. “We feel comfortable in saying that at this time.” Thurmond said that at least 20 people were caught in the crossfire as the shooters opened fire with “automatic” weapons as they drove by the target. Thurmond noted that the individual they believed was targeted was among those killed. He said that police had collected more than 100 shell casings at the scene and were still determining if anyone fired back at the shooters. The shooting took place not far from the University of Alabama at Birmingham.  Both the ATF and the FBI were on the scene and helping local police in leading the investigation. Additionally, Thurmond asked members of the public to come forth with any information. Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here! “It’s going take everyone to work together to get these individuals off the streets who inflicted this carnage on our city last night,” he said. “No one in our city wants these people on the streets.” The police identified three of the four killed as 21-year-old Anitra Holloman of Bessemer, 27-year-old Tahj Booker of Birmingham, and 27-year-old Carlos McCain of Birmingham.  “To the victims and the victims’ families, just our heartfelt condolences go out to them,” Thurmond said. “That’s 21 people whose lives were forever changed, that’s 21 families that were, some were destroyed, some were just altered and our hearts go out to them.”  Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin called on the public to help the police “find these shooters and get them off the streets.” Woodfin also called on the state legislature to ban “Glock switches,” a device that is designed to allow semi-automatic firearms to fire automatically. Devices like this are already illegal under federal law.  “Glock switches are the number one public safety issue in our city and State,” Woodfin posted on Facebook. “Though illegal under federal law, there is no state law that makes glock switches illegal.”

During a recent appearance on MSNBC, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sparked controversy by suggesting that Americans who engage in what she described as "Russian-backed propaganda" should face criminal or civil penalties. Clinton made the remarks while discussing the ongoing issue of foreign interference in U.S. elections, particularly focusing on Russia’s alleged role in spreading disinformation during the 2016 presidential election. Her comments quickly drew backlash, especially from conservatives who see this as a direct attack on free speech. Clinton's comments came amid rising concerns about foreign influence in the 2024 election. During the interview, she noted that while Russian operatives may never face justice in the U.S. for their actions, prosecuting American citizens who spread similar narratives could serve as a deterrent. "There are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda, and whether they should be civilly or even criminally charged is something that would be a better deterrent," Clinton said, emphasizing the difficulty of holding foreign actors accountable. 1st Vid: Hillary Clinton now calling for Trump Supporters to be thrown in prison for sharing Misinformation 2nd Vid: Kamala Harris saying she will end Free Speech 3rd Vid: NY Democrat calling for Trump Supporters to be put in reeducation camps They’re telling us our future pic.twitter.com/stRSePiz8P — Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) September 17, 2024 She pointed specifically to the role of Russian disinformation in boosting Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016 and warned of its resurgence in the current election cycle. Clinton's remarks also criticized the press for not maintaining a "consistent narrative" on what she believes to be the dangers of Trump and his influence, urging more unified coverage from media outlets to counter the former president’s messaging. This proposal to criminalize certain types of speech has reignited a fierce debate over First Amendment rights. Critics argue that Clinton's approach, if enacted, would lead to dangerous censorship of political speech. Republican figures quickly responded to her remarks, accusing Clinton of advocating authoritarian measures. Ohio Senator J.D. Vance responded to Clinton's comments on social media, framing them as a call for censorship and violence against political opponents, rather than a legitimate legal deterrent. I could have thrown Hillary Clinton in jail. A lot of people wanted me to lock her up but I didn’t because I knew it would divide our country. I didn’t weaponized the Justice department, Kamala did. pic.twitter.com/klvOIcf5xq — World life (@seautocure) September 17, 2024 The controversy over Clinton's comments comes as the Justice Department has taken legal action against foreign nationals accused of spreading Russian propaganda to influence the 2024 election. Earlier this month, two Russian employees of the state-backed RT media network were indicted for funding a conservative media company in Tennessee to unwittingly promote Kremlin-backed narratives. These efforts, according to the DOJ, were part of a broader campaign to sow discord among U.S. voters. Clinton’s proposal, while addressing these legitimate concerns about foreign interference, has raised significant alarm over the implications for free speech. Opponents fear that such measures could stifle dissent and criminalize political expression, especially among conservative influencers and media figures. With her comments, Clinton seems to have rekindled the deeply polarized debate over Russian interference and its lasting impact on American politics. Her critics also resurrected past controversies, including her infamous use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State, which led to a prolonged FBI investigation. These unresolved scandals, along with her controversial statements, continue to fuel opposition to her views on handling misinformation and foreign interference. As the 2024 election looms, Clinton's remarks will likely continue to draw sharp lines between those who support more aggressive action against foreign influence and those who see such measures as an infringement on civil liberties. The ongoing legal battles surrounding election integrity and foreign disinformation only add to the tension surrounding this issue. The post Hillary Clinton Calls for Criminal Charges Over Free Speech That Resembles Russian Propaganda appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

A woman lured him away with the promise of candy

Good sign...

And the West continues to fall

A post shared on social media purports that an explosive was found at a recent New York Rally for former President Donald Trump.   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Rogelio Menendez (@menendez333) Verdict: False It was confirmed that there was no explosive. Fact Check: The House of Representatives has passed a bill […]

A post shared on X claims that Hezbollah pagers are not a real thing. “why do so many ‘health workers’ have Hezbollah Pagers?” because Hezbollah Pager isn’t a real thing. because that’s what happens supply chains are contaminated. just because the propaganda needs you to be very stupid to believe it doesn’t mean you’re obliged to […]

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. After several weeks of heightened tensions between Elon Musk and Brazilian authorities, the tech mogul has complied with the demands of a Brazilian judge by appointing a legal representative for his social media company, X, as shown in recent court filings. This move comes as a part of an agreement to lift the ban on X in Brazil, which had been in place due to a dispute over the removal of certain accounts. Late last month, X was suspended in Brazil following an intensifying conflict with Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes. Moraes had ordered the platform to delete accounts associated with conservative figures and groups, which Musk initially refused, leading to the closure of X’s operations in Brazil. Musk’s defiance extended to missing a legal deadline set by Brazilian law for appointing a local legal representative, prompting Moraes to block access to the platform and freeze the bank accounts of both X and Musk’s other business, Starlink. The latter action was justified by Moraes’ assertion that the two companies function as a single economic entity. Moraes, known for his stringent efforts against online misinformation and extremism, has been a polarizing figure in this saga. His stance has, however, received support from influential Brazilian politicians, including other members of the Supreme Court and the left-wing President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Following the platform’s suspension, President Lula remarked on what he thinks is the necessity of the global community to resist Musk. The legal standoff seemed to be nearing its end when representatives for X disclosed the appointment of Rachel de Oliveira Villa Nova Conceição as the company’s legal representative in Brazil, a role she had held previously before Musk shut down the São Paulo City in Brazil office. One attorney, Sérgio Rosenthal, stated in a text message to The New York Times on Thursday that X intends to adhere to all judicial directives to deactivate accounts. “The objective is to rectify the company’s status in Brazil,” he mentioned. Another lawyer, André Zonaro Giacchetta, remarked on Saturday morning that the prerequisites for returning to Brazil “have been fulfilled, though it hinges on the evaluation by” Brazil’s Supreme Court. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Is X Yielding to Brazil’s Censorship Pressure? appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Walz Finally Gets It Right. No, Really.

It's the longest-lived known vertebrate – but why?