Stealth Terror III: Sandy Hook, Terrorist Enclave
The following is the third installment of an exclusive four part
series on memoryholeblog.com probing the relationship between America’s
police state and less-understood weather warfare programs. Part I of Stealth Terror may be found here. The work will run weekly through July 30. -JFT
To “defend” our nation by use of weather warfare,
instead of more military bases and more enemies around the world, it is
necessary that what I want to know for due process reasons be kept
secret. An entirely different conflict arises when the technique is
used on us domestically, to change our existence as per Carnicom’s
analysis of chemtrail content, or for the intentional killing in weather
incidents. We see both outline and substance of a police state
descending upon us that we, as Americans, should be unable to tolerate.
Before you dismiss this chemtrail conspiracy
analysis, consider that Sandy was not just another hurricane, and that
Sandy Hook did not just experience another heart-wrenching massacre, but
rather contained the elements of another 9/11–the event that took us to
a disastrous war. The Sandy Hook affair is taking us further into a
police state by deceitfully popularizing a basic element of that status: gun control.
Six weeks after Hurricane Sandy caused her
unsettling, debilitating and deeply distressing event, our mental image
turned to another event so repulsive and so apparently threatening to
the well-being of our culture that it dug deeply into the meaning of
“freedom” which we have grasped as integral to a free society. We were
informed that a miscreant had shot and killed 20 school children and six
adults in Newtown, Connecticut, uniquely horrible because the assailant
is said to have shot repeatedly until he was certain that each child he
shot was dead. Newtown was in Hurricane Sandy’s track, trees down,
electricity out, one item of severe damage a Newtown fire truck crushed
by a tree.
Hurricane
Sandy had killed more, at monstrous expense and discomfort to millions
of innocent people and a disabling threat to their future, but the
philosophical conflict aroused by the warped mind said to be behind the
terror at Sandy Hook Elementary School aroused a national debate as to
the role of the Second Amendment, or even the desirability of it in
American civil society—not for the future, but
as we see it today, which
is a very short view considering how the U.S. government and the media
have wobbled since 9/11. This constitutionally high-ranked amendment
was considered fundamental by our forebears as a guard against the
ancient governmental passion for monarchy—i.e. “police state.”
Anyone with a heart must find it as horrible as I
did, more troubling than any mass murder in the U.S. in current memory.
It has been deplored not only by organizations private and public
throughout the country and the world, but strongly, specifically and
repeatedly by the President and Vice President of the United States,
with obviously deep, but theatrical, emotion. It is deplored by
legislators and public officials such as the Mayor of New York City, by
newspaper and magazine editors–the New York Times leading the
field–with front page coverage and opinion urging legislative
prohibition of firearm possession and the need for invasive background
checks to eliminate lawbreakers and mental cases, even to requiring
annual re-registration by gun owners, as with automobiles. The
Connecticut state legislature swiftly enacted a law in response to the
horror, said to be a model for other states and the federal government,
the strictest of any.
The campaign goes on, featuring notable public
officials, and parents of the children, in an effort to take advantage
of the momentum derived from the personal feelings of horror and disgust
by everyone. Proponents were shocked by the failure of the U.S. Senate
to approve the strengthening amendments that were set to be approved by
the House. Members of the Senate who voted against them were
characterized as “inhuman,” no matter their reason, with the National
Rifle Association singled out as the heartless organization most
responsible for the failure due to its “money-backed political power.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he will bring them up again.
The question that I see is not which gun control measures should be amended, but this: if
the motive for change is based upon a widespread and intense emotion
that has been creatively launched from Newtown, should voters ignore the
frailty of the story upon which they are basing their judgment? Above
this is the larger overall consideration: In urging our elected
representatives to vote for strictures that many believe to be for
public safety, but which appear to have been principally desired by
government-control (“police state”) advocates, we will have demonstrated
a 9/11-type loyalty that allows the media to act as respectable sources
of truth when their output misleads us, as by a faulty compass.
In the heading for this
subject I refer to “terror,” as if that is what we are talking about.
That would depend upon its being organized and managed for the purpose
of intimidation or coercion. A lone individual can be a terrorist who
strikes terror, thus Adam Lanza could be classed as a terrorist if he
acted out of an intention rather than madness.
What I see as common sense
in this case is that the “Sandy Hook massacre” was an organized event
managed for the purpose of intimidation of government, federal and
state, to coerce removal of firearms from personal ownership in the
United States, in context of a movement by powerful individuals who view
the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as an obstacle to their
absolute control. With the First Amendment, these two are the
strictures that make the United States of America unique in the world,
rather than its supreme military power which honors cynicism,
insensitivity and indifference to human rights, motivated by national or
individual self-interest.
The following six numbered
headings list elements revealing the “Sandy Hook massacre” to be an
organized scam, in effect a terrorist event. I have chosen these as six
factors any one of which reveals the falsehood
of the “Sandy Hook massacre” as portrayed by the media. I have not
included some other features supporting this conclusion because of the
additional detail that is required for their proof, as different from
these six which I believe to be insurmountable for the terrorists to
avoid—unless our system has become lawless..
1. The death certificate. The people officially responsible at Newtown refuse to allow proof of the massacre, to the point that a reporter for the
New York Post
has filed a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC)
of Connecticut’s “Office of Governmental Accountability” to require
release of the death certificates as required by state law. (Complaint
reference “Document 2013-120”, on the hearing list as of May 3, on May
29 preparing hearings for 2013-
20 to -
30. The hearings are handled in numerical order, thus a hundred to go before Document 2013.
120.) (On June 18, 2013 the State of Connecticut compelled
release of “terse, one-page death certificates” in response to the
New York Post’s request.-JFT)
The statute (7-62b) states: “A
death certificate for each death that occurs in this state shall be
completed in its entirety and filed with the registrar of vital
statistics in the town in which the death occurred not later than five
business days after death …” There are several statutes which affect
this requirement, including one for the Chief Medical Examiner to
complete his investigation “where reasonably possible within thirty
days.” The Commissioner of Public Health may also make regulations for
the extension of time periods prescribed for the filing of death
certificates “in cases where compliance therewith would result in undue
hardship.” (7-62b(f)) But for centuries in Connecticut, as a simple
matter for a civilized society, there must be a death certificate, the sooner the better.
One can
understand the need for obfuscation. Try proposing seriously to someone
that no one was killed at Sandy Hook that day. The predictable and
universal reaction is that your sense of humor is in bad taste, and
inquire of someone whether you are mentally sound. Considering how
every regular news source or TV personality has become confident that 20
children were slaughtered that day, many righteously declaring that
pro-gun advocates have no worth or humanity, turning this around would
result in embarrassment more acutely painful than the admissions of
those who finally saw the light on 9/11. Yet the Sandy Hook case is not
so complex. No death certificates? Nobody died.
A video of one of the children’s funerals indicates
that certificates must have in fact been properly issued, or there
couldn’t have been a funeral. The funeral was spectacular for the rows
of uniformed officers of various stripes. Nicole Hockley, mother of
victim Dylan, stated on an April 7 60 Minutes:
We had Dylan cremated so I have his urn next to his
picture in a cupboard in our bedroom, on a dresser. Every morning I
kiss him good morning and say ‘hi.’ Every night I pray for him to come
to me in my dreams so that I can see him again. And during the day, I
hope that what I need to do will honor him and make change. That’s the
private moments at home that I speak to him.
Cremation has special certificate requirements
before allowing the body to become unidentifiable. Even if the video
funeral was simply a show, it cannot be convincing if no one can find
certificates on record. The maximum penalty for false representation is
five years in prison.
I first contacted the Newtown Town Clerk who by
statute is central for certificate recording in that area and was bumped
to the office of the State Attorney where I was told by a secretary
that there was a delay and it would be “quite a while” before
certificates would be available.
Newtown Town Clerk Debbie Aurelia later decided to
take the heat, simply refusing to release certificates, and when taken
to task by the editor of the Hartford Courant on May 22 she
said that death certificates were not the kind of information that the
Freedom of Information law was meant to protect. The Courant: “We understand the sensitivity to grief, but not the willful disobeying the law by a public official who should know better.”
In the meantime, 20-year-old Adam Lanza stands
convicted of the most heinous crime in history, with no opportunity to
plead “not guilty” unless he shows up in person. His death certificate
is the one I pursued, similarly unavailable, although Aurelia’s
rationale as yet doesn’t fit the case made for children or teachers.
2. No crime-scene photos.
Unexplained is the lack of any photograph of the schoolrooms where the
shooting was said to have occurred, nor surviving witnesses at the
school whose unofficial remarks thus far offer no description to back
the “official reports.“ The school has been locked and fenced off since
the event, as required by the state attorney while his investigation is
underway.
The proof is there, sitting quietly in the great
empty building, undisturbed, as the national atmosphere fills with
anti-gun rhetoric that would not be occurring if it had not been
launched by the fabrication of 20 first graders slaughtered in their
classrooms. Dr. Wayne H. Carver II, Chief State Medical Examiner or
members of his staff who arrived there a “couple of hours” after the
attack, had to have seen the bodies in place, thus they would be able to
give probative testimony. The State Police counted 154 bullets fired,
but this may have been by counting the bullets left in the ten 30-round
magazines said to be found at the scene. Findings of fact such as
these may yet be available, awaiting their announcement. The mysterious
part is that the people in power are making it mysterious, while it
obviously serves the function of allowing gun control to move into more
extensive and permanent status in state and federal law based on an
emotion designed through terrorism.
A coincidence that struggles for credence is that
the new door camera system, proudly announced when installed last fall,
did not record an assailant shooting through the glass entryway door and
plunging inside. There is also no photograph of this door. Has it
been replaced? If so, may we see the door that was in place that day?
Do the school financial records show the cost of purchase and
installation of a replacement?
The counter argument would be that there is no
connection between the slaughter and the need for gun control, that
Sandy Hook is only the latest of multiple shootings by people who seem
mad, and no matter the truth of Sandy Hook, the phenomenon it represents
warrants strict gun control. Better now than after the next
slaughter. People don’t speak this argument, because despite its
benevolence, it admits deception.
3. Suppressed murders? A bizarre feature of
the official explanation is that it contains no justification or excuse
for the proven fact that the Emergency Medical Corps, arriving
immediately after receiving a 9-1-1 call at 9:35 a.m. was refused entry
by police guarding the school—police who reportedly received the same
call as the EMS. If the police were there sooner, what reason has been
provided for this discrepancy? Theoretically one policeman present at
9:30 would have prevented the attack, as proposed in The National Rifle
Association’s suggestion for all schools that one
policeman be present at each school, not for discipline of students but
to prevent massacres. This precaution would have also worked at
Columbine, or even at Virginia Tech if one police officer were present
to react promptly after the first shooting.
A
State Police report was that the shooting took five minutes, thus it
was over by roughly 9:40 a.m. At this point, the facts show that there
was no one inside the school who had the emergency medical skill that
trained technicians use to (1) stop the bleeding (2) start the
breathing, and (3) protect the wound. I learned that in Army basic
training. For civilian emergency technicians it would be more complex,
with significant improvement in survival skills. Who was in there
letting those children die by intent (murder) or reckless homicide? Who
ordered the police to keep everyone out long enough for them to die?
No one with bullet wounds emerged from the school
building other than as corpses under cover of the night and oddly
undocumented by the gaggle of news media then present. As ambulances
from neighboring communities rolled up, sirens blaring, potential
rescuers had to sit beside the Newtown crew, watching the clock. An
emergency medical technician, James Wolfe, told NBC News: “You may not
be able to save everybody, but you damn well try, and when (we) didn’t
have the opportunity to put our skills into action, it’s difficult.”
(U.S. News on NBC, December 20, 2012.) The testimony of these EMS
technicians warrant presentation to a grand jury.
4. A telling fabrication. Much has
been made of the fact that there were no wounded children. All 20, plus
the principal, teachers, shot dead. This was said to be indicative of
Adam Lanza’s mental problem, to think that he was compelled to diagnose
death before turning to another victim. The Bushmaster .223 is a
semi-automatic rifle, not automatic—thus one shot per trigger-pull, and
after 30 shots a change of magazine, or 60 if the user knew how to
attach a second one to the first. The assailant did his shooting in two
classrooms according to the informal official report. Somewhere in
Sandy Hook classrooms that morning there were some 90 first graders.
It’s possible they were so shocked they could not run, but there was a
second roomful with a teacher or teachers guarding. Use of a diagram,
the kind we see in all other incidents of this nature showing body
locations and times, is essential if an investigating body is to do more
than leave us in a fog. June 14 is half a year.
To have 26 people killed, with no wounded, is one
of those unprecedented aspects of the story, however necessary to the
Sandy Hook episode becoming a workable charade. This could happen with a
killing of imprisoned hostages, but here we have a youthful amateur
with no military training or notable size or athleticism. Dr. Carver
could withhold “dead” children by his stated impulse to keep all the
children covered so that their parents would not need to personally
identify them, sparing them from the horror of seeing their child in
their shot-up condition. If he was “covering” for the made-up official
story and he had even one wounded, it would have to be a grazing shot
identifiable as from a .223 Bushmaster, and minor as that might seem it
would be a felony with a prison sentence if proven. Better to use the
explanation that the “assailant” was inexplicably thorough. That would
match the quality of other facts being offered, such as the supposition
that no one would notice if the EMS crews were not allowed to attempt to
save lives.
5. And fraud.
There is a further rich vein of legal action if lies are being told
knowingly by officials and others with responsibility for collecting and
soliciting donations by the many charitable groups amounting to tens of
millions of dollars from individuals all over the U.S. and the world.
This would require that it be found that the Sandy Hook Massacre was in
essence the creation of an illusion, knowingly to collect money by
fraud—for use in a terrorist plot.
That is a recourse presently available to anyone
who has been a substantial contributor to one of the charities receiving
funds for the benefit of parents or relatives of Sandy Hook “victims,”
or perhaps by someone or an organization or corporation which finds that
it has been financially damaged by the procedure or its effects. They
need not wait for more proof. A lawyer could begin that process today.
It is not a defense that the New York Times declared that it to be true. From this time forward the Times
will bear the scar of Sandy Hook on its credibility. It will stand out
against earlier scars which every newspaper must wear, because the Times
has not been just the drummer or fife player for the gun control
movement, but the stern-faced idealist carrying the American flag
singing “The Star Spangled Banner” in a rich baritone voice, its legion
of op ed writers in 1776 uniforms, fists raised for a gun-free world of
obedient citizens.
6. Foreknowledge. If there is any provable act or reference to the “killing” prior to December 14,
it should have the effect of poking a pin into a balloon. It would
take just one, and there have been several that would require only a
brief investigation to substantiate. The last one I heard was on
YouTube: “Mary, in Nebraska” was on Facebook while waiting for a
program at 8:30 (9:30 EST) that day which she needed to watch hoping to
win $100. She kept close watch on the time, marked once by a call from
her husband. A minute or two before her not-to-be-missed 8:30
target there was an announcement on Facebook telling of a massacre of
children at Sandy Hook, a place she had never heard of. “Officially”
the attack was at 9:35 EST.
The December 15 State Police Public Information Office release includes the following assertions to
compare with what you have learned elsewhere: “Upon arrival, Active
Shooter Teams performed rescues of students and staff, removing them to a
safe location as they searched for the shooting suspect within the
building. The building was evacuated and students walked hand in hand
out to a safe location. (One video of about twenty students is the only
one.) Teams encountered several students and staff suffering from
gunshot wounds. The building was secured, the “shooter” was located
deceased, and Newtown EMS personnel entered to provide emergency care for the wounded.
(See “4” above) Eighteen (18) children were pronounced dead at the
scene, two children were transported to Danbury Hospital and later
pronounced dead. Six (six) adult victims were also pronounced dead at
the scene.”
Although dated on the 15th, whoever wrote it could
have come closer to the truth by speaking to anyone on the 14th as to
what the story was supposed to be. Most likely it is a creative work by
someone who had to come up with a professional reaction to a sudden
event involving many people, where a first impression tends to stick.
The release reported that two Connecticut State
Police Major Crime squads responded to conduct the investigation
assisted by Newtown Police Detectives, the Danbury State’s Attorney, and
“many Federal, Local, and States Law Enforcement Agencies.” The
release said that these people gathered both physical and forensic
evidence, the urgent focus being to identify the victims, which was accomplished overnight and the next of kin all notified.
According to parents on the April 7 60 Minutes
television program they were notified about half an hour after the
attack by an automated telephone call telling parents to come to the
firehouse, where those whose children were not involved went home, and
those in a group whose children might be involved were sent to
the “back room” where they were told which children had been “killed.”
Their uncertainty, more likely than any other option, appears to be due
to the preliminary selection of a larger number of children whose
parents had agreed to be involved, awaiting choice of the 20 who best
fit capability to carry out the plan at that time.
The writer of the pre-event Public Information
Office release stating that the identification of victims was
accomplished “overnight” was evidently intent upon giving the planners
time to do this, unaware that parents might report the earlier
notification. Because 34 sets of parents received money from the
community fund, not just 20, the other 14 could be those who had gone
through the expense, planning, and stress of “disappearance” of their
first-grader, awaiting only notice that the child had been chosen. An
eligible child would have to have appeared perfectly normal on the 13th, assuredly able to be gone somewhere on the 14th and later.
The family of each victim was assigned a Trooper or
Officer to establish and maintain an open line of communication. “The
families have requested no press interviews and we are asking that this
request be honored.” This may have happened, but was it protection for
the family member or for defense against fact-finders who were rebuffed
by all official and private sources as so commonly reported?
The Major Crime squads are “gathering evidence and
documenting the entire facility.” State Police Detectives assisted by
Newtown detectives “processed the interior and exterior crime scene.
Teams of investigators flooded the community and followed each lead,
developing extensive information.” An additional Major Crime squad
investigated a residence on Yogananda Street “where a female was located
deceased inside the residence.” Preliminary information determined
that “the deceased was a relative of the ‘shooter’ at the Elementary
School”—the way a planner before the attack would say it, trying not to
seem knowledgeable too early. Nancy Lanza owned the house and lived
there with her son Adam, a fact that neighbors knew, according to
neighbor Ms. Hockley.
“The school scene is still being processed by
detectives and it (is) anticipated that this process will take several
days.” If any of this occurred, I have found no reason to believe that
it was more than ideas of the writer as to what would look realistic.
The school was quickly shut down, with no report of an entry since
December 14, and no doubt none before the school building is torn down,
to happen ASAP unless the state’s attorney intercedes. The purpose of
replacing the building, preferably in a new location, is because there
is a reluctance to require parents to take their children to this
symbolic place of horror.
Dr. Carver said that he and his team stayed all
day, standing “ready” in the parking lot structure placed there for them
by the EMS unit, which he thanked. They left the school after midnight
with the bodies, taking them to the headquarters at Farmington, west of
Hartford, to do the autopsies. I don’t know what he and his team were
doing all that time in the EMS tent, but they were “ready for
anything”–at the site from 10 a.m. (or so) until after midnight,
according to Dr. Carver. If there were something they wished to hide,
perhaps midnight, with most people gone home, would be best. Two nurses
were said to be injured, and said to have gone to the hospital for
treatment, but the injuries were not identified as bullet wounds. That
would be a record check for an investigator.
An aspect I’m not including because it is so
potentially voluminous is the subject of use of professional actors, the
question being only how many of the people we have been hearing from
were such. All one need do is identify one who had no other reason to
act as a parent. The nail in the Sandy Hook coffin may simply be proof
of the fact that one of the speakers represented as a parent or relative
of a victim, was not.
The New York Times
is central to the plot because of its support—unqualified until its
editorial of May 27 in which it responded to a detailed report in the
Hartford Courant
of May 23 which exposed the attempt of Connecticut state officials to
get a bill law enacted secretly that would prevent any release of
information on Sandy Hook victims without consent of the victims’
families. Several of the
Times opinions columnists early on
wrote to expand on the need for action to prevent another Sandy Hook
massacre. I responded to one of Joe Nocera’s April columns on the
subject entitled “That Spineless Gun Vote” excoriating the National
Rifle Association I told Joe he was one of my favorites, so it was
more than a slight disappointment to see him cooperating in President
Obama’s dishonest and underhanded campaign for strengthening his police
state. I gave him the number of the Newtown Town Clerk so he could call
and get a copy of one of the death certificates. (Tel 203-270-4210) I
said: “Gun control, important as it is, is a secondary issue when the
emotional climate has been dishonestly engineered, the responsible media
not just allowing it, but inducing it.” (No answer.)
The May 23 Courant told of the stand-fast
position of the Newtown Town Clerk in refusing to release death
certificates to those who requested them as required by law. She said
that whatever one claimed as based on language of the statute, the
exceptional nature of the situation required that the state prevent
further harm to the people victimized—essentially consistent with the
position of the secret changes which came from the office of Governor
Dannel Malloy.
This issue awakened the ire of the Times
editor who on May 27 severely chastised Governor Malloy and Connecticut
chief state’s attorney Kevin Kane in “Public Records on the Newtown
Shootings,” beginning: “It would be hard to compound the tragedy of the
Newtown school massacre, in which 20 children and six school employees
died, but a misbegotten proposal aimed for the Connecticut Legislature
would do just that.” The secret proposal, “written without the
knowledge of the state ‘Freedom of Information Commission,’ would stop
the release of essential information that the public and government
leaders need to know in considering how to prevent crimes and to
understand how law enforcement responded.”
So the Times is not dead in the water.
This is what a proper newspaper can do—it writes as if the basic facts
of the event were thus far under determination by the legal authorities,
even when it is aware of the unproven background of cheating. By this
reprimand the Times distances itself from the process. It can
watch carefully now to see how those police authorities respond.
“Connecticut lawmakers should not be rushing to enact restrictions on
public information that were produced in secrecy. Surely, Mr. Malloy
and other officials will show more sense than to accept this misguided
idea.” If they do it anyway, the Times has put up a shield and needn’t press the issue.
The next editorial, on June 1 entitled “The Gun
Rampage Next Time” endorses a new study group: “the Hartford
Consensus.” Following a recommendation by the American College of
Surgeons in reaction to the mass shooting in Aurora, Colo. in July, 2012
(12 dead and 58 wounded) that first responders be better prepared, the
Hartford Consensus was formed in April of 2013 by a trauma physician
from Hartford Hospital with experts from medicine, law enforcement and
the military “to plan better emergency response to mass shootings to
improve the chance for survival of gunshot victims.” Doctors from the
United States Navy, the F.B.I., and officers from several urban police
forces convened in April. The Times’ position here is a façade
for dedication to a normal mass shooting where the main job afterward
is saving lives of the wounded so that the massacre fits the normal
expectation. The Hartford Censensus would have no reference insofar as
Sandy Hook is concerned, with no wounded, and the established fact that
no emergency responders were allowed to enter.
The editorial adds a reminder that “easy accessibility of weapons” causes death from gunfire, ending with this lecture:
The public still
does not know where or how the mother of the Newtown shooter purchased
the weapons used by her son. That question should have been addressed
by now, but a final state police report on the massacre has been
postponed until at least September. Connecticut officials have been
increasingly intent on preventing full disclosure of all facts in the
case. Official obfuscation plays into the hands of the gun lobby’s
Congressional lackeys, who continue to oppose new laws despite solid
popular support for tighter controls on gun sales.
By the reference to the source of Nancy Lanza’s guns the Times
throws in a gun control subject to emphasize that the important
business is firearms trafficking, not what actually happened. What lies
ahead that will wash this all out of our minds? In the meantime, why
should an investigation take more than a couple of weeks to prove it was
Adam Lanza? Is it not true that the tough part will be to prove that
anyone was killed–that is, without changing the law and the facts.
Search warrants were used to get detail of Adam’s possessions and records enabling the Times
to publicize important details to make it look like Adam was the “type”
who would do such a thing, with a firearms collection that would suit a
small gang. Certificates with “National Rifle Association” on them had
Adam’s name on one, his mother’s on a second, with nothing on them to
show their significance. A booklet on target shooting put out by the
NRA was found among his papers, but the report admitted that the NRA had
no record of membership of either Adam or his mother.
Gun control. The “gun lobby” is attacked as
if it were selfish and evil, but whichever side one may choose, I would
submit that the “evil” is the person in power who knows he is lying and
doesn’t care who may be hurt so long as his objective is met. This is
the point that connects all the subjects in this report. The denigrated
“gun lobby” has the history of a respected principle on its side,
centuries of it, in how a government survives. In 1513 Niccolo
Machiavelli in The Prince wrote
Between an armed and an unarmed man no proportion
holds, and it is contrary to reason to expect that the armed man should
voluntarily submit to him who is unarmed, or that the unarmed man should
stand secure among armed retainers. For with contempt on one side, and
distrust on the other, it is impossible that men should work well
together.
This appears in connection with the point
Machiavelli makes that the Prince must be ready for war, willing to go
to war, always preparing for war in a serious way, the desired result
being peace. Going to war may be necessary, the need minimized
if one is prepared. If citizens back down now, they will back down
again, the direction a gun-less populace, as per the current United
Nations proposal for the world. The name “Machiavelli” has a negative
connotation that it does not deserve. His reputation through the
centuries is positive because he does not claim to treat right or wrong,
but the result of specific behavior, and his analysis has been a
correct and valuable caution throughout the years.
In 1776 those honored men who founded the United
States of America listed possession of firearms the second highest
principle added to their constitution after its assurance of freedom of
religion, speech, and the press; peaceable assembly; and petitioning the
government for a redress of grievances. When Article II added “A
well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,”
it referred to the states’ militia, not one of the federal government,
which to them was suspect (as it is now, and must be, because of
politically powerful interests). The article speaks of arms for war,
which today would include assault rifles. Machiavelli said one has to
be prepared to go to war. If a state decides to organize a
well-regulated militia, it must have people armed and ready with
equipment, knowledge and skills as of today, needed or not. Without
this backing, Machiavelli adds “For among other causes of misfortune which your not being armed brings upon you, it makes you despised…”
That is to say, it makes you unable to count upon the virtues of
Article I, which is what an American is supposed to look like.
I would emphasize Machiavelli’s concept that the ultimate objective is not war, just as the ultimate objective of gun ownership is not shooting people. It is the practical base of confidence
that allows rational behavior in support of freedom. View this in the
light of our experience shown by a recent report from Reuters that
“Gun-related homicides and other crimes involving guns have fallen
sharply over the past two decades in the United States,” although most
Americans polled think firearms crime is higher than it was 20 years
ago. (The Columbus Dispatch May 9, 2013.) The number for gun-related
homicides was down 39 percent from the 1993 peak, according to the
Justice department. In the same period, nonfatal firearms crimes
declined 69 percent.
The aspect of the Sandy
Hook phenomenon that is truly appalling is that there is no emergency
for the cures offered, but rather the opposite, with the gunless citizen
to be “despised.” The sonic volume of this issue tells me that this
argument is far from finished. If this much can be accomplished without
simply waiting for an actual event, another fraud can be worked, and
over time, another. As noted earlier, this is like a small 9/11, which
created a false “terrorist” menace to dissolve citizen resistance by use
of induced fear and hatred to ultimately allow the illegal slaughter of
millions of innocent world citizens (including millions of children who
starved or lacked medical care), still underway.
Managers. The Times has been running a
profusion of articles and editorials in recent weeks to describe how
crooked New York City and Albany have become. Newtown is essentially a
suburb of New York City, some of its residents commuting in the very
railroad cars which stop at Bridgeport a few miles beyond the recent
train wreck scene.
The “Sandy Hook massacre” was obviously not a local
show, but one with high-level cooperators, who have shown themselves as
being at least three in number. Mayor Michael Bloomberg represents the
most visible financial support. He appeared at Yankee Stadium, as a
Yankee fan. The major leagues were asked to have their players wear a
medallion with a black ribbon memorializing the 20 children. Mayor
Bloomberg and President Obama have been urging new gun control laws more
loudly than anyone, with Connecticut recently passing “the most
far-reaching gun-legislation package in the country.” Recalling the
“players” in Hurricane Sandy, President Obama hustling out to meet with
Bloomberg and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie just before the
election, and of course Obama’s use of his State of the Union message on
February 12 as the platform for an emotional expression about mass
shootings and gun control, I couldn’t think of a more likely team, with
Obama as federal coordinator and prominent voice.
Add Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., publisher of The
New York Times, which has taken the lead among mainline media to get gun
control done promptly before everyone forgets, as urged almost frantically by Bloomberg and Obama. On April 9th,
the day after I wrote this insult implicating Mr. Sulzberger, there
appeared an article by regular columnist Michael Powell entitled
“Bloomberg, Holding Nose, Opened Wallet,” validating Bloomberg’s role
among the “managers,” with no reference to Sandy Hook. Confirming to
Bloomberg’s system of protecting public officials’ standard of living,
Powell states: “Here, I suppose Mr. Bloomberg talks from empirical
observation in his 12 years in office. In that time, few have done more
to feed slop to the worst actors in this system than our mogul mayor.
In 2009, when he decided that his professional love of term limits was
silliness, and that he would like the Republican Party nomination, he
spread cash the way a farmer spreads manure in spring.” He quotes the
mayor: “The system is broken,” then asks: “Really, who could disagree
with him?”
On the same page is an article about Governor
Andrew Cuomo which leaves him in the same barnyard as Bloomberg,
underlain by a lead editorial on April 9 on “What Reform Will Require.”
I quote: “The latest scandals from Albany have generated a slew of
proposals to clear out New York’s political swamp.” Cuomo is urged to
get changes made to provide for wider and better choices at election
time, instead of fostering the stagnation caused by his approval of the
redistricting maps last year that clinched it for incumbents. Fix it so
that prosecution is not the only way to get rid of
corruption–currently, it’s done indictment by indictment. The U.S.
Attorney in Manhattan and other authorities “have unearthed seemingly
inexhaustible acts of illegal behavior by state and local politicians.
The Times is obviously doing its best to clear out
New York’s political swamp, at a time most useful to correct people such
as I who consider its inability to face the truth of Sandy Hook an
admission that it is just another swamp creature. This has not been
easy for me. I want to respect The Times, and its opinion writers like
Paul Krugman, but now I’m wondering at what point Krugman will consider
The Times an embarrassment.
The reason I am carping about The Times is that we
have plenty of information sources that cannot be trusted, and instead
of standing tall, I see The Times suddenly a midget. If The Times
finally says “Gee, we just didn’t know” I’m not buying it. It is so
obvious that I have to laugh. Then I think I’ll cry. I’ll watch
Krugman. If he’s leaving, so am I.
In Chief Medical Examiner Carver’s interview on
December 15 he said how proud he was of the people working for him and
for the people of Newtown, adding “I hope the people of Newtown don’t have it crash on their head later.”
No one asked him what that meant. He seemed unconsciously unsure of
where to draw the line as he talked, at times in a humorous manner as if
everyone knew he was forced into doing a skit. He does not seem to be
part of the project so much as a necessary addition, one which he found
painful.
The Carver press conference is on
www.memoryholeblog.com,
December archive, the website of Dr. James F. Tracy, associate
professor at Florida Atlantic University, who in my mind stands as the
courageous and level-headed guardian of sanity on this issue, probably
still unsure of his employment as tenured professor. FAU takes The
Times position, that it’s Tracy’s opinion, not attributable to the
University. He carries on.
To those wondering what happened to the children
who were “killed,” the answer is that if any were in fact done away
with, it must be classed as murder–and not by Adam Lanza. It still is
an irresponsible parent who must explain this falsehood to his or her
other children, along with coaching the six-year-old child about keeping
the secret, in that his discovery even years from now could cause major
problems for his or her parents and others complicit in the secret
organization. Most convenient would be the death of these children by
other means, which is something that should be watched for. Of course,
intimidating or ridding the world of conspiracy theorists would be
considered preferable by Newtown perpetrators. The Times’ more
conventional solution could be institutionalization as we turn back to
building insane asylums as our police state develops.
One must consider that with careful planning and
financial backup, a child, or a teacher, could harmlessly “disappear.”
The manager needed to find 20 pair of parents willing to cooperate,
perhaps for a substantial sum of money, could be Mayor Bloomberg, who
put up $12 million of his own money for the nationwide showing of TV ads
of the outdoorsman with his rifle. He has also indicated his intention
to invest whatever is necessary for lobbying this year. Obama’s
full-fledged involvement offers the possibility of black budget money to
allow a temporary or even permanent long-term residence for parents and
children at some distance, perhaps a foreign country, transportation
furnished by non-commercial air, boarded at night. One might have an
aunt somewhere, or a grandmother. Their child having been placed in
safe hands elsewhere, they could move to another place where they could
change their names, with the credible reason that they couldn’t stand it
in Newtown any longer, as one parent was quoted. Adam Lanza and his
mother could at this moment be living in the state of Washington where
she was quoted as saying she thought Adam would have a better chance for
normalization. There are people in Newtown who might choose Israel as a
temporary or permanent residence, where their identity would be secure
from U.S. inquiry and their persons from return to the U.S. The
Hockleys, parents of Danyl, had moved to Newtown from England not long
before, so could choose to go back. Danyl is autistic and could be
placed for a period in a special school at some convenient distance.
The simplest way to move away and still stay home would be to move to
New York City, where it is easy to get lost, even easier with high-level
contacts.
If one needed material for cross-examination there is a growing body of statements for one to pursue. An April 15 People Magazine
lying in a waiting room caught my eye—16 pages of portrait photographs
and text quoting parents of nine of the “dead” children. One couple
moved to Massachusetts for the husband’s new job, in their new house
furnishing a room as a memorial for their deceased daughter and her
belongings. An aspect of all this is the seeming willingness of the
“parents” to make coy comments about their experience, which may be as
defense that they told the truth, if charged as part of this crime—for
if it is a crime, it’s one that the Times won’t get charged for.
With 91 sets of parents of first graders, finding
20 sets who would function cooperatively is realistic. This didn’t
happen overnight. It simply required good planning, money, and a belief
by the parents that the managers were powerful enough to protect them
if there were some rough spots. It has the characteristics of an
organization with enough loyal adherents to make it work. Loyal, that
is, to include those with respect for its ability to make life difficult
for its critics.
Scott Pelley, narrator, addressing Nicole Hockley, mother of Dylan, on the April 7th 60 Minutes
show, noting that it was about 10 o’clock on December 14 when an
“automated emergency call” lit up the cell phones of the parents
directing them to Sandy Hook Firehouse, asked her what she had seen and
heard. This call would have to have come less than half an hour after
the alleged attack, highly unlikely to have specified identities. The
medical examiner whose staff made the identifications would not have
arrived yet, by his testimony.
Nicole: “There were just people everywhere. There
were several rooms and there were just parents everywhere because these
are small rooms and they’re not meant to hold that many people. And you
really had to push to get through and we were all just jostling trying
to find our kids. Someone said to me, ‘I’ve seen Jake (her other
child), he’s in one of the other rooms.’ And that was a relief, you
know, a moment of ’He’s okay and that’s okay if he’s okay.’ And a woman
asked me ‘What classroom was your other child in?’ I said ‘Mrs. Soto.’
And she said ‘I heard she got shot.’ And I really got angry at her, and
I remember very clearly saying, ‘Don’t you dare say that to me if you
don’t know it’s true’ and I just pushed by her. (It was “true.”) But I
couldn’t find Dylan’s class or anyone from his class anywhere.”
At this point, it seems that Nicole and all other
mothers who heard the automated phone call had been told that some
children and teachers had been killed, and were supposed to be under
emotional shock as they considered the possibility that their child
might have been killed. How did these other mothers learn this? Did
the telephone call say that some children at the school were killed,
come and find out? That is what this sounds like.
Narrator Pelley broke the continuity here to talk
to Jimmy and Nelda Green. Jimmie: “I ran to the firehouse and
frantically was just looking around and I saw my son’s teacher in like a
living room area of the firehouse, and all of the kids in her class
were seated on the floor. I ran in the room and Isaiah popped up and I
swang (ibid) and grabbed him and held him and he was crying. ‘Daddy,
you know, there were so many gun shots,’ and you know ‘I saw this and I
saw that,’ so I just took my son in my arms, he’s a big kid and I took
him like he was two years old again, and held him on my shoulder and was
just running from room to room trying to locate Anna’s class.”
Nelda: “And then I got a text from Jimmy: “I have
Isaiah, but I don’t have Anna yet.” So I was driving with my friend
back to Sandy Hook and I just kept texting Jimmy every ten or fifteen
seconds. Anna—question mark, then, Anna—exclamation point, because we had Isaiah and I didn’t understand why we didn’t have Anna.”
Nicole: “And I just kept looking, thinking ‘When
am I going to see Dylan, when am I going to see Ms. Soto, or when am I
going to see any of the kids from his classroom?’ And everyone was just
going home. (Long pause) You just don’t know what you’re supposed to
do, who to talk to because no one had all the information. And then, it
just started to get fewer and fewer parents and kids in the room, and
then they asked everyone who was left to come into one of the back
rooms.”
Pelley breaks to Francine Wheeler: “…and I
remember saying, ‘I don’t want to go to that back room. I don’t want to
go in that back room’ because I know what the back room meant. And my
heart as a mother knew what the back room meant.”
Nicole: “And then we waited through what seemed
like hours and eventually they announced that there had been a shooting
and they told us that people had died and the room just erupted with
anguish. But even then you still think, ‘Dylan’s okay, he’s got to be
okay because this wouldn’t happen to Dylan. And then it was several
hours later that, I believe it was Governor Malloy, who had the duty to
stand in front of the room and tell us that if we were in that room,
then our child or adult wasn’t coming back to us.”
Try to picture that as legitimate. Those are the exact words. This half of the 60 Minutes
program is on the CBS web site. They stayed at the firehouse through
the noon hour to hear Governor Malloy’s consoling remarks to the parents
and relatives of the dead, which followed an earlier address by him to
the general public elsewhere. Nicole seems unsure of his presence or
his purpose. “The big deal” that morning, which one can read in code,
is that those involved did not have dead children in mind, but the
difficulty they were now faced on this day that they had expected,
without knowing the exact day, some of the reactions resulting from
realization of imminent separation from friends, the complexity of
getting a child out of sight and in the right place, responsibility for
her part in the community deception (Carver’s comment that it might
“come down on their head”).
Ms. Hockley has appeared most often on television,
including a hug with President Obama at the White House and inclusion in
a photo at top of the front page of the April 18 Times, her
sad face showing clearly behind parent Mark Barton. Joe Biden holds his
hand theatrically over his face with shame. Behind him is parent David
Wheeler standing on a higher step which makes him seem huge and looking
like a Secret Service guard. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is next to
President Obama (“his face set with rage”—Times) declaring April 17 to be a “shameful day” because the Senate rejected the seven gun-control amendments that were up that day.
What these people said, and CBS selected, is
factual detail for your consideration. For me, it fits a program that
these “relatives of the victims” knew about for some time, not for them a
sudden emergency.
“The Sandy Hook Massacre: Unanswered Questions and Missing Information” at James F. Tracy’s
www.memoryholeblog.com,
December archive, has a video of Dr. Carver’s December 15 press
conference which deserves repeated viewings. Victor Thorn, of American
Free Press, in a 32-page booklet entitled “Sandy Hook” offers a very
clear explanation
www.wingtv.net,
sisyphus1285 @ cs.com. His editor’s comment: “Sandy Hook may very well
be the most important event since 9/11 and it may have been the event
that has most clearly delineated the lines between the forces working
for police-state/media control and those working for real freedom.”
A Times reporter noted that Obama’s
appearance showed how delicate the situation had become—speaking
extemporaneously without teleprompters, “expressing irritation in a way
that he generally does not,” an example being “Shame on us if we’ve
forgotten. I haven’t forgotten those kids. Shame on us if we’ve
forgotten.” Good point. Nor have I forgotten, because I see these
children and their siblings as victims of child abuse, which is a crime
in Connecticut as in all other states. What have their parents told
them about the rules of the new world they will be living in? What have
they told their brothers and sisters about playing the game in which
the six-year-olds will be growing to adulthood? If even one feels the
need to speak out against the mental cramp resulting from his parental
explanation and instruction, it could cause problems simply because the
lie has grown so large. This has been a radical experiment for everyone
involved, now placed on the shoulders of innocent children for its
viability.
Must be awfully important.
*James Hanson is a native of Nebraska and
graduate of Oberlin College. His first job was as reporter for the
Defiance, Ohio Crescent-News. Drafted, he was with the Korea Military
Advisory Group (KMAG) 1952-1953. His law degree is from the University
of Michigan, where he learned the importance of well-drafted
legislation.
For the Ohio Water Commission, born of the 1959
flood, Hanson assisted in creating an intelligent framework for water
management. He was legal advisor to the Director of Natural Resources,
then legislative counsel for the Ohio Legislative Service Commission.
In private practice Hanson’s long-term
representations were for environmental organizations such as the
volunteer Water Management Association of Ohio and the Ohio Water
Development Authority, bond-issuing agency for municipal sewer and water
facilities. The Wildlife Legislative Fund and the Wildlife Legislative
Fund of America became his major clients, which he created under the
direction of James H. Glass as the defenders of sportsmen’s interests in
Ohio and wherever wildlife laws came under attack. Their present
successor is the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance.
Retired, Hanson was writing histories of
immigration into Nebraska when he suddenly found himself duty-bound to
concentrate on the flood of government falsehoods spilling over
especially since 2001.
Posts
