Sandy Hook is not what it appears to be. Do I think a shooting happened, yes. Do I think the truth of what REALLY happened is being disseminated to the public, NO! The American public is being lied too, an deliberately deceived so that TPTB can strip the civil liberties from a once FREE American citizenry.
The 2nd Amendment is the ONLY thing protecting the American people from a rouge branch or BRANCHES of the Federal government seizing power ILLEGALLY.
This is known as a coup d'état also known as a coup, a putsch, or an overthrow, is the sudden, illegal deposition of a government,
usually by a small group of the existing state establishment Typically, it is
the military who are the culprits, yet, in 1st world countries this is done by rouge politicians who use the thin veneer of new, rushed through, laws to depose the extant government and replace it with another
body. A coup d'état is considered successful when
the ILLEGAL usurpers establish their dominance over a once free nation.
The amazing thing about this Emillie Parker picture is that they didn't even bother to change her outfit from the fake family photo to the Photo op with Bama. Thats how little respect TBTP have for the American public.
Brendan Hunt.com (X-Ray Ultra Studios) exposes a cover-up of the facts
concerning the Sandy Hook shooting in this 2-and-a-half hour video
presentation/citizen's investigation. Evidence suggests that there were
several people involved in this planned event,
PAY CLOSE ATTENTION!!!
This Tribute video was uploaded a week before the Alleged Sandy Hook Shooting took place.
The Assault Weapons BAN is a LIE! No Automatic weapons have been used in any of the False Flag School Shootings. A true assault rifle
is military, and has a selector switch/lever that allows it to fire
FULL-AUTO.
The bushmaster-M4 is a civilian semi-auto, as are the Colt-AR-15, AK-47, etc. The lying, thieving, politicians, know this. The offal in Washington are intentionally doing a bait and switch. This is a war for the hearts and minds of all AMERICANS learn the
truth or die with the lie.
The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution DECLARES that these
God given right..."To keep and bear arms" is to be free from any
CONGRESSIONAL interference WHATSOEVER from any part the federal government.
The Founder of this FREE Country and the writers of the Constitution understood
that arms are our ultimate defense against the Tyranny of a future federal government.
"...for the Tyranny of Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value,-outside the State."
The reason the Citizens – the Militia – are armed is to defend
ourselves, our families, our neighborhoods, communities, and States from
an overreaching, tyrannical federal government.
Furthermore, the federal government is nowhere in the Constitution
granted authority to restrict, in any fashion whatsoever, guns,
ammunition. Regardless of what a criminal or insane person doers with these guns. There are ALREADY 2,000 plus gun laws in place. The Sandy Hook massacre would have happened regardless of ANY gun LAWS! Adam Lanza committed 9 separate crimes, 4 punishable by death, before he. ALLEGEDLY, killed those children. So, your telling me that 1 more gun law would have stopped him? Ludicrous!
ALL laws made by Congress, ALL regulations made
by the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco, are
unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers granted to Congress
and to the Executive Branch by our Constitution.
Regulation of arms and
ammunition is NOT one of the “enumerated powers” delegated to Congress
or the Executive Branch.
Furthermore, all pretended regulations made by the BAFT are also unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, Sec. 1, U.S. Constitution, which vests ALL legislative powers granted by the Constitution in CONGRESS. Executive agencies have no lawful authority whatsoever to make rules or regulations of general application to The People!
In addition, the President and the Senate may not lawfully by treaty
do anything the Constitution does not authorize them to do directly.
Since the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to
disarm us, the federal government may not lawfully do it by Treaty.
We are a Republic, not a Democracy. The only hope that the Free men and women of the United States of America have at our disposal, is to entreat our legally elected Representatives to stand up to the Tyranny of the Executive branch.
"The
most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who
have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own
downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the
supply of arms to the people is a sine qua non for the
overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia, armed civilians, or
native police. German troops alone will bear the sole POWER for
the maintenance of law and order throughout ALL the occupied
territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to
cover the entire occupied countries." --Adolf Hitler
Make NO MISTAKE! This is about the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution. If the States do not stand up against this egregious affront to liberty and freedom from the Executive branch then it must fall to the people.
Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco,
Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently
works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host. He's
co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance, and author of the
books Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie (2007) and Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters (2009). His website is www.truthjihad.com.Are
Barrett, however, takes the covert abuse to a new level, that of Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs),
one in which thousands of targeted individuals have alleged for years,
many taking their claims of abuse to the president's Bio-ethics
Commission.
Who are the targets of the clandestine US Intelligence Agencies?
A long list of targeted individuals trying to expose the truth of
9/11 met untimely, suspicious deaths. Many have experienced and reported
being assaulted with DEWs( Directed Energy Weapons)
(Watch embedded YouTube video
on this page with Barrie Towers explaining the DEW assaults burns and
other injuries, physical and mental, that targeted individuals are
experiencing and consistently reporting.)
Barrett reminds the reader about Barry Jennings, Dr. David Graham,
Mike Ruppert, Byron Belitsos, Justin Raymondos, David Ray Griffith, Bob
Bowman, Lyn Margulis and many others :
“Barry Jennings, the deputy director of Emergency
Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority on 9/11,
appears to have been murdered after speaking publicly about explosions
he witnessed that partly demolished World Trade Center Building 7 on the
morning of 9/11. (The demolition of WTC-7, begun in the morning, was
completed shortly after 5:20 that afternoon, after WTC owner Larry
Silverstein and colleagues 'made the decision to pull' the building
according to Silverstein's own statement.)
“Dr. David Graham of Shreveport, Louisiana, was murdered -
apparently by the FBI - for writing a book about two of the alleged
9/11 hijackers, who were obvious intelligence assets controlled by
people at Barksdale Air Force Base. Graham was poisoned with ethelene
glycol (antifreeze). The case is discussed in Sander Hicks' new book
Slingshot to the Juggernaut.
"It might be objected that Jennings and Graham were
murdered because they were eyewitnesses to a State Crime Against
Democracy, or SCAD, not because they were dissidents. Is there any
evidence that the US government (or a rogue network infiltrating it) is
“disabling the purveyors” of dangerous ideas by killing or otherwise
physically harming them, even if they are not eyewitnesses?
“Mike Ruppert, the original leader of the 9/11 truth
movement, writes that his office was attacked by microwave and/or EMF
weapons after he began publishing critiques of the official story of
9/11. The attacks may have contributed to Ruppert's poor health and
distraught frame of mind, which led him to quit the 9/11 truth movement
and temporarily flee the USA in 2006.
"Publisher Byron Belitsos, told Barrett that he and many
other 9/11 truth organizers in California were targeted by EMF or
microwave weapons during the first years after 9/11.
“Belitsos says the weapons were wielded by men in plain
white vans that would park in front of the victim's house, and that
victims suffered immediate and sometimes extreme health effects
including headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, vomiting, severe
depression, dizziness, and loss of consciousness.
"Justin Raimondo, the pioneer investigator of Israeli
complicity in 9/11, was warned away from the subject - and after he
disregarded the warning, he suffered a severe heart attack, despite his
relative youth and excellent physical condition. Since his mysterious
heart attack, Raimondo has stayed away from the subject of 9/11, and has
remained in good health.
"David Ray Griffin, the world's leading voice of 9/11
truth, suffered a partially-disabling stroke in the summer of 2010.
While he has recovered sufficiently to continue to write and research,
the stroke left him with a slight aphasia that has ended his career as a
prolific public speaker.
"Dr. Bob Bowman, the former head of Star Wars under two
US presidents, has had his 9/11 truth efforts slowed by his struggle
with cancer.
"Even more tragically, the most prestigious scientist
ever to take up the cause of 9/11 truth, Lynn Margulis, died of a stroke
November 22, 2011. When I last spoke to Lynn, less than a year before
her death, she told me she did not want to speak publicly about 9/11 any
more, because “politics is too dangerous.” She sounded scared - like
someone had warned or threatened her.
"Steven Jones, the physics professor who was forced out of Brigham
Young University for researching the demolition of the World Trade
Center, was warned to stop by a “connected” colleague. Jones did the
right thing: he immediately went public about the apparent threat.
Barrett says that Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers
for 9/11 Truth, might have also "been attacked by the type of EMF or
microwave weapon described by Ruppert and Belitsos."
"In the summer of 2009, in Washington, DC, Gage suddenly suffered
vertigo and hearing loss. Activist colleagues who were present suspect
some kind of covert attack. Today, Gage still suffers from the
after-effects: partial loss of hearing in one ear.
Thousands of targeted individuals who have tried to raise awareness
about their plight to survive being attacked by EMF weapons would find
comfort in Barrett's following words: "Though some consider microwave
and EMF weapons the stuff of science fiction, Maj. Doug Rokke, Ph.D.,
the former head of the US Army's depleted uranium cleanup project after
Gulf War I, says these weapons are very real, and commonly used in
military circles."
Rokke described to Barrett he personally used such weapons on a
regular basis while training with Special Forces at US Army facilities:
“'We had them van-mounted, truck-mounted, plane-mounted,
and hand-carried. We would go around zapping each other for fun. This
was during exercises, or sometimes just as a practical joke.' Rokke
assured me that, based on his firsthand knowledge of US military
mind-set and capabilities, 9/11 truth activists have undoubtedly been
targeted by exotic non-lethal (and lethal) weapons.
"Will writing this article put me on a US government hit list?" Barrett again asks.
"Twenty years ago, such a question would have sounded absurd.
Today, the USA has become an Orwellian nightmare!"
I would like to add to this list Andrew Breitbart's death as a "stunning coincidence." How utterly convenient thatAndrew
Breitbart suffered his untimely death just hours before he was set to
release damning video footage that could have sunk Barack Obama's 2012
re-election campaign."
TPTB will stop at nothing to hold onto the power which they precariously hold in their bloody hands. No deed to foul, no murder too heinous, no body count too high, TPTB have only HELL as their reward for their vain efforts.
As the Obama administration plots various assaults on gun rights by “executive order” and legislation, proposals described as “very extreme” even by some Democrats, state lawmakers in Wyoming have another idea. Republican legislators are rallying behind nullification
legislation that would void unconstitutional infringements on the right
to keep and bear arms, even providing prison time for any federal
agents who may try to enforce Washington, D.C., gun control in the
state. Lawmakers expect it to pass.
The new bill, H.B. 0104 or the “Firearms Protection Act,” would nullify
any new federal infringements on the constitutionally protected gun
rights of state residents — who enjoy some of the lowest crime rates
while being among the most heavily armed people in America.
Unconstitutional federal gun registration schemes, as well as
restrictions on semi-automatic guns or standard-capacity magazines,
would also be nullified under the legislation.
There are teeth in the proposed law too: Any federal official
attempting to enforce unconstitutional statutes or decrees infringing on
gun rights passed after January 1 of this year would be charged with a
felony. If convicted, criminal officials would be punished by up to five
years in state prison and a $5,000 fine. The legislation also
authorizes the state attorney general to defend citizens of Wyoming if
federal authorities seek prosecutions under unconstitutional gun control
rules.
At least eight state representatives and two state senators have
already sponsored the legislation. And nationwide, support for similar
measures is exploding. “We want to get things ahead of the game,”
Republican state Rep. Kendell Kroeker, the primary sponsor of the bill, told the Huffington Post.
“We take the Second Amendment seriously in Wyoming…. If the federal
government is going to pass laws taking back our rights, it is our right
as a state to defend those rights.”
Citing his oath to support and defend the U.S. and state
constitutions, state Rep. Kroeker has been a leader in standing against
lawless usurpations of power by the federal government. In a previous
session, he introduced legislation to increase the use of gold as
currency in the state, for example. “I take an oath to uphold, support
and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of
Wyoming,” Kroeker continued, telling reporters that his constituents
and activists nationwide were thrilled by the move. “I believe it is my
duty to take that oath seriously.”
In a separate interview with the Associated Press, the liberty-minded lawmaker noted
that there are “a lot of people” who would seek to take all of
Americans’ guns — at least if they could. The only thing restraining
them, Kroeker said, is public opposition as well as other lawmakers who
take their oaths seriously and are concerned about protecting the
people’s unalienable rights.
“We’re a sovereign state with our own constitutional form of
government,” he told the AP. “We’ve got a right to make our laws, and if
the federal government is going to try to enforce unconstitutional laws
on our people and take away the rights of Wyoming citizens, then we as a
state are going to step up and make that a crime.”
According to the liberty-minded state senator, even if Congress refuses
to budge, the administration is determined to restrict gun ownership by
presidential decree. “I think that’s the biggest threat we’re facing,”
he told the AP. Sen. Hicks also said that his constituents were
“absolutely terrified” about threats from Washington to assault gun
rights — especially Vice President Joe Biden’s pledge this week to
implement the lawless attack by executive order.
Judge Napolitano is a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, and someone I respect. His words are powerful, concise, and cut straight to the heart of the present attempt by the Executive officer to pull off a coup d'état. The United States of America was built by Free men who were aware that Tyrants come in many colors.
Guns and Freedom
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the
natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It
is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the
Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to
tyranny. And yet, the progressives in both political parties stand ready
to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the
exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse
of that right by some crazies in our midst.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we
are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, he was
marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the
natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the
West. Those principles have operated as a break on all governments that
recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.
As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we
are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that
our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from
the government, and as our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the
government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights
away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior --
like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership
and use of property, consensual personal intimacy -- immune from
government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the
government’s permission.
The essence of humanity is freedom. Government -- whether voted in
peacefully or thrust upon us by force -- is essentially the negation of
freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved
freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the
assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the
Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at
the end of World War II, from the fall of Communism to the Arab Spring,
governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to
exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and
their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.
The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is
sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the
delegation to the government of some sovereignty -- the personal
dominion over self -- by each American permitted the government to have
limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated
differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new
government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the
freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the
government. This constitutes liberty permitting power.
But we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It
is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our
neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we
are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone
else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers
from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to
interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government
lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would
not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.
To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of
anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the
Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense,
into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme
Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms
in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign
Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us,
absent our individual waiver.
There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal
historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The
dictators and monsters of the 20th century -- from Stalin to Hitler,
from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad -- have disarmed their people,
and only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all
eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they
lost. Sometimes they won.
The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that
they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the
British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that
they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the
British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George
Washington and Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.
We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among
us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip
from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense.
(Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a
precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the
limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own
not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal
sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and
overcome us.
The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the
right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot
deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right
to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would
use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and
ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free
and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.
Most people in government reject natural rights and personal
sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of
everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government.
Most people in government believe that they can write any law and
regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to
the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but
subject only to what they can get away with.
Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?
There is a destructive, delusional meme spreading like a virus among
many misguided Americans. It pushes the idea that government can pick
and choose which rights codified in the Bill of Rights it wishes to
recognize or discard on any given day.
This delusion is
predicated on the concept that if a popular majority can be emotionally
whipped into a frenzy over one particular right, then that right can
simply be discarded and stricken from the Bill of Rights.
But no
such power exists to discard any portion of the Bill of Rights, at least
not without proper ratification by three-fourths of the fifty states.
There is no such power found solely in the federal government. There is
no such power placed solely in the executive branch, nor in Congress,
nor in the White House.
The Bill of Rights describes a set of
individual rights and liberties which are not granted by government, but
recognized as DIVINE rights given to use by our Creator. Because
government never granted the rights in the first place, it has no
authority to take them away.
"The Framers of the Bill of Rights
did not purport to "create" rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of
Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties
presumed to be preexisting." - William J Brennan Jr.
The
individual liberties described in the Bill of Rights cannot be
infringed, nor deleted, nor overridden by popular opinion... not even
loudly screamed opinion. America is not a nation ruled by the tyranny of
the mob. It isn't even a democracy -- it's a republic, where certain
inalienable rights describe the protection of each individual, even if
that individual is the lone voice of sanity in a majority gone mad. The
Bill of Rights protects individuals from the tyranny of mob rule -- a
phenomenon that routinely rears its head in any society where historical
illiteracy is rampant and the masses are lulled into a state of
complacency by charismatic but dishonest leaders.
It was the
extended amendments attached to the Bill of Rights that outlawed
slavery, guaranteeing individual freedom to those of African descent
even in a time and place when the majority of voting citizens believed
slavery was socially acceptable. And it was the Second Amendment that
put firearms into the hands of those recently-freed slaves, ensuring
that they could defend themselves against attackers of any color through
the powerful expression of armed defense (aided by the laws of physics
and certain materials from the table of elements, notably lead).
Another
amendment beyond the Bill of Rights granted women equal voting rights
in an age when the majority believed women should not be allowed to
vote. It was the Bill of Rights that decriminalized prohibition, ending a
dark era of mass criminalization of everyday citizens who suffered
under the oppression of government law enforcement gone bad.
Yet
today, incredibly, many African-Americans and women are actively
assaulting the very document that first secured their own freedoms. They
now wish to take their freedom and power and use it to enslave someone
else by revoking other people's rights under the Bill of Rights. This is
the ultimate social betrayal, and it is a powerful demonstration of the
principle that those who do not respect freedom for others do not
deserve it for themselves.
The Oath of Enlistment to the United States Marine Corps
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and
domestic...
Memory Hole Blog is a forum for criticism and commentary on
sociopolitical issues and phenomena overlooked or misreported by
mainstream media. Such neglected concerns are often omitted from or
distorted in popular consciousness and memory. The site is authored and
maintained by James F. Tracy PhD, Associate Professor of Media Studies
at Florida Atlantic University.
The Sandy Hook Slight of Hand
Inconsistencies and anomalies abound when one turns an analytical eye
to news of the Newtown school massacre. The public’s general acceptance
of the event’s validity and faith in its resolution suggests a deepened
credulousness borne from a world where almost all news and information
is electronically mediated and controlled. The condition is reinforced
through the corporate media’s unwillingness to push hard questions
vis-à-vis Connecticut and federal authorities who together bottlenecked
information while invoking prior restraint through threats of
prosecutorial action against journalists and the broader citizenry
seeking to interpret the event on social media.
Along these lines on December 19 the Connecticut State Police
assigned individual personnel to each of the 26 families who lost a
loved one at Sandy Hook Elementary. “The families have requested no
press interviews,” State Police assert on their behalf, “and we are
asking that this request be honored.[1] The de facto gag order will be
in effect until the investigation concludes—now forecast to be “several
months away” even though lone gunman Adam Lanza has been confirmed as
the sole culprit.[2]
With the exception of an unusual and apparently contrived appearance
by Emilie Parker’s alleged father, victims’ family members have been
almost wholly absent from public scrutiny.[3] What can be gleaned from
this and similar coverage raises many more questions and glaring
inconsistencies than answers. While it sounds like an outrageous claim,
one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took
place—at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation’s
news media have described.
The Accidental Medical Examiner
An especially important yet greatly underreported feature of the
Sandy Hook affair is the wholly bizarre performance of Connecticut’s top
medical examiner H. Wayne Carver II at a December 15 press conference.
Carver’s unusual remarks and behavior warrant close consideration
because in light of his professional notoriety they appear remarkably
amateurish and out of character.
H. Wayne Carver II has an extremely self-assured, almost swaggering
presence in Connecticut state administration. In early 2012 Carver
threatened to vacate his position because of state budget cuts and
streamlining measures that threatened his professional autonomy over the
projects and personnel he oversaw.
Along these lines the pathologist has gone to excessive lengths to
demonstrate his findings and expert opinion in court proceedings. For
example, in a famous criminal case Carver “put a euthanized pig through a
wood chipper so jurors could match striations on the bone fragments
with the few ounces of evidence that prosecutors said were on the
remains of the victim.”[4] One would therefore expect Carver to be in
his element while identifying and verifying the exact ways in which
Sandy Hook’s children and teachers met their violent demise.
Yet the H. Wayne Carver who showed up to the December 15 press
conference is an almost entirely different man, appearing apprehensive
and uncertain, as if he is at a significant remove from the postmortem
operation he had overseen. The multiple gaffes, discrepancies, and
hedges in response to reporters’ astute questions suggest that he is
either under coercion or an imposter. While the latter sounds untenable
it would go a long way in explaining his sub-pedestrian grasp of medical
procedures and terminology.
With this in mind extended excerpts from this exchange are worthy of
recounting here in print. Carver is accompanied by Connecticut State
Police Lieutenant H. Paul Vance and additional Connecticut State Police
personnel. The reporters are off-screen and thus unidentified so I have
assigned them simple numerical identification based on what can be
discerned of their voices.
More Unanswered Questions and Inconsistencies
In addition to Carver’s remarks several additional chronological and
evidentiary contradictions in the official version of the Sandy Hook
shooting are cause for serious consideration and leave doubt in terms of
how the event transpired vis-à-vis the way authorities and major media
outlets have presented it. It is now well known that early on
journalists reported that Adam Lanza’s brother Ryan Lanza was reported
to be the gunman, and that pistols were used in the shooting rather than
a rifle. Yet these are merely the tip of the iceberg.
When Did the Gunman Arrive?
After Adam Lanza fatally shot and killed his mother at his residence,
he drove himself to the elementary school campus, arriving one half
hour after classes had commenced. Dressed in black, Lanza proceeds
completely unnoticed through an oddly vacant parking lot with a military
style rifle and shoots his way through double glass doors and a brand
new yet apparently poorly engineered security system.
Further, initial press accounts suggest how no school personnel or students heard gunshots and no 911 calls are made until after Lanza begins firing inside
the facility. “It was a lovely day,” Sandy Hook fourth grade teacher
Theodore Varga said. And then, suddenly and unfathomably, gunshots rang
out. “I can’t even remember how many,” Varga said.[5]
The recollection contrasts sharply with an updated version of Lanza’s arrival where at 9:30AM hewalked up to the front entrance and fired at least a half dozen rounds
into the glass doors. The thunderous sound of Lanza blowing an opening
big enough to walk through the locked school door caused Principal Dawn
Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Scherlach to bolt from a nearby
meeting room to investigate. He shot and killed them both as they ran
toward him.
Breaching the school’s security system in such a way would have
likely triggered some automatic alert of school personnel. Further, why
would the school’s administrators run toward an armed man who has just noisily blasted his way into the building?
Two other staff members attending the meeting with Hochsprung and
Scherlach sustained injuries “in the hail of bullets” but returned to
the aforementioned meeting room and managed a call to 911.[6] This
contrasted with earlier reports where the first 911 call claimed
students “were trapped in a classroom with the adult shooter who had two
guns.”[7] Recordings of the first police dispatch following the 911
call at 9:35:50 indicate that someone “thinks there’s someone shooting
in the building.”[8] There is a clear distinction between potentially
hearing shots somewhere in the building and being almost mortally caught
in a “hail of bullets.”
How did the gunman fire so many shots in such little time?
According to Dr. Carver and State Police, Lanza shot each victim
between 3 and 11 times during a 5 to 7 minute span. If one is to average
this out to 7 bullets per individual—excluding misses—Lanza shot 182
times, or once every two seconds. Yet according to the official story
Lanza was the sole assassin and armed with only one weapon. Thus if
misses and changing the gun’s 30-shot magazine at least 6 times are
added to the equation Lanza must have been averaging about one shot per
second—extremely skilled use of a single firearm for a young man with
absolutely no military training and who was on the verge of being
institutionalized. Still, an accurate rendering of the event is even
more difficult to arrive at because the chief medical examiner
admittedly has no idea exactly how the children were shot or whether a struggle ensued.
Where is the Photo and Video Evidence?
Photographic and video evidence is at once profuse yet lacking in
terms of its capacity to demonstrate that a mass shooting took place on
the scale described by authorities. For example, in an era of ubiquitous
video surveillance of public buildings especially no visual evidence of
Lanza’s violent entry has emerged. And while studio snapshots of the
Sandy Hook victims abound there is little if any eyewitness testimony of
anyone who’s observed the corpses except for Carver and his staff, and
they appear almost as confused about the conditions of the deceased as
any layperson watching televised coverage of the event. Nor are there
any routine eyewitness, photo or video evidence of the crime scene’s
aftermath—broken glass, blasted security locks and doors, bullet casings
and holes, bloodied walls and floors—all of which are common in such
investigations and reportage.
Why Were Medical Personnel Turned Away From the Crime Scene?
Oddly enough medical personnel are forced to set up their operation
not at the school where the dead and injured lay, but rather at the fire
station several hundred feet away. This flies in the face of standard
medical operating procedure where personnel are situated as close to the
scene as possible. There is no doubt that the school had ample room to
accommodate such personnel. Yet medical responders who rushed to Sandy
Hook Elementary upon receiving word of the tragedy were denied entry to
the school and forced to set up primary and secondary triages off school
grounds and wait for the injured to be brought to them.
Shortly after the shooting “as other ambulances from neighboring
communities rolled up, sirens blaring, the first responders slowly
realized that their training would be tragically underutilized on this
horrible day. ‘You may not be able to save everybody, but you damn well
try,’” 44 year old emergency medical technician James Wolff told NBC
News. “’And when (we) didn’t have the opportunity to put our skills into
action, it’s difficult.’”[9]
In light of this, who were the qualified medical practitioners
pronounced the 20 children and 7 adults dead? Who decided that none
could be revived? Carver and his staff are apparently the only medical
personnel to have attended to the victims—yet this was in the postmortem
conducted several hours later. Such slipshod handling of the crime
scene leaves the State of Connecticut open to a potential array of hefty
civil claims by families of the slain.
Did a mass evacuation of the school take place?
Sandy Hook Elementary is attended by 600 students. Yet there is no
photographic or video evidence of an evacuation on this scale. Instead,
limited video and photographic imagery suggest that a limited evacuation
of perhaps at most several dozen students occurred.
A highly circulated photo depicts students walking in a single file
formation with their hands on each others’ shoulders and eyes shut. Yet
this was the image of a drill that took place prior to the event
itself.[10. See Correction] Most other photos are portraits of
individual children. Despite aerial video footage of the event
documenting law enforcement scouring the scene and apprehending one or
more suspects in the wooded area nearby the school,[11] there is no such
evidence that a mass exodus of children from the school transpired once
law enforcement pronounced Sandy Hook secure. Nor are there videos or
photos of several hundred students and their parents at the
oft-referenced fire station nearby where students were routed for parent
pick up.
Sound Bite Prism and the Will to Believe
Outside of a handful of citizen journalists and alternative media
commentators Sandy Hook’s dramatically shifting factual and
circumstantial terrain has escaped serious critique because it is
presented through major media’s carefully constructed prism of select
sound bites alongside a widespread and longstanding cultural impulse to
accept the pronouncements of experts, be they bemused physicians, high
ranking law enforcement officers, or political leaders demonstrating
emotionally-grounded concern.
Political scientist W. Lance Bennett calls this the news media’s
“authority-disorder bias.” “Whether the world is returned to a safe,
normal place,” Bennett writes, “or whether the very idea of a normal
world is called into question, the news is preoccupied with order, along
with related questions of whether authorities are capable of
establishing or restoring it.”[12]
Despite Carver’s bizarre performance and law enforcement authorities’
inability to settle on and relay simple facts, media management’s
impulse to assure audiences and readerships of the Newtown community’s
inevitable adjustment to its trauma and loss with the aid of the
government’s protective oversight—however incompetent that may be—far
surpasses a willingness to undermine this now almost universal news
media narrative with messy questions and suggestions of intrigue. This
well-worn script is one the public has been conditioned to accept. If
few people relied on such media to develop their world view this would
hardly be a concern. Yet this is regrettably not the case.
The Sandy Hook tragedy was on a far larger scale than the past year’s
numerous slaughters, including the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting and
the Batman theater shooting in Colorado. It also included glaringly
illogical exercises and pronouncements by authorities alongside
remarkably unusual evidentiary fissures indistinguishable by an American
political imagination cultivated to believe that the corporate,
government and military’s sophisticated system of organized crime is
largely confined to Hollywood-style storylines while really existing
malfeasance and crises are without exception returned to normalcy.
If recent history is a prelude the likelihood of citizens
collectively assessing and questioning Sandy Hook is limited even given
the event’s overtly superficial trappings. While the incident is
ostensibly being handled by Connecticut law enforcement, early reports
indicate how federal authorities were on the scene as the 911 call was
received. Regardless of where one stands on the Second Amendment and gun
control, it is not unreasonable to suggest the Obama administration
complicity or direct oversight of an incident that has in very short
order sparked a national debate on the very topic—and not coincidentally
remains a key piece of Obama’s political platform.
The move to railroad this program through with the aid of major media
and an irrefutable barrage of children’s portraits, “heartfelt”
platitudes and ostensible tears neutralizes a quest for genuine
evidence, reasoned observation and in the case of Newtown honest and
responsible law enforcement. Moreover, to suggest that Obama is not
capable of deploying such techniques to achieve political ends is to
similarly place ones faith in image and interpretation above substance
and established fact, the exact inclination that in sum has brought
America to such an impasse. Addendum: It is readily apparent that the FULL TRUTH of Sandy Hook is being hidden and changed to fit TPTB agenda.
That Agenda is crystal clear.
To rob by deception the American people of their inherent rights set forth in the United States Constitution. Make No Mistakes
In the FIGHT against overwhelming odds the greatest asset you or anyone can have is to have the will to see it through to the end.
PROVEN METHODS OF NONVIOLENT REVOLUTION
Formal Statements
1. Public Speeches
2. Letters of opposition or support
3. Declarations by organizations and institutions
4. Signed public statements
5. Declarations of indictment and intention
6. Group or mass petitions
Communications with a Wider Audience
7. Slogans, caricatures, and symbols
8. Banners, posters, and displayed communications
9. Leaflets, pamphlets, and books
10. Newspapers and journals
11. Records, radio, and television
12. Skywriting and earth writing
Group Representations
13. Deputations
14. Mock awards
15. Group lobbying
16. Picketing
17. Mock elections
Symbolic Public Acts
18. Displays of flags and symbolic colors
19. Wearing of symbols
20. Prayer and worship
21. Delivering symbolic objects
22. Protest disrobings
23. Destruction of own property
24. Symbolic lights
25. Displays of portraits
26. Paint as protest
27. New signs and names
28. Symbolic sounds
29. Symbolic reclamations
30. Rude gestures
Honoring the Dead
43. Political mourning
44. Mock funerals
45. Demonstrative funerals
46. Homage at burial places
Public Assemblies
47. Assemblies of protest or support
48. Protest meetings
49. Camouflaged meetings of protest
50. Teach-ins
Withdrawal and Renunciation
51. Walk-outs
52. Silence
53. Renouncing honors
54. Turning one's back
PROVEN METHODS OF SOCIAL NONCOOPERATION
Ostracism of Persons
55. Social boycott
56. Selective social boycott
57. Lysistratic nonaction
58. Excommunication
59. Interdict
Noncooperation with Social Events, Customs, and Institutions
60. Suspension of social and sports activities
61. Boycott of social affairs
62. Student strike
63. Social disobedience
64. Withdrawal from social institutions
Withdrawal from the Social System
65. Stay-at-home
66. Total personal noncooperation
67. "Flight" of workers
68. Sanctuary
69. Collective disappearance
70. Protest emigration (hijrat)
PROVEN METHODS OF ECONOMIC NONCOOPERATION
Actions by Consumers
71. Consumers' boycott
72. Nonconsumption of boycotted goods
73. Policy of austerity
74. Rent withholding
75. Refusal to rent
76. National consumers' boycott
77. International consumers' boycott
Action by Workers and Producers
78. Workmen's boycott
79. Producers' boycott
Action by Middlemen
80. Suppliers' and handlers' boycott
Action by Owners and Management
81. Traders' boycott
82. Refusal to let or sell property
83. Lockout
84. Refusal of industrial assistance
85. Merchants' "general strike"
Action by Holders of Financial Resources
86. Withdrawal of bank deposits
87. Refusal to pay fees, dues, and assessments
88. Refusal to pay debts or interest
89. Severance of funds and credit
90. Revenue refusal
91. Refusal of a government's money
Action by Governments
92. Domestic embargo
93. Blacklisting of traders
94. International sellers' embargo
95. International buyers' embargo
96. International trade embargo
Multi-Industry Strikes
116. Generalized strike
117. General strike
Combination of Strikes and Economic Closures
118. Hartal
119. Economic shutdown
PROVEN METHODS OF POLITICAL NONCOOPERATION
Rejection of Authority
120. Withholding or withdrawal of allegiance
121. Refusal of public support
122. Literature and speeches advocating resistance
Citizens' Noncooperation with Government
123. Boycott of legislative bodies
124. Boycott of elections
125. Boycott of government employment and positions
126. Boycott of government depts., agencies, and other bodies
127. Withdrawal from government educational institutions
128. Boycott of government-supported organizations
129. Refusal of assistance to enforcement agents
130. Removal of own signs and placemarks
131. Refusal to accept appointed officials
132. Refusal to dissolve existing institutions
Citizens' Alternatives to Obedience
133. Reluctant and slow compliance
134. Nonobedience in absence of direct supervision
135. Popular nonobedience
136. Disguised disobedience
137. Refusal of an assemblage or meeting to disperse
138. Sitdown
139. Noncooperation with conscription and deportation
140. Hiding, escape, and false identities
141. Civil disobedience of "illegitimate" laws
Action by Government Personnel
142. Selective refusal of assistance by government aides
143. Blocking of lines of command and information
144. Stalling and obstruction
145. General administrative noncooperation
146. Judicial noncooperation
147. Deliberate inefficiency and selective noncooperation by enforcement agents
148. Mutiny
Domestic Governmental Action
149. Quasi-legal evasions and delays
150. Noncooperation by constituent governmental units
International Governmental Action
151. Changes in diplomatic and other representations
152. Delay and cancellation of diplomatic events
153. Withholding of diplomatic recognition
154. Severance of diplomatic relations
155. Withdrawal from international organizations
156. Refusal of membership in international bodies
157. Expulsion from international organizations
PROVEN METHODS OF NONVIOLENT INTERVENTION
Psychological Intervention
158. Self-exposure to the elements
159. The fast
a) Fast of moral pressure
b) Hunger strike c) Satyagrahic fast
160. Reverse trial
161. Nonviolent harassment
Social Intervention
174. Establishing new social patterns
175. Overloading of facilities
176. Stall-in
177. Speak-in
178. Guerrilla theater
179. Alternative social institutions
180. Alternative communication system
Economic Intervention
181. Reverse strike
182. Stay-in strike
183. Nonviolent land seizure
184. Defiance of blockades
185. Politically motivated counterfeiting
186. Preclusive purchasing
187. Seizure of assets
188. Dumping
189. Selective patronage
190. Alternative markets
191. Alternative transportation systems
192. Alternative economic institutions
Political Intervention
193. Overloading of administrative systems
194. Disclosing identities of secret agents
195. Seeking imprisonment
196. Civil disobedience of "neutral" laws
197. Work-on without collaboration
198. Dual sovereignty and parallel government
NEVER SURRENDER YOUR STRUGGLE, EVEN IN JAIL, BLINDFOLDED AND SILENCED, NEVER GIVE UP!
The X-Files states that an extraterrestrial life-form,
known simply as the Colonists, were originally
present on Earth in the early stages of human evolution. They highly
resemble the well-known "grey aliens"
in their mature form. In their immature stage, they are more yellowish
colored, tall, and very aggressive, possessing fangs, claws and
scale-like texture of their skin. This immature form is a protective
stage, able to viciously defend itself from birth. This outer skin is
eventually shed when the alien develops into its mature form.The aliens were forced to abandon the planet during the last ice age
as their viral life-force is deactivated by extreme cold.
Upon their
departure, they left behind underground deposits of the black oil virus,
in preparation for their return. The virus
apparently contains the aliens' genetic blueprints, awaiting
reconstitution until the master species returns to Earth. Whilst away
from Earth, the Colonists evidently sought out life throughout the
universe in an effort to subdue other species and take over the
universe.
Secretly, the Mayans KNEW that the Colonists planned on returning to Earth in the year 2012.
The Smoking Man reveals to Fox Mulder that the ancient Mayans were so terrified that they stopped their calendar on the exact date of colonization:
Original link: http://outdoorsnative.com/outdoor-life/firearms/we-do-not-support-the-murder-of-children-because-we-support-the-2nd-amendment/
I have been called a lot of things, a
racist because I don’t like Obama, a sexist because I don’t want to pay
for someone else’s birth control, a murderer because I hunt and eat
meat, and the list goes on. Usually I can just brush it off and ignore
it, but this time you have gone too far. Who do you think you are saying
I support the murder of children simply because I believe in our right
to own firearms? Especially, since you are the ones using their deaths
to further your political beliefs or agendas. It is because of our
children I believe in the right to bear arms and it is because of you I
write this.
You continue to ask “Why do we need guns in
our society?” First, to all the pro-gun advocates, please stop saying
“because it’s our right”, yes it is our right, but that makes no sense
to anti-gun advocates and it is the exact thing they would like to
change. That being said, guns have been a part of life since the day I
was born. My father was a huge gun enthusiast and had owned a lot of
guns when he was alive. When he decided I was old enough to learn to
shoot and hunt he started by teaching me the 2nd Amendment the importance of it and the meaning behind it.
People, this is the 2nd Amendment,
number 2 on the list, which should show how important it was to our
founding fathers that the average citizen be able to arm and defend
themselves. “Why?” you ask, because when they fought for our
independence, there was no U.S military at that time. It was the average
citizens that picked up their guns to fight for their freedom from a
tyrannical government and the founding fathers wanted to ensure that we
would always be able to the do same, if necessary.
Yes we have a military now, the best
military in the world, a military made of the best and bravest men &
women this country has to offer. However, it is a military controlled
by the government and though I believe that most of our soldiers would
never pick up a weapon against their fellow American to take away their
rights or oppress them, it is the government that controls the
military’s weapons, ammunition, and technology. And as history has
shown there will always be people who blindly follow and do what the
government tells them to. I am not saying the government will turn on
us, but if the government or a foreign invader ever attempted to oppress
our freedoms the founding fathers have given us this right to ensure
that we have the ability to fight back and defend our freedom.
To those who ask why we need “Assault
Weapons” the answer is simple, because that is what they have. Drug
addicts, drug dealers, thieves, murderers, gangs, cartels, terrorists,
those who wish to do us harm, all have access to assault weapons. And
they have shown they will use them.
To those who say “Well, ban assault
weapons!” ASSAULT WEAPON BANS DO NOT WORK! All they do is create another
source of income for criminals. From 1994 to 2004 we had a ban on
assault weapons; Jonesboro AR., Springfield OR., Littleton CO. and
Santee CA., to name a few, all had mass school shootings during the ban.
And the facts show that gun control does not work. Chicago, Washington
DC, and California, all famous for their gun control laws, and all
famous for their murder and gang violence. New York City recently
celebrated going 24 hours without a reported murder. Really? That is a
good thing? What does that tell you about a city with strict gun laws
when it celebrates the fact that they actually made it 24 hours without a
reported murder.
And for God’s sake, get rid of these
“Gun-Free” zones. All they have done is paint a target on the backs of
the people in them. It is reported that the Aurora (CO) murderer went to
2 other theaters prior to the one he shot up. Why did he choose the
Theater he did? There were “No Firearms Permitted” signs posted at that
theater and not at the other two. The Fort Hood murderer went to the one
place on the military base that was a “Gun Free Zone”. The intention
behind a “Gun Free” zone is a good thought, but in reality they just
invite these shootings.
To those, who ask “Why do these things
happen?” The truth is, nobody knows, and honestly nobody ever will. You
can blame mental illness, video games, music, TV, guns, religion (or
lack thereof) or whatever you want to blame, but the fact is we will
never know why. Profilers have been trying to figure out why serial
killers kill for years. But still do not know what will happen to create
the next one or how to prevent them from killing. The most we can do is
look at why that person killed.
This brings me to those who ask “How do we
stop this?” The truth is we can’t. There is no way to predict how, when,
where, and why somebody will commit a heinous act like the one in
Connecticut. All we can do is study it to find out what we can do to
improve our children’s safety. My personal opinion and best idea I have
heard is trained police officers in our schools. Sandy Hook Elementary
seemed to have exemplary security procedures in place. And yet the
murderer was still able to force his way into the school and murder 26
people. Armed, trained police officers will serve as a deterrent to
some, and for those who are insane enough to try to shoot up our
schools, at least there will be someone there with the ability to stop
them or at least hold them off longs enough for back to up to arrive.
I could continue to list the reasons why we
need and have firearms in this country. In fact, my draft was 12 pages
longs! But I decided to leave you with this.
We gun owners are the last line of defense. There are approximately 300
million guns preventing this country from falling into complete chaos,
as well as contributing to keeping you safe from others that wish to do
you harm. Don’t think it could happen? Turn on the news and see all the
people who want to destroy us and our country. Isoroku Yamamoto, an
Admiral in the Japanese Navy during WWII was rumored to have said “You
cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind
every blade of grass.” Imagine what could happen if that statement
wasn’t true.
If you disagree, then please comment or just continue to ignore
these facts. But don’t you ever say that I support the murder of
children because I support the right to bear arms. It is because of the
children that I have and always will stand up for the 2nd Amendment.
More Draconian Gun laws NEVER has, and NEVER will, control violence perpetrated by those who are bent on using violence as a means to an end. All that Stricter Gun laws will do is disarm law-abiding citizens, while the Government, and criminals, intent on violence against innocent citizens, will find firearms readily available.
The TRUTH of the 2nd Amendment is that it is for the defense of the people of the United States from enemies foreign and domestic. The 'Right to Bear Arms' is not tied to the murder rate, its not depended on what criminals or terrorists might do with them. The 2nd Amendment is there to protect law abiding citizens who otherwise would be prey for those who would never give up their weapons, laws or no laws.
More Laws are not the answer! Liberal knee jerk government policy favors the criminals and the Tyrants NOT the People. Passing more Draconian gun laws will NOT stop those who are intent on doing evil. NEVER has and it NEVER will. The Only thing Liberal politics does is further tighten the noose of oppression around the neck of law abiding citizens.
There is study after study, fact after fact which shows convincingly that stripping the Civil right to bear arms only leads to a more belligerent, invasive, totalitarian government. Gun
ownership is 300 percent higher in Switzerland as in Germany, but
the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates
of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and
Finland.
Brittan has a much higher rate of violence involving firearms since it outlawed them. Guns are not the problem, it is EVIL people bent on death and destruction that are the problem
The Liberal politicians will never read an article like this, they will sit behind their ivory towers protected by their private ARMED security and tell the rest of the world that it is WE THE PEOPLE who must give up our right to protect ourselves. The Police are not there to protect the law abiding citizens. The Police are only there to write the report in the aftermath of the violent crime suffered by the innocent.
There are many, TOO MANY, 911 phone calls where you hear the screaming of an an unarmed citizen begging for their life as they are being brutally assaulted while they wait for the police to show up. The same 911 call by an armed citizen the only thing you hear is the loud thud as the criminal assailant hits the ground dead and the armed citizen calmly waiting for the police to show up.
Which would you rather be?
Which would you rather you wife, daughter, young children be?
,
number 2 on the list, which should show how important it was to our
founding fathers that the average citizen be able to arm and defend
themselves. “Why?” you ask, because when they fought for our
independence, there was no U.S military at that time. It was the average
citizens that picked up their guns to fight for their freedom from a
tyrannical government and the founding fathers wanted to ensure that we
would always be able to the do same, if necessary.