Friday, October 30, 2015


by Jim Fetzer 

An expert on assassins and assassinations, Ole Dammegard has displayed his research abilities in an impressive, two-volume exploration of the circumstances and conditions of the death of the Swedish Prime Minister, Olof Palme, in 1986. Palme was the leader of the Swedish Social Democratic Party (SAP) from 1969 until his assassination in 1986. A two-term Prime Minister of Sweden, he headed a Privy Council Government from 1969 to 1976 and a cabinet government from 1982 until his death.

Ole and I have collaborated in the past, including in relation to the book, And I suppose we didn't go to the moon, either? (2015), for which he inter ailia designed the front and back covers. Here is an interview we did together for Red Ice Radio, where we discuss the book, which exposes the moon landing hoax, the death and replacement of Paul McCartney, the first death of Saddam Hussein, the second death of Osama bin Laden, and the Holocuast, the official narrative of which is provably false:

About his new book: For almost 30 years investigator Ole DammegÄrd has been on a quest to find the truth behind some of the worst assassinations and conspiracies the world has known. This has taken him on an extremely dangerous journey into unknown territories. What have been claimed as acts by lone madmen turn out to be connected to the international military-industrial complex and top levels of international banking and high finance, sanctioned locally with pre-selected "patsies" to blame.

This ground breaking book focuses on the assassination of the Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, who was gunned down on 28 February 1986. Secret agents, mercenaries, professional assassins, top politicians and innocent scapegoats are identified and discussed in the pages of this explosive book, which exposes a dark side of the Western World that has previously been perceived by very few. No one with a serious interest in deep politics will want to miss this book, which I highly recommend:

Ole continues his deep investigation in Volume II, disclosing how the so-called Police Connection, the South African Connection and the Bofors Connections are intricately intertwined. He presents the murderer’s own hand-written account of the assassination as well as evidence so cleverly manipulated that it can make anyone lose their breath. The final chapter exposes how the scandal is also related to the destruction of the ferry M/S Estonia and surprising and unexpected links to the murder of JFK.

Thursday, October 29, 2015


In her review of David Talbot's new book, The Devil's Chessboard  ("Checkmate on The Devils Chessboard", Consortium News October 27, 2015), Lisa Pease provides a succinct summary of Talbot's impressive work.  With one notable exception, she has nothing but praise for his seminal research. That exception relates to his reference to E. Howard Hunt's “final confession” identifying LBJ as the top of the chain of command that brought about the death of JFK, which is not congruent with the conventional wisdom she and her fellow "researchers" have been so anxious to avoid.

Her review isolates that premise as follows:
While Talbot has the facts right in the broad strokes, if not all the small details, his focus was, in my opinion, a tad misplaced in spots. For example, he appears to believe E. Howard Hunt’s deathbed “confession,” which many in the research community do not.  
Hunt, a career intelligence officer who became infamous as a leader of Nixon’s Watergate burglary team, implicated President Lyndon B. Johnson in the plot to kill Kennedy, which has never made sense to me. If LBJ was so ruthless that he killed his way to the presidency, why did he decide not to run again in 1968? Historically, when people have killed their way to the throne, they do not voluntarily abdicate it.
But E. Howard Hunt was far from alone in fingering LBJ as “the pivotal player” or, as I prefer to cite him, “the mastermind”. Madeleine Duncan Brown, Billy Sol Estes, Barr McClellan, and no less than Jack Ruby were strongly of that opinion, where Ruby told reporters dogging him during his appearance before Earl Warren that the motives of the principals were very tangible and that they should be looking at “the man at the top”.

Indeed, as other scholars have discovered, Lyndon not only forced himself onto the ticket in Los Angeles in 1960 by threatening to destroy JFK using information provided to him by J. Edgar Hoover but he even sent his Chief Administrative Assistant, Cliff Carter, down to Dallas to make sure all the arrangements were in place for the assassination. And after the event, he took an active role in managing the cover up, insuring that DA Henry Wade speak no more about “a possible conspiracy” and even calling Charles Crenshaw, M.D., who was responsible for the treatment of the alleged assassin at Parkland Hospital, to ask for “a deathbed confession”. Lyndon Johnson was a “hands on” guy who left nothing to chance.

Ignoring this damning evidence, we have a concise statement from her about why the "research community" is resistant to the premise of LBJ’s direct involvement in the planning and execution of the death of John F. Kennedy:  "Such a concept is simply impossible because five years later, when he had a chance to run for re-election, he chose not to — Case Closed." But that claim begs for much closer scrutiny.

That she and others have grounded their refusal to explore LBJ's numerous ties to the "crime of the century" to such a tenuous point is clearly and demonstrably "absurd."  His criminal record — attested to by the impeccable credentials of Texas Ranger (later U.S. Marshal) Clint Peoples — began decades before the assassination and continued, on increasingly higher levels throughout his administration.  Peoples, for example, would convince a Texas grand jury in 1984 that one of the deaths Johnson had commissioned (through his aides, Cliff Carter and Malcolm “Mac” Wallace) of Henry Marshall, an inspector for the Department of Agriculture, was a "homicide" rather than a "suicide”.

That a man who had been shot five times with a single-shot rifle, had carbon monoxide in his lungs and had been rendered unconscious by a blow to the head could have committed suicide was a complete absurdity from the beginning but was typical of justice in Texas at the time. People’s success, however, came only after LBJ and his aides, were deceased and could no longer be indicted. Unsurprisingly, this development was promptly extinguished by the mainstream media as soon as it was announced and has thereafter remained "untouchable" by the Fourth Estate.

In a four-year-old Salon article ("The Other Kennedy Conspiracy", November 21, 2011), Ms. Pease declares that she "is an expert on the assassinations of the '60s in general and the Robert Kennedy assassination in particular."  The following excerpt from that article summarizes the status of her research into RFK's murder:
Fact: The CIA was so concerned about Robert Kennedy in the last year of his life that it put spying on him on a par with spying on the Soviet Union, according to a report in the Washington Post after it obtained this data. 
Perhaps the CIA was also anxious about RFK because, as David Talbot (the founder and current CEO of Salon) recounted in his 2007 book, Brothers, Robert Kennedy harbored suspicions about the CIA’s possible complicity in his brother’s death. One of Robert’s first calls after JFK’s assassination was to the CIA to ask if the agency had killed his brother. If members of the CIA were involved in the death of JFK, could they afford to let Robert ascend to an office where he’d have the power but to do something about that? 
I’m well aware that extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary evidence. I have much more to support what I’ve said here, which I am laying out in book form. I hope only to have cracked your mind open, because Occam’s Razor fails us when the simplest explanation is the carefully planned cover story.
Occam’s Razor, moreover, only applies to alternative theories that explain the available evidence equally well. The book that she stated she was "laying out" has evidently not made much progress since, so until it is published we can only speculate about what she considers so "extraordinary."  But, had she not been so zealous about protecting LBJ's tainted legacy for at least a quarter-century, she might have connected a few more of his presidential treacheries into patterns that could possibly explain why Johnson decided to give up on being re-elected.  

It had much to do with the precarious position that he had placed himself in — after having won the landslide victory in '64, how he had been swallowed by his own hubris in creating the Viet Nam quagmire — with his record fall in the polls.  By early 1968, the Tet Offensive shattered the public's confidence in his handling of the war, Eugene McCarthy had nearly trounced him in the New Hampshire primary, and then Robert Kennedy entered the race, which caused his chances of being reelected to be very much in jeopardy.  

Johnson knew his ego could never deal with defeat, even in the early primaries, and decided that he ought to quit the race while he still could.  But an even greater reason may have existed that should not be summarily discarded.  If the provenance of the order to "take out" RFK came not just from the highest echelons of the FBI or CIA but to the person who had control over those agencies, it is conceivable that by March 31, 1968, he had already given Helms and Hoover (et. al.) the order to eliminate any possibility that Bobby Kennedy might one day become president.  

It is clear that Sirhan Sirhan did not shoot the fatal shot (one of four fired from behind); and there is mounting evidence of a high-level conspiracy involving the CIA, the FBI and the LAPD.  It follows that clear lines might be traced back to LBJ's possible instigation of RFK's assassination.  If that could be proven, another possible explanation for Johnson’s decision to quit the race — merely two weeks after Bobby's entry  — would become that "Occam’s Razor" that she cites:  by taking himself out of the race he could ensure that almost no one would seriously regard him as the culprit.

There have been many other researchers who have also probably been disappointed that Mr. Talbot even mentioned E. Howard Hunt's "confessions" — which left open the question of LBJ's involvement in JFK's assassination — instead of making a stronger case of Allen Dulles' key role in the 1963 coup de etat.  Perhaps his work will help to put the onus where it should more properly be placed — at LBJ's door.  My book, LBJ: From Mastermind to The Colossus, explains in greater depth the reasons the "driving force" behind the assassination could not have been Allen Dulles, where that role could only have been fulfilled by Lyndon Johnson.

Phillip F. Nelson is the author of LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination (Skyhorse, 2010; 2011; 2013) and LBJ: From Mastermind to The Colossus (Skyhorse, 2014)

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Truth vs. NEW$: Whaat? Nobody died at Sandy Hook?!

by Jim Fetzer

Here are some recent interviews with Truth vs. NEW$ in Seattle, which
are hosted by Donald Grahn, who has a folksy approach that makes it
easier for his audience to receive reports that are difficult or unpleasant.

Truth vs. NEW$ 29 October: Whaat? Nobody died at Sandy Hook?!

Truth vs. NEW$ 15 October 2015: Do we really need guns?

Truth vs. NEW$ 8 October: Are Unpqua shootings another false flag?

BONUS: President admits desire for complete gun confiscation

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Prologue: Sandy Hook: Was it reality or an illusion?

NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK: It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control (2015)

by Jim Fetzer

"It ain't what we don't know that hurts us; it's what we think we know that ain't so"--Will Rogers
Sandy Hool has become a celebrities cause

The Sandy Hook experience has divided Americans, most of whom have been convinced by media coverage that it was a real event, where a young man massacred 20 children and six adults before killing himself.

Another substantial segment of the US population has taken a closer look at the evidence and drawn the conclusion it was a hoax, where no children really died: it was an elaborate psy-op to promote gun control.

Americans are hard pressed to sort these things out, because they are hit with a blizzard of reports that appear to confirm the official account, leaving them in the predicament of not being able to tell if it was real or fake.

It matters even more today because gun control has become one of the defining issues of politics in America, where leading Democrats (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) are using their authority as President (in the first instance) to issue Executive Orders constraining our 2nd Amendment rights and (in the second) threatening to impose liability laws upon their manufacturers for their use by those who buy them. Ben Carson, on the Republican side, has observed that Jews would have been better able to fend off The Third Reich had they not been disarmed; and Matt Drudge has challenged the President to demonstrate his sincerity by giving up his (heavily armed) Secret Service protection.

The appeals to Sandy Hook (shooting 20 children), the Charleston shooting (of nine blacks) and the  Oregon shooting (where college students were asked their religion and those responding "Christian" were shot in the head) have struck some observers as appearing to be calculated to instill fear into specific targeted subpopulations of the American community: parents, blacks and Christians, for example, where it's as though we were experiencing a series of psy-ops to convince the public that we ought to give up our guns. That troubles many, because disarming populations has all-too-often occurred to set the stage for tyranny in world history past. What if Sandy Hook was only an illusion?

Probabilities vs. Certainties

Knowledge of historical events (based upon documents and records, photos and videos and witness testimony, for example) can never be “definitive and certain”. You only know your own origin in life (where and when you were born and the parents who brought you into this world) on the basis of information that could have been faked. Even DNA comparisons can be invalid or mistaken on purpose or by accident. Your belief about today’s day/month/year is something else of which you have no direct and certain knowledge but rather have a host of sources of information, such as newspapers and television reports, which collectively confirm your belief but could be fabricated or faked, but which are almost always accurate and true.

The occurrence of an elaborate hoax intended to fool the people does not occur often, but there can be no doubt that it does sometimes occur. The Warren Report (1964), for example, provides an indictment of Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin of JFK, where the evidence for that conclusion was carefully selected and, in some cases, completely fabricated. The backyard photographs were faked, for example, and the home movies of the assassination were edited. That he had been captured in a famous photo taken during the shooting was suppressed. (Check out The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003) or many articles about JFK at for abundant proof, if you like.) These things can and sometimes do happen. And one of them happened here.

If you only read the government’s account, you might very well be convinced that JFK had been killed by Lee Oswald. And if you only paid attention to the mass media, you would probably believe that 20 children died at Sandy Hook. Once you acknowledge that some of the evidence has been fabricated or faked, however, the case begins to assume a completely different character. This does not mean we cannot know what happened in this instance, but it should not have been necessary to frame a guilty man.  New evidence or alternative hypotheses may thus require us to revised our position by rejecting hypotheses we previously accepted, accepting hypotheses we previously rejected and leaving others in suspense. We now know more about Sandy Hook.

Inference to the best explanation

The principle known as “inference to the best explanation”, has the potential to turn every American into a critical thinker  in comparing alternative hypotheses. In relation to Sandy Hook, there are two alternatives, which have consequences that would also be true (or probably true) if they were true and others that would be false (or probably false) if they were not (setting the alleged suicide by Adam Lanza to the side):
(h1) Sandy Hook was a real event, where 20 children and 6 adults were killed at a school;
(h2) Sandy Hook was an elaborate hoax, where a drill was conducted and no children died.
But the key to understanding is making an appraisal of which of these hypotheses is better supported by the evidence. We can think of the evidence as effects of one or another hypothesis as their cause.  When one hypothesis makes the effects more probable than the other, it is more likely to be true and the alternative false. For the shooting to have been real, the school had to have been operational in 2012; yet we have indication after indication that it had been abandoned by 2008 (which you will discover in Chapters 2 and 3), including not only its deplorable physical condition (both inside and out), but also that it was not in compliance with both federal and state laws required in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act: 
Analogously, we know from past experience that the names, ages and sex of victims of crimes are almost invariably printed in newspaper accounts of crimes. In this case, however, the final reports coming from the Connecticut authorities did not include them. That is a very odd aspect of this event, but an attempt has been made to explain it away on the ground of preserving the privacy of the families of the victims. But if there were victims, their families already know they are dead. There is no evident benefit to the families, if it was real, but a major element of the cover up, if it was not. 

From the date of the event, we have a photograph taken from a CT State Police chopper at 9:15 AM/ET, which is 20 minutes before the first 911 call came in; there was no surge of EMTs into the building to rush those little bodies off to hospitals, where doctors could pronounce them dead or alive; virtually all of the emergency vehicles were kept at the Firehouse, which became the center of activity as opposed to the school; the parents were not even allowed to identify their children, which was done using photos. As a parent myself, I can emphasize that there is no way I could have been kept from viewing the body of a child of mine, where the conduct of the "parents" in this case is unlike that of any parents I have ever known, where these many oddities are confirmed by Chapter 5.

Other circumstantial anomalies 

If the school had been abandoned, then the shooting has to be an illusion, since there would have been no students present for Adam Lanza to shoot. And if that were the case, then we might not be surprised if any number of measures were taken at the time by authorities to suppress relevant information (and thereby making it unavailable) or by otherwise circumventing what would have been the ordinary and normal procedures of investigation and administration by local and state authorities. But the measures that were taken were rather extraordinary, including these examples:
* the Attorney General of Connecticut argued against releasing the 911 calls, where the court ruled against him;
* the Clerk of Newtown entered into secret negotiations with the state legislature to avoid issuing death certificates;
* a special panel of the state legislature recommended that any state employee who released information about Sandy Hook other than via Freedom of Information Act request be prosecuted as an E-felony with a five year sentence; and,
those who were hired to participate in the demolition of the school building were required to sign life-time gag orders that prohibit them from talking about what they saw or did not see during its destruction.

Each of these qualifies as a “fact” insofar as its truth can be confirmed by research you can conduct yourself. Admittedly, if all the information accessible via the internet about Sandy Hook were fabricated or faked, that would not be the case. But I know of no one who seriously contests any of these points.  So ask yourself, what is the probability that these five claims (if we also include the missing names, ages and sex from the final report) would be true if Sandy Hook had been a real event? And by comparison, what is the probability these five claims would be true if Sandy Hook had been a hoax? Which hypothesis is more likely to be true?

The Governor's Press Conference

The day of the shooting, Governor Dan Malloy and his Lt. Governor held a press conference, during which he observed that they had been “spoken to” that something like this might happen. That got me thinking about, “something like this”? What could that mean. There are only two alternatives: 

(a) that he had been told there would be a shooting in a school in his state, in which case he, as governor, should have warned school districts to be on high alert and make sure it did not happen, which he did not do; or, 

(b) that he had been told they would be taking an abandoned school and using it as a prop for a drill, which would be presented to the public as real to promote an aggressive gun-control agenda, which is the case here.

And when I looked into recent visits with the Governor to determine by whom he might have been "spoken to", I discovered that Attorney General Eric Holder had met with him on 27 November 2012 to discuss "Operation Longevity", a special interest of the Attorney General and the President of the United Staes for promoting gun control. Mark my words. The evidence presented here demonstrates that the school was closed by 2008; that there were no students to evacuate; that Adam Lanza appears to have been a work of fiction; and that the teachers, the parents, the Newtown School Board, the State Police, the Medical Examiner and the Governor--and by extension the Attorney General and the President--were all complicit in the deception

We have the FEMA manual 

Our collaborative research, you will find for yourself, is extensive, through and detailed--and leaves this matter resolved beyond any reasonable doubt. We have 50 photos that show the preparation of the Lanza home as a prop and another 50 documenting the refurbishing of the school as a stage (in Chapters 7 and 8). Doubt in this case would be reasonable were there a reasonable alternative explanation. But, as you are about to discover, there is none here.

And I am not just talking about the sign, "Everyone must check in", the Port-a-Potties, the boxes of bottled water and pizza cartons at the Firehouse, the name tags on lanyards and parents bringing their children to (what was supposed to be) a child shooting massacre! WE HAVE THE FEMA MANUAL. It stipulates that everyone must register and that refreshments and restrooms will be provided. Some participants did not realize that the official event was not until the 14th: We now know why some of the donation pages went up a day early and why Adam Lanza was recorded as having died on the 13th! Don't take my word for it, because you can read it for yourself. I included it here as Appendix A. 

The Requirement of Total Evidence
Indeed, scientific reasoning specifically and rational inquiries generally must satisfy the requirement of total evidence: in the search for truth, reasoning must be based upon all of the available relevant evidence, where evidence is relevant when its presence or absence (or truth or falsity) makes a difference to the outcome, typically on the basis of considerations of probability.  According to the official report on Sandy Hook by Danbury States Attorney Stephen Sedensky (to which we refer as "The Sedensky Report"), there were 489 children present that day. Minus 20 murdered, there ought to have been 469 to evacuate (as well as around 70 more teachers, administrators and staff). But we have no pictures of their evacuation. What we have instead this "iconic" photograph:

It has sometimes been said that "You can't prove a falsehood true!" But that assertion overlooks the role of false clams and fabricated evidence. We have here a photograph purporting to show a string of children being led away from the school to safety by a policewoman on the scene. This photo was published on the front page of virtually every newspaper in the world--and shown endless times on television. It was undoubtedly the single most important form of proof in convincing the public around the world that Sandy Hook was real. But there is a catch: the photograph was staged! And we know that not on the basis of the weaker evidence that there are too many leaves on the trees and no frost for this to be a 28 degree day in December but because Shannon Hicks took a second photograph!

Rearranging the kids to get a better shot  

It's bad enough that we have a series of parents looking on, some with their arms cross or their hands in their pockets--which is certainly not what we would expect in an emergency situation. It gets much worse when you realize that the police woman has stopped the children to rearrange them to get "a better shot"! Here's a comparison that shows what was going on and demonstrates--as conclusively as anyone could have the right to expect--that the first photograph was staged to create the false impression that there was an emergency and that these kids needed to be removed from a threat at the earliest possible opportunity--which would not leave time to stop and rearrange them as follows:

We not only know that Shannon Hicks was "in on the game" by taking these photos (as early as in October) in preparation for this elaborate charade but we also know that there was no evacuation. The claim is sometimes made that “You can’t prove a negative!” But that turns out to be false. When evidence that ought to be present if an hypothesis were true is not present, then the absence of evidence qualifies as evidence of absence. Suppose you were told there is an elephant in your living room. If you go there and find no indications of the presence of an elephant, you are completely justified in inferring that there is no elephant in your living room. 

If 469 kids should have been there, if the event was real, but they are not there, you are completely justified in inferring it was not real. An evacuation would have looked something like this, with strings of children led by other police officers or teachers performing their duty under stress. But we have DashCam footage at the locations in the parking lot where, according to official police records, the evacuation was taking place--and there is nothing there! Just as the absence of signs of the presence of an elephant in your living room is proof of the absence of an elephant, the absence of signs of the presence of children undergoing evacuation is proof that no evacuation was taking place. 

More parking lot anomalies--and a stunner!

Inspection of the vehicles in the parking lot in front of the school shows that they are parked in the wrong direction (which should have been nose-in), given the arrangement for driving into the lot. The image itself suggests of a group of drivers methodically filling up the lot with used or abandoned cars, driving straight into the designated parking places without regard for how they should have been arranged. Once again we ask, “What is the probability that the lot would be filled with cars parked in the wrong direction, if this had been a real event? What if this had been a drill?” Truly stunning, however, is the discovery of a series of photographs that display setting the stage early in the morning for the events that would transpire this day, including this one from Chapter 8:

Notice that the windows of Classroom 10 are not shot out and the flag is up. Wayne Carver can be seen behind the man in the blue evidence suit. This photograph is taken from one of the elevated cameras we have discovered that were mounted around the parking lot to record the drill. The mortuary tent is not there yet, which makes this early morning. Could we have more decisive proof? 

When an hypothesis has been confirmed by abundant evidence and no alternative explanation is reasonable, it has been established “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Hypothesis (h1), that Sandy Hook was real, has been falsified and (h2), that this was an elaborate hoax, has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Benefits to the Participants 

The benefits to those who participated in the Sandy Hook hoax have been substantial. The donation sites created by "families of the victims" have hauled in over $27,000,000 or in excess of $1,000,000 per family. Other substantial grants have been given to alleviate the pain and suffering of those who responded to the event. On Friday, 12 December 2014, for example, Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Representative Elizabeth Esty (CT-5) announced a $775,914 grant from the Department of Justice's Office for Victims of Crimes and their families, first responders and members of Newtown community in the wake of the shooting to "help fund continued mental health services and other support services", which sounds like a lot for participating in a charade.

Other pay-offs, bribes and hush-money--and under the circumstances, is there something more appropriate to call it?--are documented in Chapter 5. When debate was taking place over the choice between refurbishing the old school or constructing a new one, The Newtown Bee published about the presence of asbestos, lead and PCBs in the building, which had no doubt factored in the earlier decision to abandon the school in 2008. Newtown received $50,000,000 to build a brand new K-4 elementary school. I surveyed the cost of comparable cost for K-4 schools across the nation and discovered they average $7,000,000, which reflects the generous benefits that a community might accrue from cooperating covertly with the federal government in the pursuit of its political agenda.  

The gun control agenda

We are told that fewer guns means less crime. But when you look into serious studies of crime rates in relation to gun laws, that is not what you discover. Appendix D, for example, "Comparing Murder and Homicide Rates before and after Gun Bans", suggests something closer to the opposite is the case; and Appendix E, "Comparing Death Rates from Mass Public Shootings in the US and Europe",
demonstrates we are not the nation with the highest rates of mass public shootings, contrary to our president's claims. Barack Obama himself praised the sweeping gun confiscation that took place in Australia in the late 1990s and said:

“Couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown,” Obama said. “And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not doing, we’re not seeing that again, and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since.” 

And while they haven’t seen a mass shooting since, local officials say that gun violence on the continent is much worse than it was before the tougher gun policies went into effect.
Meanwhile, the one thing that the President failed to recognize is that gun crime in the U.S. is on the decline. 
According to a PEW research study, gun crime is down 49% since 1993. 
Another study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics showed that non-fatal gun crime is actually down 70% since the same time. 
Even the President’s own study performed by the Center for Disease Control reached a similar conclusion: “Firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009,” the report states. “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths.” 
What these studies show is there’s a clear agenda being carried out by the Mainstream Media to make it seem like mass shootings are the norm. 
As soon as a mass shooting happens, it reverberates through all the major news networks for weeks, much like an echo after the initial shot.
Because of this, much of the nation seems to believe that gun violence, particularly school shootings, is on the rise even with evidence that points to the contrary.
The reasons behind this aggressive behavior by the administration, even when gun violence has been falling in the United States, involves deep questions about the role of DHS in our society and why America has been devolving into a totalitarian state. I was born a year-and-a-day before Pearl Harbor, as my father used to put it; and I would never have imagined in my wildest dreams that the United States of American could descent into a bottomless pit of lies, deceit and deception. 

Faking a school shooting to instill fear into a population is an act of terrorism, where it has become clear that this instance was brought to us by officials at every level of the Connecticut government from the teachers and reporters to the State Police and the Newtown School board to the Governor and the Attorney General and the President himself. And this is the ugly legacy of Barack Hussein Obama. 

Friday, October 23, 2015

NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK: It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control


Proof that it was a drill right before our eyes:

* the portable sign, "Everyone must check in!"

* boxes of bottled water and pizza cartons 

* Port-a-Potties already present from scratch

* Many wearing name tags on lanyards

* Parents bringing children to the scene

Proof it wasn't a school massacre was also there:

* no surge of EMTs in to the building

* no Med-Evac helicopter was called

* no string of ambulances to the school

* no evacuation of 469 other students

* no bodies placed on the triage tarps

Now we know more. We have 50 photos of the Lanza home being furnished to serve as a prop. And we have 50 more of the school being refurbished and set up for "going LIVE":

The windows of Classroom 10 are undamaged. The flag is at full staff. Wayne Carver, M.D. is behind the man in the blue evidence suit. Nothing officially has happened yet, but the SWAT team is already on scene. Could we have more conclusive proof this was a charade?

Among the best students and scholars of Sandy Hook have contributed:

  * Vivian Lee, Ph.D. * Sterling Harwood, J.D., Ph.D. *
     * Dr. Eowyn, Ph.D. *  Nick Kollerstrom, Ph.D.  *
   *  Dennis Cimino  *  James F. Tracy, Ph.D. * Allan
  William Powell  *  Jim Fetzer, Ph.D.  * Kelley Watt  * 

And featuring Sofia Smallstorm, Paul Preston and Wolfgang Halbig

The essays have been edited by Jim Fetzer, Ph.D., a former Marine Corps officer and Distinguished McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, and by Mike Palecek, who has committed his life to the search for truth and justice. They prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sandy Hook was an elaborate hoax to promote the Obama/ Holder gun-control agenda. If you want to know what happened, who was responsible and how it was done, you want to read this book.

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The
communist party must command all the guns;
that way, no guns can ever be used to
command the party."--Mao Tse Tung

Nobody Died At Sandy Hook: to order, click here: