Obama: the Unconstitutional President

Obama Admin Offers Justification For Any Breaking of Any Law 
By Any “Informed, High-level Official of the U.S. Government

By Andrew Napolitano

Taki's Magazine, February 11, 2013: After stonewalling for more than a year federal judges and ordinary citizens who sought the revelation of its secret legal research justifying the presidential use of drones to kill persons overseas—even Americans—claiming the research was so sensitive and so secret that it could not be revealed without serious consequences, the government sent a summary of its legal memos to an NBC newsroom earlier this week.

This revelation will come as a great surprise, and not a little annoyance, to U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon, who heard many hours of oral argument during which the government predicted gloom and doom if its legal research were subjected to public scrutiny. She very reluctantly agreed with the feds, but told them she felt caught in “a veritable Catch-22,” because the feds have created “a thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret.”

She was writing about President Obama killing Americans and refusing to divulge the legal basis for claiming the right to do so. Now we know that basis.

The undated and unsigned 16-page document leaked to NBC refers to itself as a Department of Justice white paper. Its logic is flawed, its premises are bereft of any appreciation for the values of the Declaration of Independence and the supremacy of the Constitution, and its rationale could be used to justify any breaking of any law by any “informed, high-level official of the U.S. government.”

The quoted phrase is extracted from the memo, which claims that the law reposes into the hands of any unnamed “high-level official,” not necessarily the president, the lawful power to decide when to suspend constitutional protections guaranteed to all persons and kill them without any due process whatsoever. This is the power claimed by kings and tyrants. It is the power most repugnant to American values. It is the power we have arguably fought countless wars to prevent from arriving here. Now, under Obama, it is here.

Read more

Adam Lanza's Marksmanship

Corporate Media’s “Lone Gunman” Storyline Loses Ground

Adam Lanza: Expert Marksman?

Memory Hole, February 9, 2013: A cross section of kill-to-injury ratios of major mass shootings suggests that if Adam Lanza acted alone in carrying out the Sandy Hook Elementary School carnage he was among the most accurate killers in modern history, exceeding even the lethal damage meted out by Al Capone’s machine gun-wielding henchmen in the infamous St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.


Read more

Sandy Hook Elementary Student: There Were Lots of Policemen While We Were Having a Drill

Aangirfan's most recent report on Sandy Hook draws attention to a remarkable interview conducted by Dr. Oz (Mehmet Oz) with Sandy Hook Elementary School Third-Grader, Louis.

Dr Oz:

We're here with some of the children and their parents who experienced the Newtown tragedy first hand ... I asked all the kids what questions they want me to ask because, obviously, this is a sensitive topic.

So, Louis, you wanted me to ask you about what you remembered from that day?

Louis:

Yes, I remembered that a lot, a lot of policemen were, um, in the school. Well, a lot, I was like hiding under ... When we were having a drill, we were hiding under, like ... 

Dr. Oz: 

Take your time. Don't hurry ... Let me ask you: what would you like to say to your teachers about Friday? 

Louis: 

I dunno, but. It's like ...

Dr. Oz.

You appreciate your teachers? 

Louis:

Yeah. 

"When we were having a drill, we were hiding under ..."

"Take your time ..."

Bit late there with the redirection, Dr. Oz.

Until now, the MSM opinion moulders have sought to stifle any suggestion (and here) that Sandy Hook was a drill, by indignantly accusing any who raise the possibility of insulting the memory of the victims and outraging their loved ones.

But with a witness to the event telling us they were having a drill, the possibility cannot be denied that there were either no victims, or if there were victims, that they were victims of a drill that went live. In the latter case, their memory is best served by demanding the truth about the outrageous official incompetence or criminality that resulted in their deaths.

What Men Live By

Debunking God is good business. With more than two million copies sold, the profits from Richard Dawkins's,The God Delusion, must be gratifying to publisher and copyright holder alike. Chris Hitchens's God Is Not Great has surely been no less rewarding, while Monty Python's Life of Brian has been earning for its creators for over 30 years now. Such works focus primarily on the Christian god, the god of Western civilization, for who, after Salman Rushdie's run-in with the Ayatolahs, wants to tackle Allah. As for ridiculing the god of Judaism, that would be unthinkable. But the Christian god is an easy target, defended feebly, when defended at all, by priests and bishops many of whom appear themselves to be atheists, more like apostles of the Welfare State and the ethic of Political Correctness, than of Christianity. The attack that such works make against God are based on the rather obvious fact that there is not the slightest verifiable physical evidence for God's existence. From this fact, the leap is made to the conclusion that the whole scheme of religion is a contemptible hoax, the proponents of which are deserving of both loathing and ridicule. What such critics fail to acknowledge is that whether Jesus performed miracles or not, whether he arose from the dead or not, whether he was born of a virgin or not, or whether he even existed or not, has not the slightest bearing on whether there is a moral value and a spiritual wisdom in the story of the life of Jesus. So why should anyone care about John Cleese's adolescent contempt for Christianity justified by the claim that we cannot be sure if the gospels record the actual words of Jesus; that we do not know who wrote the gospels; and that we do not even know in what language the gospels were originally written? Equally, who cares if Hitchens considered religion the fount of irrationalism, intolerance, racism, tribalism and bigotry? There is none of any of those things among the teachings of Jesus. And who of those who have reflected on what Jesus taught, considers Richard Dawkins's passionate proselytism for rational atheism of the slightest significance? The answer to all such arguments is provided with irrefutable logic by Nikolay Nikolayevich in Boris Pasternak's novel, Dr. Zhivago: What you don't understand is that it is possible to be an atheist, it is possible not to know if God exists or why He should, and yet to believe that man does not live in a state of nature but in history, and that history as we know it now began with Christ, it was founded by Him on the Gospels. What matters about the story of Jesus is the story itself. And to deny the relevance of the story about Jesus is to deny the moral foundations of Western civilization. That, precisely, is the point of the aggressive atheism of the agents of the New World Order: to destroy the coherence and moral basis of the West. In What Men Live By, Leo Tolstoy, shows why stories about gods and angels are of everlasting relevance to mankind's moral and spiritual welfare.

By Leo Tolstoy
 

"We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not abideth in death." —1 "Epistle St. John" iii. 14.

"Whoso hath the world's goods, and beholdeth his brother in need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how doth the love of God abide in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither with the tongue; but in deed and truth." —iii. 17-18.

"Love is of God; and every one that loveth is begotten of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." —iv. 7-8.

"No man hath beheld God at any time; if we love one another, God abideth in us." —iv. 12.

"God is love; and he that abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth in him." —iv. 16.

"If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar; for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" —iv. 20.

A shoemaker named Simon, who had neither house nor land of his own, lived with his wife and children in a peasant's hut, and earned his living by his work. Work was cheap, but bread was dear, and what he earned he spent for food. The man and his wife had but one sheepskin coat between them for winter wear, and even that was torn to tatters, and this was the second year he had been wanting to buy sheep-skins for a new coat. Before winter Simon saved up a little money: a three-rouble note lay hidden in his wife's box, and five roubles and twenty kopeks were owed him by customers in the village.

So one morning he prepared to go to the village to buy the sheep-skins. He put on over his shirt his wife's wadded nankeen jacket, and over that he put his own cloth coat. He took the three-rouble note in his pocket, cut himself a stick to serve as a staff, and started off after breakfast. "I'll collect the five roubles that are due to me," thought he, "add the three I have got, and that will be enough to buy sheep-skins for the winter coat."

He came to the village and called at a peasant's hut, but the man was not at home. The peasant's wife promised that the money should be paid next week, but she would not pay it herself. Then Simon called on another peasant, but this one swore he had no money, and would only pay twenty kopeks which he owed for a pair of boots Simon had mended. Simon then tried to buy the sheep-skins on credit, but the dealer would not trust him.

"Bring your money," said he, "then you may have your pick of the skins. We know what debt-collecting is like." So all the business the shoemaker did was to get the twenty kopeks for boots he had mended, and to take a pair of felt boots a peasant gave him to sole with leather.

Simon felt downhearted. He spent the twenty kopeks on vodka, and started homewards without having bought any skins. In the morning he had felt the frost; but now, after drinking the vodka, he felt warm, even without a sheep-skin coat. He trudged along, striking his stick on the frozen earth with one hand, swinging the felt boots with the other, and talking to himself.

Yes, We Can Kill Ya

Via WRH

See also: Reality Check: President Obama's Rules for Assassinating U.S. Citizens

Judge Napolitano: Obama's Drone Strike Policy 'This Is the Power Claimed by Kings and Tyrants'  

Fascism, American-Style, By Sherwood Ross

And Naomi Wolf: The End of America, fascism in ten easy steps

Mike Adams: How the post-Sandy Hook gun control push spectacularly backfired in America

Sandy Hook: CT's State Attorney Indicates Adam Lanza May Not Have Acted Alone

Digital Journal, February 5, 2013: Connecticut State's Attorney Stephen Sedensky has argued that unsealing warrants in the Sandy Hook case might "seriously jeopardize" the investigation by disclosing information known only to other "potential suspects." 

 

Sedensky said that unsealing the warrants would also: "identify persons cooperating with the investigation, thus possibly jeopardizing their personal safety and well-being."  

 

The statement by the CT prosecutor's office is the first indication from state authorities that Adam Lanza may have not acted alone. 

 

A Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theory

What follows is a theory, not an assertion of what happened.  Since the Connecticut State Police have disclosed no information about their presumed investigation into the crimes committed at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012 — even as to such seemingly minor details as the ownership of the black Honda in which Adam Lanza is supposed to have driven to the school on the day of the shootings; and in view of the political capital being made from the Sandy Hook shootings by those intent on denying Americans their constitutional right to bear arms against a tyrannical government; and taking account of the totalitarian measures being adopted by the US Police state, including the use of drones to assassinate American citizens without legal process, the hypothesis concerning the Sandy Hook shootings advanced by Professor James Fetzer cannot be dismissed as beyond the realm of possibility. Indeed, after 9/11, no plausible theory of a US Government conspiracy against the people can be ruled out as inherently improbable. It should be noted, however, that in the absence of evidence from a competent forensic investigation, Fetzer's theory is merely one of many conceivable scenarios to account for events at Sandy Hook. Moreover, it is not necessarily the most plausible. In this connection, it should be noted that Fetzer has a history of seemingly far-fetched conspiracy theories, which may suggest to some, that his claims may serve better to discredit those who quite reasonably question the official account of Sandy Hook, 9/11, or the Kennedy assassination than to reveal the underlying truth of those events.

By Prof. James Fetzer

MemoryHoleBlog, February 6, 2013: A theory is simply an interpretation of facts in a given case. When the police investigate a crime, they form a theory of the case. In courts of law, prosecutors and defense attorneys usually offer alternative interpretations. With Sandy Hook, figuring out what happened poses special challenges.

The facts are not obvious. There were inconsistencies from scratch. The suspect, Adam Lanza, was a student there; then he was not. His mother was a teacher there; then she was not. The principal called the local paper to report the shooting; then she was among the first to die.

The coroner reported all the dead were shot with a Bushmaster; then NBC News reported that four handguns had been found with the body and that the AR-15 had been left in the car. (Check out YouTube, “Sandy Hook shooting — AR-15 rifle was left in the car!”)

Even if Lanza, 20, had done some shooting, the ratio of kills to targets was remarkable. As a Marine Corps officer, I qualified with a .45 four years in a row and also supervised recruits of his age in their marksmanship training. I don’t see how he could have done it.

Police radio in real-time reported two suspects headed toward the officer calling in, one of whom was apprehended. The other was tracked into the woods, as police helicopter footage shows. We have no idea what became of these suspects. So what happened?

Most likely, Adam Lanza and his mother were killed the day before with Adam Lanza’s body picked up by police. He was attired in a SWAT outfit, including body armor, and stored in the school.

I argue a three-man team entered the school. One was arrested in the school, cuffed and put on the lawn. Two went out a back door; one of them was arrested and the other apparently escaped.

Those arrested currently are not in police custody; their names were never released. That is a telling sign that we are being sold a story based on fiction rather than on fact.

Does anything else matter? Most Americans are unaware the Department of Homeland Security has acquired 1.5 billion rounds of .40 caliber, hollow-point ammunition, which is not even permissible during combat under the Geneva Conventions.*

A subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security has issued a study of 680 reports from “fusion centers” that integrate federal, state and local anti-terrorism efforts. It found no evidence of any domestic terrorist activity.

The absence of any terrorist threat and the existence of more than 300 FEMA camps and special boxcars to carry dissidents to them have been deliberately withheld from the public.

Since Homeland Security has no foreign commitments, those camps and ammunition have to be for domestic consumption. Homeland Security appears to be gearing up to conduct a civil war with the American people — but 80 million armed families stand in its way.

What better excuse could there be for banning assault weapons than the slaughter of 20 innocent children? Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., has a gun control proposal that would lead to the confiscation of virtually every semi-automatic weapon in the nation.

That’s my interpretation of Sandy Hook.

Jim Fetzer is a McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.

* The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibited the use in international warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body. This is often incorrectly believed to be prohibited in the Geneva Conventions and is a continuance of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams, as well as weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable. NATO members do not use small arms ammunition that is prohibited by the Hague Convention. Source

The Economic Implosion of America: The Death of Detroit

Bankrupt, Decaying And Nearly Dead: 24 Facts About The City Of Detroit

By Michael

Michigan Central Station, Detroit. Closed 1988. Image source

The Economic Collapse, February 3, 2013: If you want to know what the future of America is going to be like, just look at the city of Detroit.  Once upon a time it was a symbol of everything that America was doing right, but today it has been transformed into a rotting, decaying, post-apocalyptic hellhole.  Detroit was once the fourth-largest city in the United States, and in 1960 Detroit had the highest per-capita income in the entire nation.  It was the greatest manufacturing city the world had ever seen, and the rest of the globe looked at Detroit with a sense of awe and wonder.  But now the city of Detroit has become a bad joke to the rest of the world.  Unemployment is rampant, 60 percent of the children are living in poverty and the city government is on the verge of bankruptcy.  They say that Detroit is just a matter of "weeks or months" away from running out of cash, and when Detroit does declare bankruptcy it will be the largest municipal bankruptcy in the history of the United States.  But don't look down on Detroit, because the truth is that Detroit is really a metaphor for what is happening to America as a whole.  In the United States today, our manufacturing infrastructure has been gutted, poverty is absolutely exploding and we are rapidly approaching national bankruptcy.  Detroit may have gotten there first, but the rest of the country will follow soon enough.

Back during the boom years, Detroit was known for making great cars.  Today, it is known for scenes of desolation and decay.  It is full of vandalized homes, abandoned schools and empty factories.  The following description of what Detroit looks like at this point is from an article by Barry Yeoman...

It’s hard to describe the city’s physical landscape without producing what Detroiters call “ruin porn.” Brick houses with bays and turrets sit windowless or boarded up. Whole blocks, even clusters of blocks, have been bulldozed. Retail strips have been reduced to a dollar store here, a storefront church there, and a whole lot of plywood in between. Not a single chain supermarket remains.

So what caused the downfall of one of the greatest cities on earth?
Well, here is a hint...

Between December 2000 and December 2010, 48 percent of the manufacturing jobs in Michigan were lost.

When you are a manufacturing area, and you lose half of your manufacturing jobs over the course of a single decade, of course things are going to get really, really bad.

So just how bad have things gotten in Detroit?

The following are 24 facts about the city of Detroit that will shock you...

#1 Detroit was once the fourth-largest city in the United States, and it was once home to close to 2 million people.  But over the last several decades people have been fleeing in droves.  According to the 2010 census, only 713,000 people now live in Detroit, and city officials admit that the population has probably slipped under 700,000 at this point.

#2 The population of Detroit has declined by about 25 percent over the past decade.  The last time the population of Detroit was this low was all the way back in 1910.

#3 Today, Detroit is only the 18th-largest city in America.  It is now smaller than Austin, Texas and Charlotte, North Carolina.

#4 Back in 1960, the city of Detroit had the highest per-capita income in the United States.

#5 Today, the unemployment rate in Detroit is more than 18 percent, which is more than twice as high as the nation as a whole.

#6 According to a report that was just recently released, approximately 60 percent of all children in Detroit live in poverty.

#7 Approximately one-third of Detroit's 140 square miles are either vacant or derelict.

#8 The city government of Detroit has closed dozens of schools and has decided to cut off public services to the "heavily blighted areas".

#9 According to one estimate, there are 33,500 empty houses and 91,000 vacant residential lots in the city of Detroit today.

#10 The median price of a home in Detroit is just $9,000, and there are some areas of Detroit where you can still buy a house for $100.

Read more

See also:

What Does the Constituion Say About NAFTA, GATT and Other Bad Free Trade Deals?

Peter Hitchens Trashes Britain's New Generation of War Criminals

It has sometimes crossed my mind to wonder, is it just me?, or does it seem to any thoughtful person that now and for the last several decades Britain's leadership has comprised individuals of remarkable personal insignificance whose incompetence, cupidity and subservience to the plutocratic and American imperial interests can have nothing but disastrous consequences for the people of the country they lead. First, there was John, Very-Nice, Mr. Major, then the marvelous People's Tony Blair, followed by today's precious duo of Cameron, the PR operative ever ready to fly to Washington or Moscow to have a word on behalf of BP with Obama or Putin, and Cameron's suavely inane deputy Clegg faced by an opposition leader, the son of an illegal immigrant, who advocates the cultural and racial genocide of the English though mass immigration. Well, evidently it is not just me. In this splendid rant, Peter Hitchens demolishes the present crop of war criminals and idiots posing as the national leadership of Great Britain, the men chiefly responsible for what he describes as "the cesspool we have made out of our country."

We need a Commons rebellion: not a stupid war in Timbuktu

Peter Hitchens' Mail on Sunday column, February 3, 2013: MALI CONFLICTThis is why I despise almost all Members of Parliament: our Prime Minister is taking us into yet another stupid war, and most MPs do not even care. Where is the rebellion? Where is the Opposition? Where are the demands for an emergency debate in which our motives and reasons for this latest nonsense are examined, torn to pieces and flung on the floor?

There is no case at all for Britain to send soldiers to Mali, or any other part of North Africa. We have no interest there, never will have and never have had. If we truly fear terrorism so much, then this adventure is doubly moronic.

It will give terrorists a pretext to attack our country that they did not have before. Like the Afghan war, it will also allow terrorists to kill us without needing to travel here. We will send our servicemen there, where the terrorists can more easily shoot them or blow them up.

If, three or four years hence, British soldiers are returning from North Africa in coffins, the empty-headed cretins of our political class will place their hands reverently upon their chests and burble solemn tributes, as they do now when the dead come back from our equally futile mission in Afghanistan.

Much less is said about the far larger numbers of terribly wounded young men, each of them worth 10,000 MPs, who will remain maimed or disfigured or both, long after those responsible are drawing plump pensions or being applauded by American matrons on the lucrative lecture circuit.

How is it that people who know so little, and who are so incapable of learning anything from experience, dominate both politics and the higher levels of political journalism? In the past two years we have cheered on the installation of an Egyptian president who said in September 2010 that Israelis are descended from apes and pigs, and created a lawless, failed state in Libya so chaotic that we have to urge our own citizens to run from Benghazi for their lives. But you would barely know these things from either Parliament or the heavyweight media.

It is not just that the Premier and his senior advisers plainly know no history. They seem also to have been asleep during the Blair years, when crude propaganda and cruder lies drove an expedition so foolish that those responsible should be so ashamed that they never show their faces in public again. Then there is Comrade ‘Doctor’ ‘Lord’ John Reid, the unrepentant former communist who gets hoity-toity when reminded that he sent British troops into deadly danger in Afghanistan while piously hoping that ‘we would be perfectly happy to leave in three years’ time without firing one shot’.

Remember that piece of naive drivel when you examine our current Premier’s sudden transformation into the Warlord of the Maghreb, which began with promises of no boots on the ground and continued with an almost instant breach of that promise.

Read more

No Evidence of Only One Shooter at Sandy Hook

Ben Swann: Release the Surveillance Video



Ben Swann's 'Release the Sandy Hook Surveillance Tapes' Video Goes Viral, Swann Smeared for Asking Questions

How Sandy Hook Came to Be Announced Before It Happened

Sandy Hook Massacre: The People v. Crisis Management Institute

 

By Dr. Eowyn

 

Fellowship of Minds, January 26, 2013: This thread is a continuation of the January 26 post, “How we know a guide on counseling children about Sandy Hook predated the massacre.“

For the back story of this, see “Guide on how to talk to children about Sandy Hook 4 days BEFORE massacre,” Jan. 16, 2013.

Peter, the author of “How we know a guide….,” continues to make his case with “Exhibits” on some highly technical aspects of “How we know….” I will be adding to this post, so please check back for updated material.

If you write a comment, please refer to the particular Exhibit to which you’re addressing, as in “re. Exhibit #1″ or “re. Exhibit #2.”

Peter will present his case as a prosecutor at a criminal trial. Let’s call it “The People v. Crisis Management Institute-Arlington Red Devils.” Below is his “Opening Statement.” I will be adding his Exhibits, as he writes them.

~Eowyn

The People v. Crisis Management Institute-Arlington Red Devils

So that I can place all the information I have for you to consider here in an orderly fashion I will present it in the fashion of a prosecutor in a criminal trial.

At the start of a Criminal Trial the Prosecutor makes a statement explaining what the Crime consists of, who he thinks is the criminal, and outlines how he intends to provide evidence showing that his case is accurate.

Read more

Terror State USA: Vulnerable Children Deliberately Terrorized in Shooting Drill

Live Shooter Drill Hoax Played on Nation’s “Most Vulnerable” School Children 

By Professor James Tracy

The MemoryHoleBlog, February 2, 2013: On the morning of December 18, 2012 administrators at New York City Public School 79 (the Horan School) in East Harlem conducted an entirely unannounced “active shooter drill.” The event, which took place just four days after the high profile Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown Connecticut, terrified the school’s 300 special needs adolescent and young adult students and the 100 teaching and counseling staff members. Ranging in age from 12 to 21, Horan’s largely Hispanic student body contends with an array of mental and emotional disabilities, including autism and cerebral palsy.

Coming less than one week after the Sandy Hook tragedy, the Horan School hoax drill has left many students and staff members severely traumatized and seeking accountability from administrators. With the exception of a pithy article in the New York Times[1] and a subsequent piece in the online opinion outlet Daily Kos,[2] the story has been exempted from the news cycle in the wake of the exhaustive yet often baffling coverage of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. As New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg busied himself with calls for tightened gun control measures, no press conferences were held to either condemn the public school’s management or further scrutinize the rationales behind such drills.

“The lockdown drill began about 10 a.m. on Tuesday,” the Times reports,

with a woman’s voice on the school’s loudspeaker saying, “’Shooter,’ or ‘intruder,’ and ‘get out, get out, lockdown,’” said [a] staff member, who added that it seemed so realistic that it was hard to tell if the woman speaking was actually talking to a gunman or to teachers and students throughout the school.[3]

Horanwatch.org, an advocacy organization of Horan School’s teachers, parents, community members and concerned professionals, has been established to demand accountability from the P.S. 79 administrators who planned the event. “Due to age. race, income, language, immigration, geography, and disability,” Horanwatch states, “the public school kids of New York City’s PS 79 are the most vulnerable in the nation.” The affiliation notes that Horan teachers and staff have been retaliated against and warned by administration not to speak publicly about the event.[4]

The group’s account is more detailed and contrasts with the Times’ fleeting glimpse of the incident. Horanwatch.org calls the event an “intricate hoax,” with news of the phantom shooter circulated “in the most dramatic way possible through every intercom in the building, ‘Shooter/Intruder in the building, oh my God!”

Staff and students were then whipsawed through “contrary messages of ‘Get out’ and ‘Lock down.’” As the school’s occupants “fell to the floor shaking, in prayer, or with their bodies in order to cover immobile students and friends,” some even phoned loved ones to utter what might be a final goodbye. While students crouched in fear Horan administrators reportedly sent security officers into the hallways to push against classroom doors as terrified teachers struggled to keep the doors shut.[5]

The questions remains: Why would major news media virtually censor an event where hundreds of especially helpless individuals were needlessly terrorized by supervisors who took it upon themselves to create an “active shooter” scenario? Where were the convoys of satellite trucks and slick broadcast journalists interviewing the traumatized victims? Why weren’t cable news talk shows abuzz with pundits decrying the needless drill and defending the underprivileged children and teachers?

The simple answers are that 1) Horan’s students are poor disabled minorities—a constituency that is politically powerless, and, 2) no one was injured or killed. These are both plausible explanations for the media blackout. Still, such an event being played up in the immediate wake of the December 14 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting may have also prompted large swaths of a grieving nation to more critically reflect on both the news media’s often confusing and contradictory representation of the tragedy and America’s growing police state.

Alongside a dearth of publicly available evidence and an ensuing investigation into Sandy Hook that authorities maintain was carried out by a single estranged young man, the Obama administration and its Congressional allies have proceeded to move forward on far-reaching gun control and mental health-related diktats and legislation as if the investigation itself was entirely consistent and transparent.

While Harlan exemplifies the undue excesses of domestic security measures, the Sandy Hook massacre has provided the pretext for increased statist measures with the express goal of heightened safety and security. Public schools do require safety measures to contend with dangerous situations and episodes. Yet imposing terrifying manufactured events such as “live shooter drills” on society’s most vulnerable members—our children—points to an intensifying police state in America where fear vis-à-vis militarized surveillance and control are being gradually instituted under the guise of “safety” to reconstitute normal forms of expectation and existence.

Notes

[1] Al Baker and Alex Vadukul, “Lockdown Drill Surprises Some, Scaring a School in East Harlem,” New York Times, December 19, 2012.
[2] “NYC School Stages Hoax School Shooting on 300 Special Ed Kids,” Daily Kos, December 27, 2012.
[3] Baker and Vadukul, “Lockdown Drill Surprises Some.”
[4] “An Open Letter to NYC School Principal Greer Phillips,” Horanwatch.org, January 19, 2013.
[5] “An Open Letter to NYC School Principal Greer Phillips.”

Hate Week in America: Targeting Sandy Hook Truthers

Writing in Britain's New World Order newspaper of record, the Guardian, New Yorker Oliver Burkeman writes:

There's not much to be said, beyond a generalised expression of incredulous disgust, about the apparently growing Sandy Hook "truth" movement

No, absolutely. Anyone wanting to know the truth about what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012, must be utterly loathsome to all and sundry and deserves to be regarded, as Mr. Burkeman says, with nothing but "incredulous" and "generalised disgust."

Further, Mr. Burkeman says, it would be best to ignore such people. But then immediately urges us to read the "excellent reporting" on the subject in a Salon.com article about Sandy Hook Truthers, which begins:

Image source

Yes, there really are Newtown truthers.

Good God, folks must be so paranoid. They don't unquestioningly believe what they are told by the Connecticut police! You know, the guy in the funny Quaker hat warning that anyone talking about the Sandy Hook massacre is liable to prosecution by both state and Federal authorities.

But to continue, Salon's "excellent reporting" turns to a question arising from the work of either an incompetent amateur photo-analyst or an agent of disinformation concerning the death or non death of one of the reportedly slain children:

But in the crazy world of Sandy Hook conspiracy theories, this one may be the worst yet. (Maybe you’ve already heard some of the others, like the one about fantasy ties between the gunman’s family and the LIBOR banking scandal and a related theory about the Aurora shooting and the “Dark Knight Rises.”) Most of the theories are really pieces of a larger meta-theory: that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax, perhaps by the Obama administration, designed to stir demand for gun control.

Oh brilliant. Someone asserts that Adam Lanza's father was in someway connected to the LIBOR bank scandal and that proves anyone with questions about Sandy Hook is a nutter. Well, at least we see how the suppression of dissent works. Poison the well with stupid conspiracy theories and anyone who questions the official theory is a stupid conspiracy theorist, i.e., a person to be regarded with "generalised incredulous disgust."

Salon continues its "excellent reporting," by returning to that highly questionable photo evidence concerning the existence or non-existence of one of the slain children:

In the latest angle, theorists think they have found “absolute proof” of a conspiracy to defraud the American people. “You reported in December that this little girl had been killed,” a reader emailed Salon in response to a story. “She has been found, and photographed with President Obama.”*

Oh, yeah. Here we go again. A stupid theory, not entertained by sensible people questioning events at Sandy Hook, which is attributed to anyone who questions the official account of the Sandy Hook massacre: A crude but effective technique for smearing and stereotyping those with questions about Sandy Hook, and discouraging anyone who hasn't so far thought to question the official account from doing so now.

Now to the end game:

The supporting details to the hoax theory explanation are reminiscent of the arcana of any well-developed conspiracy theory. What about the car? What about the rifle? Why does someone off camera allegedly tell Parker’s father to “read the Card” (as in a cue card) before he goes on CNN? Why is he laughing? Who is the guy running into the woods? Why is there police audio referring to multiple shooters? Why does one boy who survived the shooting tell Dr. Oz it was like “a drill”? Why was the principal quoted by a local paper [about events that occurred] after she died? Why do some of the parents look like some of the victims of the Aurora shooting — are they “all actors”? All of these questions have simple explanations, but in each case, the theorists have sided more with less likely, but more nefarious possibilities.

First note that those with questions are now described as adherents of a "hoax theory," which is something quite different from questioning what happened and why there are so many conflicting "facts" in the case.

Then note how stupid questions are equated with sensible ones. What, after all, is so unreasonable about asking: "Who is the guy running into the woods?"**  "Why is there police audio referring to multiple shooters?" "Why was the school principal quoted by a local paper [about events that occurred] after she died?"

"All of these questions have simple explanation," apparently, but Salon's "excellent reporting" offers no suggestion as to what those simple explanations are. So let's think about some of those questions:

The guy running into the woods: Who was he? Why was he armed -- a fact not acknowledged in Salon's "excellent reporting." What was he doing? To ask these questions, according to Mr. Burkeman, over at the Guardian is only to evoke "incredulous disgust."

As for police references to multiple shooters, what about those nuns in their purple getaway van? Oh, pleeeeze! To ask such a question can only evoke "incredulous disgust."

As for "Why was the principal quoted by a local paper [about events occurring] after she died?" that is not the question being asked. The question asked is "How was the principal interviewed by a local paper after she died?", which is an altogether different matter.

Also, how was it that Bing.com spidered the story on December 13, 2013, before the principal had died?

The only explanation for that must be that the valiant principal, Dawn Hochsprung, who died when rushing to challenge the shooter, was gifted with precognition of the events, including perhaps, her own death. But then that's not a "simple explanation," it's a downright nutty explanation that the Sandy Hook truther haters, want to cram down your throat.

But the lib-left, PC, fascist haters have gone beyond Orwell. Hate is now non-stop and directed at anyone who questions the means or motives of the New World Order.

* A more rational hypothesis might be that at least some of those who died, never lived. As suggested, although by no means proved by the fact that the image of victim Allison Wyatt that was originally distributed by the mainstream media was in fact a photo of a child named Lily Gaubert, quite unconnected with Sandy Hook. Such ":mistakes" as this is now claimed to have been, naturally raise questions about other pieces of photographic evidence presented in the media. Indeed, it is not difficult to envisage how any number of fake shooting victims could have been created, which again, is not to make the claim that such fake victims were created, but merely to point out that the question has a reasonable basis. And after 9/11, how can any sane person claim that to ask such question is disgusting. What is disgusting is the mainstream media's efforts to punish citizens of a democracy questioning evidence of a possible state crime against democracy.

** The existence of the man in the woods was confirmed by the local paper, the Newtown Bee, which reported that "A man with a gun who was spotted in the woods near the school on the day of the incident was an off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town, according to the source" (See last paragraph of linked report). What an off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town was doing in the woods at the time of the massacre, naturally raises additional questions that can only give rise to a "generalised expression of incredulous disgust."

See also:

Aangirfan: SANDY HOOK AND THE MEDIA

The Sandy Hook nuns had a purple getaway van

Sandy Hook Massacre: What the MSM Won't Discuss

The Bing Cache of December 13, 2012, With the text of the Newtown Bee's before-it-happened story on the Sandy Hook Massacre

Adam Lanza, Ryan Lanza? Curious Image of Unknown Origin

Fox Prestitutes Smear Professor Who Questions MSM Narrative on Sandy Hook

And a comment by a reader on Oliver Burkeman's Guardian hit piece:

Like a flea confusing a dog with the universe, 'journalist' Oliver is a young lad with no context for the Sandy Hook story—so he believes what he’s told, and passes it on. This, sadly, is what journalism has become.

Meanwhile, the dog is visiting the vet, and Oliver’s life is about to change forever...

Which is funny, except there's not much reason to suppose that "the dog is visiting the vet," or that " Oliver’s life is about to change forever."

Oliver, it seems has chosen the safe and dishonorable course of going with the power. More likely, it is those of us who believe we live in a free society, whose lives are about to change forever.

America's "free press"

America: where only the paranoid believe that the news media are anything but free, diverse and open to every point of view.

Then it was the great America entrepreneur Andy Grove who remarked: "Only the paranoid survive."

The Advance of Liberal/Progressive Fascism

Big Brother in Action: EU Wants Power to Sack Journalists; Prime Minister Rajoy Threatens Newspapers Following Corruption Articles

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis, January 31, 2013: In case you have not already realized it, 1984 has come and gone politically. All that remains is how fast we march down the path of "thought suppression". Here are a couple of articles that will make my point.

The Telegraph reports EU wants power to sack journalists.

A European Union report has urged tight press regulation and demanded that Brussels officials are given control of national media supervisors with new powers to enforce fines or the sacking of journalists.

The “high level” recommendations that will be used to draft future EU legislation also attack David Cameron for failing to automatically implement proposals by the Lord Justice Leveson inquiry for a state regulation of British press.

A "high level" EU panel, that includes Latvia’s former president and a former German justice minister, was ordered by Neelie Kroes, European Commission vice-president, last year to report on "media freedom and pluralism". It has concluded that it is time to introduce new rules to rein in the press.

“All EU countries should have independent media councils,” the report concluded.

“Media councils should have real enforcement powers, such as the imposition of fines, orders for printed or broadcast apologies, or removal of journalistic status.”

“The national media councils should follow a set of European-wide standards and be monitored by the Commission to ensure that they comply with European values,” the report said. 

Nigel Farage, the leader of Ukip, compared the proposals to “Orwell's 1984”. “This is a flagrant attack on press freedom. To hear that unelected bureaucrats in Brussels want the fine and suspend journalists is just outrageous,” he said. 

Read More

The Second Great Depression: Time to Mug Our Creditors

The US economy shrinks. The UK economy enters a third dip in four years. In Spain, government spending cuts drive unemployment to 26%.

The Western nations, including Japan, cannot compete, for the reason stated in this video:



We cannot compete with four trillion Third Worlders earning pennies an hour.

We knew that back in 1994, once the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was signed. It meant either mass unemployment, at a rate that would lead inevitably to revolution, or the equalization of incomes between the West and the Rest.

Welcome to globalization and the New World Order.

But if living standards are so much higher in the First World than the Third, how is equalization to be achieved?

There are two possibilities. One is simply to slash wages: "Hey guys, next month your pay check will be halved, but consider yourselves lucky. Chinese workers doing the same job will still be earning only a fifth or a tenth of what you'll be getting.

This, naturally, would be furiously resisted.

To make the transition more bearable, I have proposed a mechanism for adjusting wages nationally or regionally according to the unemployment rate.

But that's not the sort of thing governments do: rational, fair and effective. No, much easier just to trash the currency, which achieves three objectives at once:

• First, it lowers wages relative to the international competition. Done sufficiently, it first slows, then stops and finally reverses the off-shoring of jobs.


• Second, it robs creditors, by enabling repayment of loans in depreciated currency, e.g., China's $Trillion-plus holding of US Treasuries.


• Third, increases wealth differentials between financially naive citizens, i.e., the 99%, and the astute wealthy, i.e., the 1%, who know how to protect their wealth during an inflation.

The game's already afoot.

Japan, mired in recession for decades, plans to to flood it's moribund economy with money.

Bernanke at the Fed, has promised to print dollars ad lib.

In Euroland, loose monetary policy has seen the German, English and French stock markets rocket.

And, at the Bank of England, the newly hired top gun, Canadian Mark Carney, openly talks of "targeting GDP," which is banker-speak for, the hell with concern with inflation, we're gonna print our way out of trouble by trashing the pound, already trashed within an inch of it's life and worth less than 1% of its value of 100 years ago.

See also: CIA Adviser Warns of 'Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction'

Progress and Reaction

Tower of the Winds, Athems. Image source

There are times in the course of history when prosperity grows, peace reigns over much of the earth, class conflicts decline and the arts and sciences flourish. Such periods occurred during the long rise of ancient Egypt. Classical Greece and Rome each had their heyday. England prospered mightily in the aftermath of the constitutional settlement of 1688, and during the second half of 19th Century, Russia and the other European states experienced a long period of liberalization and economic expansion.

Votes for women.

These were times of optimism when liberals and progressives tended to assume that continued moral and material progress was inevitable. Such was the message — what came to be known as the "Whig view of history" — of Lord Thomas Macaulay's History of England Since the Accession of James II. Likewise, as Russia boomed following the emancipation of the serfs,  Leo Tolstoy believed that moral progress was leading inevitably to the undermining of the state and the creation of a world functioning in accordance with the precepts laid down by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

As we now know, both England and Russia were to suffer catastrophic setbacks. England, to lose her empire and role as the world's preeminent financial and military power, Russia to suffer the horrors of the Communist Revolution and a Soviet tyranny more murderous than that of any Tzar.

Terror war drone. Image source

In the second half of the Twentieth Century, the West enjoyed the greatest economic boom and progressive social transformation in its history. To almost every "public intellectual," university professor and cabinet minister, this progress was held to be desirable, inevitable, and perpetual. Yet today, any rational appraisal of the world must lead to the conclusion that we are in a period of stark reaction and decline, and that insofar as the liberals and progressives are still in power, they serve as agents not of genuine reform and social improvement but of  reaction and imperialism.

Muscular liberalism. Image source

Two items on the Web help focus attention on this reality. One is the speech to the Belgian Parliament by Laurent Louis, stating plainly what those in power know, that al Qaeda works for the US and NATO, which seek to impose a global empire by any means. The other is Paul Shreyer's article: The 9/11 Plan: Cheney, Rumsfeld and the “Continuity of Government”, which reveals the Machiavellian mentality of the globalist ruling elite.

Adam Lanza, Ryan Lanza? Curious Image of Unknown Origin

This image was found at the following URL: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HonMjg1ltMw/UP3GzYpT33I/AAAAAAAAKik/9BlXKp69B90/s1600/385314_4346737428738_1509913392_n.jpg

If you go to the root directory: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/, you get a Google 404 Error page.

That the Lanza's had only one son has been asserted by a highly unreliable source. As evidence, a link is provided to this page, which however, provides evidence only of the fact that David and Nancy Lanza were divorced.

The images appear to be of the same person (see the small rectangular mole on the right cheek just in front of the ear, which is evident in both pictures (for a larger image follow the link above). But if they are pictures of the same person, possibly taken at an interval of several years, that does not preclude the possibility that that person had a brother!

But if the claim that Adam Lanza changed his name to Ryan Lanza is a hoax, what is the reason for such a shameless lie? To incite those pursuing the truth to propagate theories that will in due course be debunked? That would make sense. After 9/11, the perpetrators of any psyop would know that the evidence concerning the event will receive close critical scrutiny. Almost certainly, therefore, one objective of the operation would be to confuse, mislead and ultimately discredit skeptics.


And here's a broader and more convincing scenario from Undeleted Evidence, which includes a link to the Sandy Hook Rampage Movie.

And another interpretation here: Sandy Hook Theatre, by Melanie Lamport

PostScript:

Aangirfan has reproduced a certificate of the dissolution of marriage between Nancy, Jean and Peter, John Lanza, which is dated 12/9/2008, and which indicates that they had two sons, Ryan and Adam. So unless the certificate is a fake, we can dismiss the idea that Adam Lanza did not exist, an idea probably launched by someone intent on muddying the waters and discrediting "conspiracy nuts"gullible enough to believe gossip supported by nothing more than a photographic image of unknown provenance with a misleading caption.

Post-Postscript:

December 2010 Newspaper reference indicating that Peter and Nancy Lanza had two sons: Adam and Ryan Lanza.

And concerning gun control:

MSM = Meaningless News Media

How television news creates the illusion of knowledge

By Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com, January 27, 2013: In analyzing network coverage of the Sandy Hook murders, I had no intention of doing a series of articles on television news, but the opportunity to deconstruct the overall grand illusion was compelling.

A number of articles later, I want to discuss yet another sleight-of-hand trick. The myth of “coverage.”

It’s familiar to every viewer. Scott Pelley, in seamless fashion, might say, “Our top story tonight, the widening conflict in Syria. For the latest on the Assad government crackdown, our coverage begins with Clarissa Ward in Damascus…” .

Clarissa Ward has entered the country secretly, posing as a tourist. She carries a small camera. In interviews with rebels, she discovers that a) there is a conflict, b) people are being arrested c) there is a funeral for a person who was killed by government soldiers, d) defiance among the citizenry is growing.

In other words, she tells us almost nothing.

But CBS is imparting the impression that her report is important. After all, it’s not just anchor Scott Pelley in the studio. It’s a journalist in the field, up close and personal. It’s coverage.

Here are a few of the many things we don’t learn from either Pelley or Ward. Who is behind the rebellion in Syria? What is their real goal? What covert role is the US playing? Why are there al Qaeda personnel there?

But who cares? We have coverage. A key hole view. It’s wonderful. It’s exciting for two minutes. If we’re already brainwashed.

Read more

Re: Sandy Hook: America needs a law against law-breakers

A contributor to the Daily Paul notes:

A person steals guns, (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), shoots and kills his own mother (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), transports these guns loaded (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), brings guns onto school property (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), breaks into the school (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), discharges the weapons within city limits (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), murders 26 people (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), and commits suicide (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW).

And there are people in this country that somehow think passing ANOTHER LAW banning guns would protect us from someone like this.

Jesus, Tolstoy, Gandhi and Guns

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment.

... do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Matthew 5-7 (New International Version)

Leo Tolstoy held that government, of its nature, is always corrupt and oppressive, using its power to tax, conscript, fine or otherwise punish to impel citizens to participate in actions totally at odds with the principles of decency and honor that the state claims to uphold.

Tolstoy illustrated his argument by reference to the hypocrisy of the Russian state, headed by a supposedly Christian autocrat, deploying with the full support of the Christian Orthodox Church millions of men and untold wealth in the murderous pursuit of imperial aggrandizement.

But, Tolstoy argued, the evil of state tyranny can be defeated by the practical application of the Sermon on the Mount.

What importance, one might think, can one attach to such an incident as some dozens of crazy fellows, as people will call them, refusing to take the oath of allegiance to the government, refusing to pay taxes, to take part in law proceedings or in military service?
These people are punished and exiled to a distance, and life goes on in its old way. One might think there was no importance in such incidents; but yet, it is just those incidents, more than anything else, that will undermine the power of the state and prepare the way for the freedom of men. 

And the power of the Russian state was undermined, if due less to the passive resistance of Tolstoyans than to the onslaught of the German Army. But its collapse did not "prepare the way for the freedom of men," it led rather to an even more absolute autocracy, headed by men who despised Christianity, held Tolstoy's ideas in contempt and proceeded readily to the slaughter of tens of millions of their own citizens.

Which leads one to reflect on the  beliefs of Mohandas Gandhi, whose nationalist campaign of non-violent opposition to British Imperial rule in India was directly inspired by Tolstoy's understanding of of Christianity. Unlike Tolstoy's Russian followers, who had little impact on Russia's Tzarist regime and were mostly shot or imprisoned by the Soviet state, the efforts of Gandhi and his followers culminated in the attainment of Indian independence under a popularly elected goverment, which raises two questions:

What was the difference between British India and Tsarist Russia that accounted for the vastly different results achieved in the two countries by those committed to non-violent opposition to an oppressive state? And what moral and practical lessons should one draw from this difference in outcome?

One difference, it would seem, is that Christian principles are more likely to prevail if exercised against oppression by those who are at least nominally Christian and who, however degraded their Christianity, at least understand the point being made by their opponents. And indeed, during the interwar years, as the British establishment formed the intention to quit India, the British were remarkably susceptible to moral arguments against war and imperialism, desperate as all political parties were to avoid a repetition of the carnage of World War 1. In contrast, the Russian revolution was led by psychopaths with an utter loathing of the old Russian regime and a ruthless determination to stamp out any opposition to their will.

That circumstances alter cases, and that moral suasion does not trump all evil was firmly believed by Gandhi, who was by no means unconditionally committed to pacifism. During the Boer War, Gandhi served the British forces in the only capacity that an Indian in South Africa could, as a member of an ambulance unit.  And during the First World War Gandhi encouraged Indians to volunteer for military service, contending that by helping Britain, India would come to be seen as a powerful  independent nation and an ally of England's rather than a subordinate entity.

Confirming that his adherence to Tolstoy's Christian ideals was purely tactical, Gandhi wrote:

I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.

Which leaves one to wonder how Jesus and Tolstoy would have viewed the events of the Twentieth Century, for the correct understanding of the Sermon on the Mount is not altogether clear. To say "anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment" is by no means the same as saying "anyone who is angry with a Joseph Stalin, an Idi Amin or some other monster, will be subject to judgment."

To show forbearance and love to ones brothers and sisters, or to members of ones community or tribe, must often if not always be the best policy since the kindness and generosity will surely be remembered and at some time reciprocated. But forbearance and love of a homicidal psychopath intent on one's destruction seems not only different but, well, crazy.

Jesus it is true, went to his death deliberately, calmly and with forgiveness of those who had condemned him, which was entirely consistent with his teaching. Yet did he do so under a misapprehension? That is one interpretation of those heart-breaking words, cried in a loud voice in the agony of crucifixion: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"

As for Tolstoy, who served valiantly with the Russian army during the Crimean war, who loved hunting, and who was both irascible and impulsive, it is hard to believe that faced with the monstrosity of the Soviet tyranny and Lenin's ten thousand leather-jacketed Cheka intent on the extermination of all opposition he would not have contemplated resistance with an assault rifle.

To some, these speculations may seem sadly misguided, in which case I would be glad to know what they think.

Sandy Hook: No private investigators welcome

Sign at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, CT. Source.

My partner and I became fed up with the mainstream media’s depiction of what took place in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012. So on January 20 we traveled there from our home in Ottawa Canada in an effort to visit the sites and respectfully approach the locals.

Continue reading

Sandy Hook: The Gun Range Myth and other media-created fantasies

Joyce Riley of the Power Hour, interviews Mike Powers, on multiple improbabilities and impossibilities concerning the mainstream media coverage of Sandy Hook. For example:

How was it that Adam Lanza used his mother's Connecticut-registered assault rifle to murder 26 people when the state of Connecticut has an assault rifle ban?

Why was it that the much interviewed Gene Rosen who claims to have sheltered six children who escaped the massacre heard the sound of gunfire from Sandy Hook Elementary school yet neglected to notify the police or anyone else?

The interview, via Brasscheck TV.

And from FederalJack.com: A Connecticut police officer: On things that don't add up

Joyce Riley interview with former US special forces commando Mike Powers: Adam Lanza must have carried his own body weight in weapons and ammunition

WillyLowman (January 28, 2013): Sandy Hook Shooting: Hocus… pocus… and PRESTO!… A motive!!!

The Sermon on the Mount As Practical Politics

In the context of the US gun control debate, I posted an excerpt from Leo Tolstoy's 1894 work, The Kingdom of God Is Within You, which makes the case that state power always tends toward tyranny, thus raising the question of how the citizen should respond to the commands of the tyrannical state: by submission, passive resistance or with an assault rifle? Here Tolstoy makes the case for passive resistance. By refusing the immoral and unChristian demands of the state, the citizen undermines the power of the state far more effectively, so Tolstoy argued, than the revolutionary intent on the resort to violence. With hindsight, we see that things are not so simple. We see, on the one hand, that the Tsarist state, though cruel and reactionary was remarkably restrained in the application of violence against those, like Tolstoy, who opposed it non-violently. On the other hand, we see that the Communist state, whose professed socialist ideals Tolstoy embraced, was utterly ruthless in dispatching tens of millions of its opponents either to the gulag or with a bullet.

By Leo Tolstoy

She who has no name: Holodomor Memorial, Kiev. Image.

Project Gutenburg: The sovereign powers of the world have in the course of time been brought into a position in which, for their own preservation, they must require from all men actions which cannot be performed by men who profess true Christianity.

And therefore in our days every profession of true Christianity, by any individual man, strikes at the most essential power of the state, and inevitably leads the way for the emancipation of all.

What importance, one might think, can one attach to such an incident as some dozens of crazy fellows, as people will call them, refusing to take the oath of allegiance to the government, refusing to pay taxes, to take part in law proceedings or in military service?

These people are punished and exiled to a distance, and life goes on in its old way. One might think there was no importance in such incidents; but yet, it is just those incidents, more than anything else, that will undermine the power of the state and prepare the way for the freedom of men. These are the individual bees, who are beginning to separate from the swarm, and are flying near it, waiting till the whole swarm can no longer be prevented from starting off after them. And the governments know this, and fear such incidents more than all the socialists, communists, and anarchists, and their plots and dynamite bombs.

A new reign is beginning. According to the universal rule and established order it is required that all the subjects should take the oath of allegiance to the new government. There is a general decree to that effect, and all are summoned to the council-houses to take the oath. All at once one man in Perm, another in Tula, a third in Moscow, and a fourth in Kalouga declare that they will not take the oath, and though there is no communication between them, they all explain their refusal on the same grounds—namely, that swearing is forbidden by the law of Christ, and that even if swearing had not been forbidden, they could not, in the spirit of the law of Christ, promise to perform the evil actions required of them in the oath, such as informing against all such as may act against the interests of the government, or defending their government with firearms or attacking its enemies. They are brought before rural police officers, district police captains, priests, and governors. They are admonished, questioned, threatened, and punished; but they adhere to their resolution, and do not take the oath. And among the millions of those who did take the oath, those dozens go on living who did not take the oath. And they are questioned:

Obama to Military: "Will you fire on Americans?"

Conspiracy Theory Isn't Just For Nuts

Professor James Tracy of Florida Atlantic University has had the temerity to say, contrary to the narrative provided by the mainstream media, that there were many peculiar facts concerning the Sandy Hook elementary School massacre, which raise the possibility that the tragedy was a state engineered crime to justify gun control measures in contravention of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Image source.

In reaction, mainstream media bullies and idiots hysterically demanded the professor be "axed" by Florida Atlantic University, not because he had said anything false or unreasonable, but because he dared to remark on the incompetence of the mainstream media, an incompetence suggesting possible collusion in a government charade aimed at deceiving and disarming the American people.

The good news is, first, that Professor Tracy retains, at least for now, his post at Atlantic Florida University; second that Professor Tracy has stuck to his guns and continues to review to the evidence of what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary on December 14, 2012; and third, that one of Professor Tracy's colleagues, Kurtis Hagen, Chair of the Department of Philosophy, State University of New York, Plattsburgh, has had the courage to explain for the benefit of the many who apparently do not realize it, that Professor Tracy's line of inquiry concerning Sandy Hook is both an aspect of his responsibility as a professor of journalism studies, and a service to society courageously undertaken.

In the end, Professor Tracy's inquiry into Sandy Hook may prove inconclusive, and even if good reasons emerge to believe that his thesis is correct, we can be certain that the government of the United States will not turn upon itself, investigate itself thoroughly and punish itself appropriately.

Independent inquiry into the events at Sandy Hook nevertheless serve several useful purposes. They help to inform the public of the remarkable incompetence and dishonesty of America's great media organizations. They may encourage a degree of caution, decency even, on the part of those who rule when contemplating means to manipulate and control the ruled. And they may encourage citizens to scrutinize more carefully the merit of government claims for ever more imperious control over citizens' speech, communications, finances, travel and right of self-defence.