RT talks to William Binney, whistleblower and former NSA crypto-mathematician who served in the agency for decades. Virtual privacy in US, Petraeus affair and whistleblowers’ odds in fight against the authorities are among key topics of this exclusive interview
RT: In light of the Petraeus/Allen scandal while the public is so focused on the details of their family drama, one may argue that the real scandal in this whole story is the power, the reach of the surveillance state. I mean if we take General Allen – thousands of his personal e-mails have been sifted through private correspondence. It’s not like any of those men was planning an attack on America. Does the scandal prove the notion that there is no such thing as privacy in a surveillance state?
William Binney: Yes, that’s what I’ve been basically saying for quite some time, is that the FBI has access to the data collected, which is basically the emails of virtually everybody in the country. And the FBI has access to it. All the congressional members are on the surveillance too, no one is excluded. They are all included. So, yes, this can happen to anyone. If they become a target for whatever reason – they are targeted by the government, the government can go in, or the FBI, or other agencies of the government, they can go into their database, pull all that data collected on them over the years, and we analyze it all. So, we have to actively analyze everything they’ve done for the last 10 years at least.
RT: And it’s not just about those, who could be planning, who could be a threat to national security, but also those, who could be just…
WB: It’s everybody. The Naris device, if it takes in the entire line, so it takes in all the data. In fact they advertised they can process the lines at session rates, which means 10-gigabit lines. I forgot the name of the device (it’s not the Naris) – the other one does it at 10 gigabits. That’s why they’re building Bluffdale [database facility], because they have to have more storage, because they can’t figure out what’s important, so they are just storing everything there. So, emails are going to be stored there in the future, but right now stored in different places around the country. But it is being collected – and the FBI has access to it.
RT: You mean it’s being collected in bulk without even requesting providers?
WB: Yes.
RT: Then what about Google, you know, releasing this biannual transparency report and saying that the government’s demands for personal data is at an all-time high and for all of those requesting the US, Google says they complied with the government’s demands 90 percent of the time. But they are still saying that they are making the request, it’s not like it’s all being funneled into that storage. What do you say to that?
WB: I would assume that it’s just simply another source for the same data they are already collecting. My line is in declarations in a court about the 18-T facility in San Francisco, that documented the NSA room inside that AST&T facility, where they had Naris devices to collect data off the fiber optic lines inside the United States. So, that’s kind of a powerful device, that would collect everything it was being sent. It could collect on the order over of 100 billion 1,000-character emails a day. One device.
RT: You say they sift through billions of e-mails. I wonder how do they prioritize? How do they filter it?
WB: I don’t think they are filtering it. They are just storing it. I think it’s just a matter of selecting when they want it. So, if they want to target you, they would take your attributes, go into that database and pull out all your data.
RT: Were you on the target list?
WB: Oh, sure! I believe I’ve been on it for quite a few years. So I keep telling them everything I think of them in my email. So that when they want to read it they’ll understand what I think of them.
RT: Do you think we all should leave messages for the NSA mail box?
WB: Sure!
RT: You blew the whistle on the agency when George W. Bush was the president. With President Obama in office, in your opinion, has anything changed at the agency, in the surveillance program? In what direction is this administration moving?
WB: The change is it’s getting worse. They are doing more. He is supporting the building of the Bluffdale facility, which is over two billion dollars they are spending on storage room for data. That means that they are collecting a lot more now and need more storage for it. That facility by my calculations that I submitted to the court for the Electronic Frontiers Foundation against NSA would hold on the order of 5 zettabytes of data. Just that current storage capacity is being advertised on the web that you can buy. And that’s not talking about what they have in the near future.
RT: What are they going to do with all of that? Ok, they are storing something. Why should anybody be concerned?
WB: If you ever get on the enemies list, like Petraeus did or… for whatever reason, than you can be drained into that surveillance.
RT: Do you think they would… General Petraeus, who was idolized by the same administration? Or General Allen?
WB: There are certainly some questions, that have to be asked, like why would they target it to begin with? What law were they breaking?
RT: In case of General Petraeus one would argue that there could have been security breaches. Something like that. But with General Allen – I don’t quite understand, because when they were looking into his private emails to this woman.
WB: That’s the whole point. I am not sure what the internal politics is… That’s part of the program. This government doesn’t want things in the public. It’s not a transparent government. Whatever the reason or the motivation was, I don’t really know, but I certainly think that there was something going on in the background that made them target those fellows. Otherwise why would they be doing it? There is no crime there.
RT: It seems that the public is divided between those, who think that the government surveillance program violates their civil liberties, and those who say, ‘I’ve nothing to hide. So, why should I care?’ What do you say to those who think that it shouldnt concern them.
WB: The problem is if they think they are not doing anything that’s wrong, they don’t get to define that. The central government does, the central government defines what is right and wrong and whether or not they target you. So, it’s not up to the individuals. Even if they think they aren’t doing something wrong, if their position on something is against what the administration has, then they could easily become a target.
RT: Tell me about the most outrageous thing that you came across during your work at the NSA.
WB: The violations of the constitution and any number of laws that existed at the time. That was the part that I could not be associated with. That’s why I left. They were building social networks on who is communicating and with whom inside this country. So that the entire social network of everybody, of every US citizen was being compiled overtime. So, they are taking from one company alone roughly 320 million records a day. That’s probably accumulated probably close to 20 trillion over the years.
The original program that we put together to handle this to be able to identify terrorists anywhere in the world and alert anyone that they were in jeopardy. We would have been able to do that by encrypting everybody’s communications except those who were targets. So, in essence you would protect their identities and the information about them until you could develop probable cause, and once you showed your probable cause, then you could do a decrypt and target them. And we could do that and isolate those people all alone. It wasn’t a problem at all. There was no difficulty in that.
RT: It sounds very difficult and very complicated. Easier to take everything in and…
WB: No. It’s easier to use the graphing techniques, if you will, for the relationships for the world to filter out data, so that you don’t have to handle all that data. And it doesn’t burden you with a lot more information to look at, than you really need to solve the problem.
RT: Do you think that the agency doesn’t have the filters now?
WB: No.
RT: You have received the Callaway award for civic courage. Congratulations! On the website and in the press release it says: “It is awarded to those, who stand out for constitutional rights and American values at great risk to their personal or professional lives.” Under the code of spy ethics – I don’t know if there is such a thing – your former colleagues, they probably look upon you as a traitor. How do you look back at them?
WB: That’s pretty easy. They are violating the foundation of this entire country. Why this entire government was formed? It’s founded with the Constitution and the rights were given to the people in the country under that Constitution. They are in violation of that. And under executive order 13526, section 1.7 – you can not classify information to just cover up a crime, which this is, and that was signed by President Obama. Also President Bush signed it earlier as an executive order, a very similar one. If any of this comes into Supreme Court and they rule it unconstitutional, then the entire house of cards of the government falls.
RT: What are the chances of that? What are the odds?
WB: The government is doing the best they can to try to keep it out of court. And, of course, we are trying to do the best we can to get into court. So, we decided it deserves a ruling from the Supreme Court. Ultimately the court is supposed to protect the Constitution. All these people in the government take an oath to defend the Constitution. And they are not living up to the oath of office.
The NDAA should scare the hell out of every American Citizen. This allows the government the authority to secretly arrest Americans, without due process, torture and even murder American citizens without so much as a trial. The National Defense Resources Preparedness allows the president, without going through the U.S. Congress, the ability to seize control of all corporate assets, manufacturing operations, and conscript American civilians into work brigades (i.e. slave labor), seize all food, impose restrictions and rations on all vital resources and to hand these resources to the Department of Homeland Security. Section 201 of this Executive Order allows the president to seize control of all corporate infrastructure, manufacturing operations, control of food, control of farm equipment, control of fuel, control electricity, control of water resources, and control of all civilian transportation.
It is also been documented, ad nauseam, that the existence and operational activation of FEMA camps is now a provable fact as reported by CBS News. Let’s not kid ourselves, FEMA camps are the future concentration camps.
There are many other examples of impending government tyranny that could easily be pointed out here. However, the abovementioned governmental policies are all the proof that America needs to come to the realization that we are all in a great deal of danger and that you, the American middle class, are going to be the targets of this tyrannical oppression.
If elements of your government were not planning to commit genocide against the American people, then why would these policies be enacted? Should we just think that the government doesn’t really mean it when they say they can secretly arrest and murder Americans without following the due process of law under the NDAA? Should we think is just a silly conspiracy theory when we state that Obama has given himself the authority to seize every meaningful asset in this country based solely on his own personal say-so? Is America so dumbed-down to not be able recognize the danger when it’s staring us in the face, The danger is in print, click on the hypertext links and read for yourself that the elite are telling you what they are planning to do to you.
I find it laughable how the country has been conditioned to laugh at any kind of the conspiracy theory, as if two evil man would never get together and conspire to do anything. The refusal of Americans to recognize these dangers, and dismiss them as merely wild-eyed conspiracy theories, speaks to how dumbed down our people have become due to a substandard education system and through the controlled corporate media in which only five corporations own over 95% of the entire media industrial complex.
The Trigger Event
Every act of civil disobedience, every act of revolution and every act of tyrannical genocide committed by government, requires a trigger event. For the Nazis, this trigger event included burning down the Reichstag building and blaming the Communists as an excuse to declare martial law. What will be the trigger event for the coming genocidal holocaust committed against American citizens? No one can say for sure. However, history has proven that government gun confiscation from private citizens are the chest pains prior to the heart attack. In the 20th century, there were 17 major genocides committed against civilian populations resulting in a death toll of around 60 millionpeople. Everyone of these genocides was preceded by gun confiscation which rendered the intended victims defenseless against the slaughter that awaited them.
It is widely known, that Obama is feverishly attempting to usher in the UN Gun Ban Treaty. If he is unable to ram it through Congress, as he is tried before, he is very likely codify gun control through executive order. When gun confiscation comes, it’s time for people like you and I to run for the hills because if you are caught and sent to a FEMA “re-education” camp, you are probably not coming out alive.
Control of communications is also a necessary prerequisite to carry out tyranny against a civilian population. We know that the globalists corporations control 95% of the establishment media. So, that goal has already been accomplished. However the one medium of communication exchange not under the control of the New World Order, is the Internet. In the same proximity of time that we will see gun control introduced into American society on a widespread basis, one can expect the Internet to be taken down and tightly censored as it is in China. The New American Magazine has reported that Obama has given the codes to the DNS servers, for the Internet, to the United Nations. If this is correct, we are not going to have to wait long for this insanity to unfold. And of course, should all else fail, I don’t doubt for a second that this administration will not hesitate to roll out a false flag attack as a prelude to the declaration of martial law and seize American guns under this pretext.
Are You Ready?
Are you ready for the coming tyrannical crackdown and the complete evisceration of our constitutional liberties? Have you taken the proper precautions that will ensure the safety of you and your family? It is not likely that very many of us have taken the any meaningful steps to maximize our chances for survival in what will prove to be humanity’s darkest days. Do you have what it takes to survive in a FEMA camp?
When the FEMA bus rolls into your neighborhood, are you prepared to deal with what lies ahead? Let’s assume for a second that martial law is declared and you were not able to find a safe sanctuary and that you are arrested by the powers that be. Your family will subsequently be separated by the authorities as a prelude to sending you to a FEMA camp, and that means that men will go to one facility, and women will go to another. Children will have their own facility awaiting them. In all likelihood, this will mark the last time you will ever see your family. How do I know this? Read the Rex 84 documents.
Imagine how a man who is deprived of everyone he has ever cared about, and at the same time this man has lost his house and all of his possessions, how will he survive? There are two primary dangers facing detainees. The first is bad luck. The second danger is the loss of hope. Victor Frankl, the renowned psychiatrist, who spent four years in Auschwitz, thought that the loss of hope was the number one factor associated with prisoner mortality in a concentration camp detention situation. How will you find meaning in your life when you’re separated from everything you’ve ever known and loved?
In the previous days as a history instructor, I used to have survivors of the Holocaust come and speak to my students. Subsequently, I asked all of these former death camp prisoners, what was the number one factor in their survival? Almost to a person, they stated the number one factor in their survival was luck. I was told that the Nazis would herd people to the showers which they knew was a death trap, and they were the next in line, but were turned away, because the quota had been met. It just wasn’t their day to die.
If you are sent to a FEMA camp, there are things you can do to exercise control over the things of which you have influence. The Jews were a very resilient people and were able to manufacture their own subculture. There were those, however, they did resist as they ran from the relocation trains, and/or attacked their captors. In almost every instance, resisting authorities at the time of arrest was almost 100% fatal.
For those who arrived at the death camps, a vibrant subculture appeared as the people played cards and actors, musicians, comics, singers, and dancers all entertained small groups who came together for a few hours to forget their daily terror and despair. Singers and poets also perform their craft as well. And of course, people continue to pray even though it was against the rules. People formed bonds with each other, developed a level of affection and respect. In short, they replaced the loss of primary family associations with people facing imminent death every day. The lesson is clear, if you’re ever forced into a FEMA camp, pray for good luck and foster relationships among your fellow detainees and find pleasure in the small things over which you will have some measure of control.
Organized Resistance Within the Camp
What about organizing a resistance in the FEMA camps, would that work? The history lesson which can be derived, from this question, is not promising.In Treblinka, seven hundred Jews were successful in blowing up the camp on August 2, 1943. All but 150 of the inmates perished in retaliation for their efforts. Only 12 Treblinka inmates survived the war. In Sobibor, Jewish and Russian inmates mounted an escape on October 14, 1943. One in ten successfully successfully escaped, about 60 out of 600. The prisoners involved in the escape survived to join the Soviet underground. In Auschwitz, on October 7, 1944, one of the four crematoria was blown up by Jewish workers, whose job it was to clear away the bodies of gas chamber victims. The workers were all caught and killed.
The lesson seems clear, if you allow yourself to be transported to a FEMA camp, you’re probably not coming out alive. Therefore, since resistance within the camp is futile, you have three options. One, do not get caught. Two, you can choose to acquiesce and hope your compliance and your search meaning is successful. Three, you can try to escape. To survive by going along to get along, requires a fair amount of luck to survive. From my perspective, I believe history teaches that mounting an organized escape effort may be the best chance for survival that an inmate has put coming out of the death camp experience, alive.
Will You and Your Community
Resist the Tyranny?
Despite the stereotype which betrays all Jews as willing and meekly going to their slaughter, is not totally accurate. There are plenty of examples where the Jews met force with force and refused to be subjugated. For example, on September 3, 1942, seven hundred Jewish families escaped from the Tuchin Ghetto, located in the Ukraine. However, the Nazis hunted them down, and only 15 survived.
By 1943, the ghetto residents, in the famous Warsaw Ghetto, had organized an army of about 1,000 men, mostly unarmed and without military equipment. In January 1943, German soldiers entered the ghetto to round up more Jews for shipment to the death camps. They were met by a volley of bombs, Molotov cocktails, and a few bullets from the sparse number of firearms which had been smuggled into the ghettos. Twenty German soldiers were killed. The action encouraged a few members of the Polish resistance to support the uprising, and a few machine guns, some hand grenades, and about a hundred rifles and revolvers were smuggled in.
The Germans returned with almost 3,000 crack German troops and eventually overcame the resistance and about 300 Germans were killed. Jewish losses were estimated at 15,000. Some Jews survived and some actually did escape, but not many.
Conclusion
According to the lessons of history, there can be no question that being sent to a concentration camp (i.e. FEMA camp) is an almost certain death sentence. We have seen that resistance at the point of arrest is futile. Armed and organized resistance which includes community involvement, produces long odds for survival, but some do survive. Resisting captors inside of the concentration camp, by an means necessary, is nearly fatal in every case. Acquiescing to authority, while one carves out a life under very dire circumstances, provides the best chance for survival. However, under these conditions, one’s survival is highly dependent on being lucky.
The best chance for survival if you are ever transported to a FEMA camp, is to avoid being caught in the first place. The next part in this series explores how one can best evade capture for both themselves and their family members.
According to a report from the “Combatting Terrorism Center” at West Point, ‘Anti-Federalists’ who oppose a New World Order as well as members of several other far right wing activist groups are potential terrorist threats.
West Point is the U.S. Military Academy that trains, educates, and prepares Cadets for their service in the U.S. Army.
The CTC (Combatting Terrorism Center) at West Point was established following the events on September 11, 2001 because of the belief that strong initiative was needed to prepare Cadets for the new environments they would be headed into upon graduating in the post-9/11 era.
The CTC provides a unique terrorism-based education and since its creation, the program has received international recognition for its studies, reports, and teachings on terrorism and terrorist threats.
A new report from the CTC, however, suggests that far right wing political activists, not radical Islamic groups, are the new terrorist threat in America and even goes so far as to say that those who oppose a ‘New World Order’ are potentially violent terrorists.
One of the groups this report warns of is the modern ‘Anti-Federalist’ group, which the report says contains people who believe the American political system has been hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a ‘New World Order,’ an idea that has even been confirmed by David Rockefeller in his book “Memoirs” [1] and George H.W. Bush in various speeches.
The CTC report goes on to say that these ‘Anti-Federalists’ believe the federal government has become corrupt and tyrannical because of its intrusion on the civil constitutional rights of the American people and support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self-government.
According to the report, these people believe that the push for a tyrannical global government would result in disarming the American people and their violence, the report says, may be directed towards the federal government itself and its proxies in law enforcement.
The FBI and Department of Homeland Security have already released documents which suggest that anyone who has coffee grinders, coffee filters, goggles, and scientific equipment could be involved in creating CBR weapons and should be reported to local authorities.
They have also stated that photographers should be monitored for potential terrorism and they have released guidelinesfor suspicious activity reporting at hotels.
This newly released CTC report, which showcases the exploitation of people like Timothy McVeigh and the small wave of violence from right wing groups in the 1990s to suggest that all right-wingers are potentially violent and even loosely associates those who oppose a one world government with skinheads, Neo-Nazis, and the KKK, is only a small example of the growing paranoia over terrorism and the expanding surveillance state in America.
Why is this all important? Regardless of personal ties to these groups, we must be asking the following question:
A common Rule of Thumb….when ever a bureaucrat asks you a question, a safe “answer” is toask them a question in return. Be polite, but be firm. They often want to extract information out of you without you being the wiser. There is no transparency in the manner of their interaction with you. A good example of this is in the article below….here is what I do. You do what you want.
Example: Did you know you were speeding back there ?
answer: Was I speeding ?
What is your name ?
Is there a problem officer ?
Where are you going ?
Is there a problem officer ?
Can I look in your trunk ?
Do you have a warrant ?
Why can’t I just answer the question and be safe? In law if you answer the question [ANY QUESTION], you have “joined the issue”, meaning that you have unwittingly become a part of the officer’s jurisdiction. To “join” means to become part of an alliance, or to enter into an alliance. You have constitutional protections to guard against such intrusions into your privacy. To be safe, just follow the simple Rule of Thumb. Disclaimer: This is not to be construed as legal advice. Do you own a gun ? Why do you need to know ? Keep it simple. Stop the intrusion into something they have no business asking.
The Patriot Act was passed by both Houses. Don’t help them reduce your freedom.
In the article below, use your best judgment….or you might find yourself where you don’t want to be.
Another way of finding out our “PRIVACY”
Never answer the question….
Do you have a gun in the house ? Why do you need to know ?
GOOD TO KNOW !
When I had my gangrene gallbladder taken out and spent 10 days in the hospital for what should have been an overnight stay the insurance company kicked me out. I had home nurse visits for two weeks and was asked if I had guns in the house. I respond that if I did I would not tell them. So the below has some merit.
FYI, I am passing this along… there are comments from two other people I have also been asked if we keep guns in the house. The nurse just kinda slipped it in along with all the other regular questions. I told her I refused to answer because it was against the law to ask.
Everyone, whether you have guns or not, should give a neutral answer so they have no idea who does and who doesn’t. My doctor asked me if I had guns in my house and also if any were loaded. I, of course, answered yes to both questions. Then he asked why I kept a loaded gun close to my bed. I answered that my son, who is a certified gun instructor and also works for Homeland Security, advised me that an unloaded, locked up gun is no protection against criminal attack.
The Government now requires these questions be asked of people on Medicare, and probably everyone else.
Just passing this along for your information: I had to visit a doctor other than my regular doctor when my doctor was on vacation.. One of the questions on the form I had to fill out was: Do you have any guns in your house?? My answer was None of your damn business!!
So it is out there ! It is either an insurance issue or government intervention. Either way, it is out there and the second the government gets into your medical records (as they want to under Obamacare) it will become a major issue and will ultimately result in lock and load !!
Please pass this on to all the other retired guys and gun owners… Thanks, from a Vietnam Vet and retired Police Officer: I had a doctor’s appointment at the local VA clinic yesterday and found out something very interesting that I would like to pass along. While going through triage before seeing the doctor, I was asked at the end of the exam, three questions: 1. Did I feel stressed ? 2. Did I feel threatened ? 3. Did I feel like doing harm to someone ?
The nurse then informed me that if I had answered yes to any of the questions I would have lost my concealed carry permit as it would have gone into my medical records and the VA would have reported it to Homeland Security.
Looks like they are going after the vets first. Other gun people like retired law enforcement will probably be next. Then when they go after the civilians, what argument will they have ? Be forewarned and be aware. The Obama administration has gone on record as considering veterans and gun owners potential terrorists. Whether you are a gun owner, veteran or not, YOU’VE BEEN WARNED !
If you know veterans and gun owners, please pass this on to them. Be very cautious about what you say and to whom.
Melissa Ketunuti died January 2013. Firefighters find charred body of murdered pediatrician who was hog-tied, strangled and set on fire in her basement Dr. Kentunuti worked at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and dedicated her whole life to being a doctor and helping kids with cancer. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, she earned a doctorate in medicine from Stanford University and had initially considered working as a surgeon internationally. She worked on an AIDS research fellowship in Botswana through the National Institutes of Health. She also completed internships at Johns Hopkins Hospital and New York University.
Following his scripted dog and pony show with a gaggle of stage prop children, the imperial president on Wednesday signed a number of “executive actions” he claims will reduce “gun violence” (the actions do not cover violence committed with hammers and clubs which outpace violence committed with rifles).
The list includes an effort to turn doctors into stool pigeons for the state and encourages them to ask patients if they have guns at home and then ascertain if they are a threat to society. Mental health “professionals” will be obliged to rat out patients who might be suffering from paranoid delusions. So much for doctor-patient confidentiality.
Expect more on “gun safety” and mental illness as Obamacare come fully online. It will be used to take the firearms of citizens who will be designated mentally ill much the same way veterans who suffer from PTSD are now having their guns confiscated.
It is no mistake the feds are conflating “gun safety” and mental illness. In the not too distant future, the government will classify gun ownership as a “safety” issue that threatens family members and society as a whole. The establishment media is already attempting to portray the so-called “gun culture” as a form of collective mental illness requiring “common sense” (as mandated by the state). It is also actively and aggressively demonizing advocates of the Second Amendment as “nutjobs” who need hospitalization.
Here is the full laundry list of “actions” Obama plans to take without consulting Congress or the American people:
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper
training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
A speech by 85 year old, Austrian born, American Citizen in South Dakota, Kitty Werthmann.
“What I am about to tell you is something you’ve probably never heard or read in history books,” she likes to tell audiences.
“I am a witness to history.
“I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history.
If you remember the plot of the Sound of Music, the Von Trapp family escaped over the Alps rather than submit to the Nazis. Kitty wasn’t so lucky. Her family chose to stay in her native Austria. She was 10 years old, but bright and aware. And she was watching.
“We elected him by a landslide – 98 percent of the vote,” she recalls.
She wasn’t old enough to vote in 1938 – approaching her 11th birthday. But she remembers.
“Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.”
Not so.
Hitler is welcomed to Austria
“In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25 percent inflation and 25 percent bank loan interest rates.
Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house begging for food. Not that they didn’t want to work; there simply weren’t any jobs.
“My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people – about 30 daily.’
“We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany, where Hitler had been in power since 1933.” she recalls. “We had been told that they didn’t have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living.
Austrian girls welcome Hitler
“Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group – Jewish or otherwise. We were led to believe that everyone in Germany was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria. We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back.
“Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.
“We were overjoyed,” remembers Kitty, “and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed.
Austrians saluting
“After the election, German officials were appointed, and like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order. Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed. The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.
“Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn’t support his family. Many women in the teach- ing profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been re- quired to give up for marriage.
“Then we lost religious education for kids
Poster promoting “Hitler Youth”
“Our education was nationalized. I attended a very good public school.. The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler’s picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn’t pray or have religion anymore. Instead, we sang ‘Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles,’ and had physical education.
“Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance. Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum. They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time. The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail.” And then things got worse.
“The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination. The rest of the day we had sports. As time went along, we loved it. Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free.
“We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had.
“My mother was very unhappy,” remembers Kitty. “When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent. I told her she couldn’t do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful. There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun – no sports, and no political indoctrination.
“I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home. I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing.
A pro-Hitler rally
“Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By that time, unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler.
“It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn’t exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy.
“In 1939, the war started and a food bank was established. All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn’t work, you didn’t get a ration card, and if you didn’t have a card, you starved to death.
“Women who stayed home to raise their families didn’t have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men.
“Soon after this, the draft was implemented.
Young Austrians
“It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labor corps,” remembers Kitty. “During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys.
“They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated in the signal corps. After the labor corps, they were not discharged but were used in the front lines.
“When I go back to Austria to visit my family and friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat.
“Three months before I turned 18, I was severely injured in an air raid attack. I nearly had a leg amputated, so I was spared having to go into the labor corps and into military service.
“When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. “You could take your children ages four weeks old to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, seven days a week, under the total care of the government.
“The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.
“Before Hitler, we had very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna.. “After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything.
“When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full.
“If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.
“As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80 percent of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families.
“All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.
“We had another agency designed to monitor business. My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables. “ Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn’t meet all the demands.
“Soon, he went out of business. If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.
“We had consumer protection, too
Austrian kids loyal to Hitler
“We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents would go to the farms, count the live-stock, and then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.
“In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps. The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated.
“So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded. When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work.
“I knew one, named Vincent, very well. He was a janitor of the school. One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van.
“I asked my superior where they were going. She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write. The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months.
“They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness.
“As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death. The villagers were not fooled. We suspected what was happening. Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months. We called this euthanasia.
“Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long afterwards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.
“No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.
“Totalitarianism didn’t come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria. Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.”
“This is my eye-witness account.
“It’s true. Those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity.
“America is truly is the greatest country in the world. “Don’t let freedom slip away.
This puts the final nail into the coffin of the ‘official story’. This proves without any doubt, that the Sandy Hook Tragedy was planned in advance, with the real agenda being gun control, registrations, & eventual confiscation.
Ben Swann Full Disclosure looks at eyewittness accounts from the scenes of the colorado theater shooting, the wisconsin sikh temple shooting and the connecticut elementary school shooting that indicate more than one shooter may have been involved in all three shootings.
These accounts indicate that more than one shooter may have been involved in all three shootings.
It’s astounding. Parents are smiling. They’re actors from Central Casting? One thing is for sure.
They’re androids, if you measure their responses against reports of what happened in the Sandy Hook School.
And as androids, they’re only matched by the TV reporters who are interviewing them.
If you’re tempted to say the parents and family members are in shock, or they’re reacting to being on television, forget it. Their attitudes don’t match a massacre by any stretch of the imagination.
Is Sandy Hook/Newtown a Stepford Village? Are these people all programmed to be pleasant and accommodating No Matter What?
It’s about as bizarre as the purported video footage of the Aurora theater during the shootings there this summer. As people exit the lobby and come out on to the street, there is no sign of blood and no one is coughing from the reported tear gas inside the theater.
With these Sandy Hook parents, we’re looking at a level of conditioning in which Being Nice can completely overwhelm even the murder of one’s own child.
Tears? Not one person in these interviews has actual tears running down his or her face.
One of the fathers, Robbie Parker, has had his interview played and replayed all over the planet on YouTube, and you can watch him smiling and grinning, for all the world looking like he’s just been appointed CEO of a company he works for…and then he steps to a podium to make his statement, and as one poster succinctly describes it, “gets into character.”
This isn’t just an internal event. You can watch Parker huffing and puffing and pushing himself into what he thinks is a tragic and grief-stricken state of mind.
He does it so badly you wonder why no one in the room calls him on it. It’s beyond strange. Yet reporters later talked about Parker “struggling through tears and suffering to make a heartfelt statement…” The reporters are just as deranged as Parker is.
This boggling show isn’t confined to Sandy Hook. A commenter below a Deseret News article on Parker replied: “Brave young father, wise to forgive early and choose to move forward—nothing can be gained by dwelling on what cannot be changed.”
At times, watching these interviews, I wondered whether the parents had been conditioned to believe, in the face of ANYTHING, that good and nice children all take a choo-choo train to heaven and there is nothing to regret about their murders at all.
In an earlier article, I pointed out that, indeed, at 1hr:58 of The Dark Knight Rises, Gary Oldman, talking about an impending attack on “Strike Zone 1,” is pointing to the words “Sandy Hook” on a map in front of him.
These are the only legible words on the map.
By happenstance, the production designer of Dark Knight Rises, Nathan Crowley, is related to the infamous British black-magic legend, Aleister Crowley, who was sometimes called The Great Beast 666.
In an interview, Nathan said, “Yes, Aleister Crowley is a direct relative, he’s my grandfather’s cousin, but we were never allowed to even mention his name because we were a very Quaker family.”
Nathan is also the production designer of Lady Gaga’s video ad for her Perfume, Fame.
Inconsistencies and anomalies abound when one turns an analytical eye to news of the Newtown school massacre.
“[My staff] and I hope the people of Newtown don’t have it crash on their head later.” –Connecticut Medical Examiner D. Wayne Carver II, MD, December 15, 2012
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.
Reporter #1: So the rifle was the primary weapon?
H. Wayne Carver: Yes.
Reporter #1: [Inaudible]
Carver: Uh (pause). Question was what caliber were these bullets. And I know—I probably know more about firearms than most pathologists but if I say it in court they yell at me and don’t make me answer [sic]—so [nervous laughter]. I’ll let the police do that for you.
Reporter #2: Doctor can you tell us about the nature of the wounds. Were they at very close range? Were the children shot at from across the room?
Carver: Uhm, I only did seven of the autopsies. The victims I had ranged from three to eleven wounds apiece and I only saw two of them with close range shooting. Uh, but that’s, uh y’know, a sample. Uh, I really don’t have detailed information on the rest of the injuries.
[Given that Carver is Connecticut’s top coroner and in charge of the entire postmortem this is a startling admission.-JT]
Reporter #3: But you said that the long rifle was used?
Carver: Yes.
Reporter #3: But the long rifle was discovered in the car.
State Police Lieutenant Vance: That’s not correct, sir.
Unidentified reporter #4: How many bullets or bullet fragments did you find in the autopsy. Can you tell us that?
Carver: Oh. I’m lucky I can tell you how many I found. I don’t know. There were lots of them, OK? This type of weapon is not, uh … the bullets are designed in such a fashion that the energy—this is very clinical. I shouldn’t be saying this. But the energy is deposited in the tissue so the bullet stays in [the tissue].
[In fact, the Bushmaster .223 Connecticut police finally claimed was used in the shooting is designed for long range field use and utilizes high velocity bullets averaging 3,000 feet-per-second, the energy of which even at considerable distance would penetrate several bodies before finally coming to rest in tissue.]
Reporter #5: How close were the injuries?
Carver: Uh, all the ones (pause). I believe say, yes [sic].
Reporter #6: In what shape were the bodies when the families were brought to check [inaudible].
Carver: Uh, we did not bring the bodies and the families into contact. We took pictures of them, uhm, of their facial features. We have, uh, uh—it’s easier on the families when you do that. Un, there is, uh, a time and place for the up close and personal in the grieving process, but to accomplish this we thought it would be best to do it this way and, uh, you can sort of, uh … You can control a situation depending on the photographer, and I have very good photographers. Uh, but uh—
Reporter #7: Do you know the difference of the time of death between the mother in the house and the bodies recovered [in the school].
Carver: Uh, no, I don’t. Sorry [shakes head excitedly] I don’t! [embarrassed laugh]
Reporter #8: Did the gunman kill himself with the rifle?
Carver: No. I—I don’t know yet. I’ll-I’ll examine him tomorrow morning. But, but I don’t think so.
[Why has Carver left arguably the most important specimen for last? And why doesn’t he think Lanza didn’t commit suicide with the rifle?]
Reporter #9: In terms of the children, were they all found in one classroom or—
Carver: Uhm … [inaudible] [Turns to Lieutenant Vance] Paul and company will deal with that.
Reporter #9: What?
Carver: Paul and company will deal with that. Lieutenant Vance is going to handle that one.
Reporter #10: Was there any evidence of a struggle? Any bruises?
Carver: No.
Reporter #11: The nature of the shooting; is there any sense that there was a lot of care taken with precision [inaudible] or randomly?
Carver: [Exhales while glancing upward, as if frustrated] Both. It’s a very difficult question to answer … You’d think after thousands of people I’ve seen shot but I … It’s … If I attempted to answer it in court there’d be an objection and then they’d win—[nervous laughter].
[Who would win? Why does an expert whose routine job as a public employee is to provide impartial medical opinion concerned with winning and losing in court? Further, Carver is not in court but rather at a press conference.]
Reporter #12: Doctor, can you discuss the fatal injuries to the adults?
Carver: Ah, they were similar to those of the children.
Reporter #13: Doctor, the children you had autopsied, where in the bodies were they hit?
Carver: Uhm [pause]. All over. All over.
Reporter #14: Were [the students] sitting at their desks or were they running away when this happened?
Carver: I’ll let the guys who—the scene guys talk—address that issue. I, uh, obviously I was at the scene. Obviously I’m very experienced in that. But there are people who are, uh, the number one professionals in that. I’ll let them—let that [voice trails off].
Reporter [#15]: How many boys and how many girls [were killed]?
Carver: [Slowly shaking his head] I don’t know.
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 he
walked 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 Hocksprung 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] 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.
[8] RadioMan911TV, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Police / Fire and CT State Police,” Youtube, December 14, 2012. At several points in this recording audio is scrambled, particularly following apprehension of a second shooting suspect outside the school, suggesting a purposeful attempt to withhold vital information.
You will notice Decrypted Matrix no longer operates a Facebook Page. Within the last few days we have willfully resigned from the service and shut down all pages and profiles. This new information below proves that was an appropriate course of action. -Max Maverick, Editor
Facebook is purging accounts that carry pro-second amendment and pro-liberty information in a censorship purge that has accelerated over the past few hours, with innumerable pages being disappeared merely for posting legitimate political content.
NaturalNews.com’s Mike Adams contacted us to alert us to the fact that “Facebook banned our account for posting this,” with an attached image of a Gandhi quote about how the British disarmed the citizenry during their rule in India.
The following is a list of Facebook accounts operated by individuals in the alternative media that have been shut down by Facebook staff over the past 24 hours. Infowars writer Aaron Dykes and political dissident Brandon J. Raub have also had their accounts deleted. Raub was snatched by police and forcibly imprisoned in a psychiatric ward earlier this year for posting political content on Facebook. Infowars editor Kurt Nimmo also had his account suspended this morning.
Kurt Nimmo (account suspended)
Aaron Dykes (account inactive)
Amber Lyon (account suspended)
Brandon J. Raub (account inactive)
Michael F Rivero (account inactive)
Anthony J Hilder (account inactive)
William Lewis (account inactive)
Richard Gage (account inactive)
William Rodriguez (account inactive)
Infowar Artist (account inactive)
We are Change (account inactive)
Wacboston At Twitter (account inactive)
Michael Murphy Tmp (account inactive)
Robert M Bowman (account inactive)
Peter Dale Scott (account inactive)
Jason Infowars (account inactive)
Mike Skuthan (account inactive)
Packy Savvenas (account inactive)
Sean Wright (account inactive)
Katherine Albrect (account inactive)
It is important to stress that most of these accounts have not simply been temporarily suspended, they have been shut down completely. Some are now being reinstated after complaints. Accounts that have been suspended can still be seen but posting rights have been revoked.
A 24 hour suspension was also placed on the Alex Jones Facebook account due to an image that another user had posted in which Alex Jones was tagged.
One of the messages being received by users having their accounts suspended is displayed below. In most cases, users are not even being informed of why their page was suspended or deleted, with Facebook merely referring them to the company’s guidelines.
Last week, we reported on how Facebook was suspending user accounts that questioned the official narrative behind the Sandy Hook school massacre.
As we have previously highlighted, Facebook occasionally deletes images and posts that it claims violate “Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities,” yet constitute little more than political conjecture or a healthy skepticism of official narratives on current events.
In September 2011, Infowars reporter Darrin McBreen was told by Facebook staff not to voice his political opinion on the social networking website.
Responding to comments McBreen had made about off-grid preppers being treated as criminals, the “Facebook Team” wrote, “Be careful making about making political statements on facebook,” adding, “Facebook is about building relationships not a platform for your political viewpoint. Don’t antagonize your base. Be careful and congnizat (sic) of what you are preaching.”
The massacre of 20 children and 7 adults at the Sandy Hook elementary school last Friday was one more in a long line of atrocious mass murders committed in the USA. By now, five days later, an official version of events has more or less solidified to explain the chain of events. The familiar ‘lone gunman’ narrative has once more stoked the hot-button issue of gun control and left the general population as clueless as ever as to why people suddenly ‘go postal’ and target the most vulnerable members of society.
On closer inspection, however, there is clearly more to many of these mass shootings than meets the eye. Very often the earliest reports present information that directly contradicts key foundations of the final ‘official’ analysis of events. Granted, confusion is natural when a story breaks, but some of the initial reports conflict so completely with the lone gunman narrative that I’m going to compile them here and then try to put this tragedy in a more objective context. In his speech at the Sandy Hook Interfaith Prayer Vigil in Newtown, Connecticut on Sunday night, President Obama quoted the following biblical passage:
“So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.”
~ 2 Corinthians 4:18
The traumatised Newtown community deserves the facts without the spin. Everyone touched by this brutal event deserves to know what really happened, so let’s fix our eyes on what remains unseen…
A 20-year-old ‘tech geek’ named Adam Lanza is supposed to have snapped early last Friday, December 14th, shot dead his mother Nancy Lanza, loaded her car up with her guns and ammo, then driven it across town to his former school, the Sandy Hook Elementary School, shot dead 27 people in two classrooms and an adjoining hallway, then turned one of his guns on himself.
That’s how most will now remember the shooting, but is that actually what happened?
All the child victims were first-graders between the ages of 6 and 7. If there’s any saving grace to be found in this event, it’s that it was all over within minutes. Police were reportedly on the scene “instantaneously”, according to Connecticut State Police Commander, Lt. Vance and by then the shooting had ended. Listed among the slain school teachers and administrative staff was the school principal, 47-year-old Dawn Hochsprung. Right here we encounter our first problem:
Sandy Hook School Principal Dawn Hochsprung told The Bee that a masked man entered the school with a rifle and started shooting multiple shots – more than she could count – that went “on and on.”
How could the principal have survived to give this statement to local press describing what happened … if she was one of the first to be killed? Incidentally, The Newtown Bee‘s article was taken down on Monday December 17th. Of course, a plausible explanation is that a reporter mistook another teacher for the principal.
We were initially told that two handguns – a Glock and a Sig Sauer – were found next to the body of the dead shooter, while a third weapon, a .223-caliber rifle was also recovered “in the trunk of a car” later, in the school’s parking lot. All of the weapons were allegedly legally bought and registered in Nancy Lanza’s name. The car was later identified as a black Honda, also registered in her name. More weapons have since been introduced to the story but we’ll get back to those later on.
Besides anonymous ‘law enforcement officials’ telling the media that Adam Lanza was a former pupil at the school, they also said his mother was currently a teacher there, that she was found among the dead and that her son had specifically sought out her classroom first. But when it emerged that teaching staff at the school had never heard of a Nancy Lanza, it was suggested that she was a substitute teacher whose name therefore mightn’t appear on staff lists.
But this claim too has disappeared down the memory hole because it’s now known that Nancy had no connection with the school. Adam Lanza was in fact home-schooled. Nancy Lanza has since been painted as a “survivalist” who loved firearms, taught her sons how to shoot and was “stockpiling” because she was “worried about economic collapse.”
Last night it also emerged Nancy was a member of the Doomsday Preppers movement, which believes people should prepare for end of the world.
Her former sister-in-law Marsha said she had turned her home ‘into a fortress’. She added: ‘Nancy had a survivalist philosophy which is why she was stockpiling guns. She had them for defense.
‘She was stockpiling food. She grew up on a farm in New Hampshire. She was skilled with guns. We talked about preppers and preparing for the economy collapsing.’
It’s not difficult to see that their efforts to insinuate that Nancy Lanza was somehow responsible for this massacre by being an irresponsible mother also serve to rile the large contingent of gun owners in the country, particularly the far-right who see a conspiracy on the government’s part to “take back our guns.” More on that later, but for now I just want to note that all of the Lanza family members seemed to live more or less normal middle-class lives. Yes, the parents were divorced, but it was apparently amicable and both put their own needs second to those of their children (and anyway, divorce in the US these days is decidedly ‘normal middle class’).
Despite “family insiders” claiming that he was a “deeply disturbed kid”, Adam Lanza, like so many other alleged ‘lone(r) gunmen’ before him, does not fit the profile of a mass-murdering maniac. His 24-year-old brother, Ryan Lanza, said he hadn’t seen his brother since 2010. This fact brings into question Ryan’s claim that his younger brother may have had his identity card on his person at the school shooting. Although perhaps the question that needs to be asked here is, why would a person bother to carry identification with them after going to the trouble of dressing up in a bullet-proof vest, mask and black camouflage gear and going on a killing spree …
The live emergency services audio feed from the scene reveals some interesting observations from first responders that have been completely overlooked by the mainstream media. Note that the unedited version lasts over two hours, so the abridged version I’m going to quote from has a compressed sequence of events that are not in real time. In this abridged version, we hear at 1.38′ a report that gunfire is still being heard, even though the shooting was supposed to have ended by the time police arrived. The next report at 2.35′ says that the shooting has stopped and the school is “in lockdown”. At 3.23′, the police relay a teacher’s report that she saw “two shadows running past the gym”. This is followed by another officer on the scene who says, “Yeh, we got ‘em, they’re coming at me! … [inaudible] … coming up the driveway real slowly!” That same officer at 5.40′ says he has them “proned out”, which presumably means he has apprehended them and they are laid out on the ground, before another officer comes on to say, “be aware that we do have a second [inaudible] …”
Later on, at 19.10′, an officer who sounds out of breath, like he’s just given chase, reports what I think sounds like “these guys” followed certainly by “multiple weapons, including long rifles and shotgun”. If these were found so early on, why were they not included in the initial press reports which stated that three firearms had been found – the above mentioned Glock, Sig Sauer and Bushmaster AR-15 rifle? Further conflicting, and possibly planted evidence was thrown into the mix by ‘law enforcement officials’ when they published video footage of a long weapon being retrieved from the trunk of a car. Look closely and you’ll see that it’s a shotgun, not a rifle. In addition, this ‘discovery’ was made late in the day (it’s dark outside), while the Bushmaster rifle was first reported found “in the trunk of a car” much earlier in the day. This would logically suggest that the rifle and shotgun were found in the trunks of two different cars.
Besides the above two suspects “proned out” in front of the school, another suspected gunman was apprehended after he gave chase, this time in the woods next to the school:
The police are clearly chasing someone whom they appear to apprehend in the middle of the woods next to the school, a fact confirmed by several eyewitnesses:
This fleeing suspect, wearing camouflage gear, a bulletproof vest and armed with four guns, has since disappeared from media coverage. Who was this person and how did he know what “it” was when he protested that “I didn’t do it”?
Perhaps most astonishingly, this suspect arrested in the woods was named in an Associated Press report as 24-year-old Ryan Lanza. The original report has long since vanished of course, but you can see it referenced here. This was despite the fact that Ryan had already been named as the deceased suspect inside the school, lying next to two handguns.
Ryan Lanza was actually at work in Hoboken, New Jersey, that morning when his name and photo began circulating in the media. And so, for most of Friday, the ‘lone shooter’ was erroneously reported as “Ryan Lanza, confirmed dead.” At the same time, we were being told that Ryan’s girlfriend and a room-mate were reported missing, also from Hoboken, New Jersey.
So this isn’t just a case of mistaken identity, as later claimed when it was suggested that Adam had a piece of identification belonging to his brother on his person. Not one, but BOTH Lanza brothers were being placed by ‘law enforcement officials’ at the scene of the shooting. It could be that Ryan’s quick reflexes to leave his workplace to get on a bus to go back to his apartment while protesting innocence via his Facebook page may have saved his life.
Now remember, all of this confusion somehow resulted from a single guy going into a school and shooting children and teachers and then shooting himself, all within three to five minutes. Surely it should have been fairly easy to rapidly and concretely identify the details of such a crime and a rough layout of the scene?
What it’s starting to look like is that the Lanzas were framed for this mass shooting in advance. Long before any suspects were named, and even as we were being told that Nancy Lanza was among the dead at the school, we were told that police were investigating a murder in … Hoboken, New Jersey, where a body had been found at the home of … Ryan Lanza! An older “confirmed” version of events had RYAN, not Adam, travelling to Hoboken that morning to murder his father before going to the school in Newtown, Connecticut. Other variants had Ryan OR Adam going to both their divorced parents’ homes and killing them before going to the school.
The narrative has now settled on the younger brother killing his mother in Newtown then going to the school. So what about the rest of it? Do we just put it down to ‘keen’ journalism that was having a field day last Friday as media outlets sought to bring us the latest ‘breaking news’? Confusion and ‘Chinese whispers’ undoubtedly play a part in the early stages of national media events, but I think back to those news anchors reading scripts about Osama Bin Laden within minutes of the first plane being hit on 9/11 and I think, ‘Wait a minute!’ All these misleading reports had to have been issued by someone or some people “confirming” to Associated Press and other media outlets that the Ryans’s father had been murdered [he wasn’t even aware that the shooting at the school had taken place until journalists turned up on his doorstep], or that Ryan’s girlfriend had gone missing from Hoboken, or that either Ryan or Adam were pulled out of the adjacent woods in handcuffs yelling “I DIDN’T DO IT” to assembled parents. These aren’t just ‘little details’ that can be confused for other details, these are detailed narratives. So how, or why, would any member of the press come up with such details? They strike me as a set of alternative scenarios that might have found their way into the official narrative had facts on the ground turned out differently.
Watch this snippet of State Police Lt. Paul Vance at the press conference he gave the day after the shootings. His answer is as bizarre as it is revealing. When asked whether Nancy Lanza had any connection with the school, he replied defensively about something that is both unrelated and arguably the most significant fact that completely undermines the official narrative: the arrest of a second gunman in the woods:
Most of the initial mainstream media reports have since been rewritten to fit ‘new’ facts proclaimed by ‘law enforcement officials’. Here’s an example from Business Insider. The following excerpts are the opening paragraphs from the ‘same’ article, one earlier original version, followed by the later revised version:
The massacre […] was reportedly perpetrated with a .233 caliber rifle, a Glock pistol and a Sig Sauer pistol.
The Bushmaster rifle was found in the trunk of the shooter’s car. The Sig Sauer and Glock pistols were the only weapons used in the shooting, according to CBS. Now the question is what kind of magazine would allow a shooter to fire “100″ rounds in such a short period.
Indeed, I was wondering the same thing. How could two pistols do so much damage? The report was updated as follows:
The massacre in Connecticut that’s taken the lives of at least 26 people was reportedly perpetrated with a .223 caliber rifle, a Glock pistol and a Sig Sauer pistol, according to NBC:
The shooter was using one Sig Sauer and one Glock pistol, according to CNN. Later details emerged that the primary weapon was the Bushmaster “assault-style” rifle.
Altogether, though, it doesn’t matter what type of weapon the shooter used. The bottom line is that it was likely a magazine fed, semi-automatic, with enough rounds to shoot “100 shots” in a matter of minutes, as quoted in USA Today.
What actually happened may not matter to some, but surely a journalist’s role is to at least try to find out?
This Associated Press/Newsday article on Saturday, December 15th, reported that “Only the rifle was used on the victims“, a statement that is supported by Dr. H. Wayne Carver II, Connecticut state’s chief medical examiner. Of the seven autopsies he personally performed on Sandy Hook victims, all of them had “three to 11 wounds apiece”. He also said that the ‘gunman’ used a military-style rifle rigged to quickly reload, and that the ‘shooter’ was able to reload so quickly because he had “taped two magazines together.” Even before the State Chief Medical Examiner had given these statements, it had been stated that spent shell casings from .233-caliber (rifle) bullets were found inside the school.
So all the victims’ wounds were the result of rifle-fire, specifically from “the rifle”, the one we were told in early reports was found in the trunk of a car in the parking lot! This is simply not credible.
Remember that only “the rifle” was used on all the victims. If only this rifle was used, and if we try to make this claim fit into the (admittedly fluid) official version of events, then the alleged lone gunman would have had to leave the school, place the rifle back in his trunk, then return inside the school and shoot himself. No one reported any such maneuver on the part of any gunman or gunmen. What we do have, however, is live emergency services radio feed in which we hear that two men have been apprehended and are “proned out” AND live video footage supported by eyewitness testimony showing what appears to be a THIRD man being arrested by police in the woods.
We can see how the authorities’ hands are tied because they need to fit all the facts into the usual ‘lone gunman’ narrative. For that, there can only be ONE rifle and a couple of handguns. The problem is that they have already claimed to find that solitary Bushmaster rifle in the trunk of a car in the school parking lot, so the earliest police reports of a cache of long arms being found inside the school will no longer fit with the lone gunman narrative, especially as they’re now saying that he had already opened fire as he burst into the school.
Could “scrawny” 20-year-old Adam Lanza have stormed the school, solo Rambo-style, while carrying “multiple long arms, including rifles and shotguns”? Only one person was wounded. Everyone else who was shot was killed. How could Adam Lanza achieve such deadly accuracy, in such a short length of recorded time?
Initial reports put the beginning of the shooting in the school administrators’ office, where someone, reportedly the school principal, had a confrontation with the gunman(men). We know this because someone supposedly turned on the school intercom system, alerting the teaching staff to the loud swearing and commotion in the principal’s office and probably saving many more children from being gunned down as teachers took measures to hide the children in closets.
Similarly heavily armed men wearing black combat gear from head to toe… their job is to kill ‘terrorists’ to keep us safe, which they do by terrorising us all
One brave teacher, Kaitlin Roig, bundled a bunch of children into a bathroom and locked the door. What’s interesting about her testimony to ABC News is that when police arrived and asked her to open the door, she refused, saying that “if they were really cops, they’d know where to find keys to open the door.” In addition, she requested that they slide their badges under the door.
Now, this is generally a smart thing to do in any and all interactions with the police, especially in the U.S. But to have the wherewithal to do so under such traumatic circumstances strongly suggests that Ms. Roig had logically deduced by that point that multiple perpetrators were involved, and that they were either impersonating police officers or were indistinguishable from SWAT team police commandos, either in the way they dressed or the way they behaved upon entering the building. It also reminds us just how narrow the time window of the actual shooting was. The shooting appears to have barely ended when men knocked on that bathroom door and told Ms. Roig they were police.
There are also conflicting reports about how the gunmen entered the building. We were told initially that they came in through the main front entrance and proceeded straight to the administrators’/principal’s offices. But Sandy Hook elementary school has a security system with a video monitor, which allows staff to screen visitors before buzzing them in. A “masked gunman dressed in black tactical combat gear” from head to toe would kinda raise red flags, don’t you think?
Another possible anomaly is that Victoria Soto, one of the teachers killed at the school, appears to have had an ‘in memoriam’ Facebook page created in her name four days before the shooting.
Regarding this alleged ‘LIBOR scandal’ connection between this shooting and the Aurora theater shooting, there is as yet zero evidence to support the claim that either father of Lanza or Holmes were going to testify to anyone about anything, so for now this must remain just another rumor. I rather think that this is being spread to create the impression of a direct link that can be easily refuted, as in a straw man argument. The obvious and direct link staring everyone in the face is that the official accounts of these events are hocus-pocus. The glaring connection between these two shootings, the Sikh Temple shooting and the Fort Hood shooting is that multiple gunmen were reported at the time by eyewitnesses, but they are now all officially claimed to have been carried out by ‘lone gunmen’. This logically tells us that the real perpetrators are being protected with cover stories of what really happened because if the truth were known, some section of the U.S. government would be implicated.
Wade Michael Page, the ‘lone gunman’ in the Sikh Temple shooting in Wisconsin in August this year, was a highly decorated U.S. army psychological operations specialist, according to the Pentagon. But what happened to the three other gunmen seen by witnesses? It can’t surely be coincidence that Wade was (former?) military psy-ops. The thought has crossed my mind more than once during the aftermath of the Connecticut shooting. Others too have suggested this was a ‘false-flag’ event, or that Lanza was some sort of Manchurian Candidate.
But maybe there’s a simpler explanation (albeit more outrageous) than that? Was that really Adam Lanza they found inside the school? Do we even know for a fact that one of the gunmen was found dead inside the school? What we have instead are reports of two or three masked gunmen, apparently all dressed similarly in black tactical gear from head to toe, being wilfully forgotten about at best, or protected by the Federal Government at worst. Based on the authorities’ persistent but futile efforts to connect the Lanzas to this school, the multiple eyewitness reports of two shooters, the Connecticut State Medical Examiner’s report that all the victims were riddled with bullets from a rifle that we’re simultaneously being asked to believe was in the trunk of a car the whole time, similar reports of multiple shooters in previous mass shootings in recent years and the media focusing the emotional outcry onto the hot-button topic of gun control … I’m left wondering if this was actually the work of some highly trained professional hit team?
Was the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, a psy-op, using what amounts to a ‘death squad’ and a carefully planned mission to terrorise people on behalf of the government, in combination with perception management to shape the narrative and vector the emotional fallout?
Gun control isn’t really the issue here. Control – period – is the issue. The U.S. government would long since have taken measures, quietly, to limit the supply of weapons, the 2nd Amendment of the constitution be damned (it’s “just a goddamned piece of paper“, remember?), if it was really concerned with limiting civilian access to weapons. That we’ve seen gun sales increase in the last few days to the point where Wal-Mart is all out of assault rifles is wholly unsurprising.
The psychopaths in power have absolutely no compunction about using state terrorism, in this case organising the deliberate massacre of innocent children, to control people. In effect, this is little different from what the U.S. government calls counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism in foreign countries, where it attacks innocent civilians to create the impression that they were killed by ‘communists’, ‘terrorists’, ‘insurgents’ or ‘militants’, with the aim of generating public support for the illusion that the common people need a strong, ruthless government to protect them from the ‘evil-doers’. When the common people buy into this manipulation, the end result, as history shows repeatedly, is an overt and brutal police state.
As the main stream media tries to polish it’s official story turd, many free thinkers are left with unanswered questions that may never be answered. We here at InfoSalvo have compiled a list of 10 things that just aren’t adding up for us and we would like to get your opinion on them.
William Cooper’s “Behold A Pale Horse” Book Foretold Schoolyard Shootings
Below is found in Chapter 12 of Milton William Cooper’s book, published in 1991:
“The government encouraged the manufacture and importation of firearms for the criminals to use. This is intended to foster a feeling of insecurity, which would lead the American people to voluntarily disarm themselves by passing laws against firearms. Using drugs and hypnosis on mental patients in a process called Orion, the CIA inculcated the desire in these people to open fire on schoolyards and thus inflame the ant-igun lobby. This plan is well under way, and so far is working perfectly. The middle class is begging the government to do away with the 2nd Amendment.”
BACKGROUND:
William Cooper was reared in an Air Force family. As a child he lived in many different countries, graduating from Yamato High School in Japan. Since he has traveled through or lived in many different foreign countries Mr. Cooper has a world view much different than most Americans.
William served with the Strategic Air Command, United States Air Force. He held a secret clearance working on B-52 bombers, KC-135 refueling aircraft, and Minuteman missiles. William received his Honorable Discharge from the United States Air Force in 1965.
William joined the United States Navy fulfilling a dream previously frustrated by chronic motion sickness. He served aboard the submarine USS Tiru (SS-416), USS Tombigbee (AOG-11), Naval Support Activity Danang RVN, Naval Security and Intelligence Camp Carter RVN, Danang Harbor Patrol RVN, Dong Ha River Security Group RVN, USS Charles Berry (DE-1035), Headquarters Commander in Chief Pacific Fleet, USS Oriskany (CVA-34).
Cooper was a member of the Office of Naval Security and Intelligence serving as a Harbor and River Patrol Boat Captain at Danang and the Dong Ha River Security Group, Cua Viet, Republic of Vietnam. William Cooper was awarded several medals for his leadership and heroism during combat including two with “V” for Valor.
UNTIL YOU WATCH THIS, YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID. IF YOU CAN’T SPEAK TO THESE DETAILS KNOWLEDGEABLY THEN YOU DON’T NEED TO BE DISCUSSING THIS SUBJECT WHATSOEVER
Mourners leave from the Honan funeral home in the small town of Newtown, Connecticut after attending the funeral for six-year-old Jack Pinto, one of the victims of the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting.
—
by Gordon Duff and Press TV
—
In truth, the public may well just be sick of hearing stories about “lone gunmen.” Of all possible horrors, this one, even more than the Benghazi killings, is loaded with political implication, not just “gun control,” but a clear attack on the security of every American family.
—
Editor’s note: No article in history has drawn more ire from Israeli controlled “media assets” than this one. Read it and ask yourself…why?
—
Days later, the Sandy Hook Massacre, the iconic slaughter of twenty small children, is now looking like a terrorist attack, not a “murder suicide.” Was “lone gunman” Adam Lanza a “patsy,” the same word Lee Harvey Oswald used to describe himself before being “silenced” in November 1963?
Today, Michael Harris, former Republican candidate for governor of Arizona and GOP campaign finance chairman, in an internationally televised news broadcast, cited “Israeli revenge” in, what he called, “the terrorist attack in Connecticut.”
Harris cited Israeli “rage” against the US and against President Barack Obama. By “Israel,” we mean “Netanyahu.”
The mission was to teach America a lesson, knowing that “America would take the punishment, keep “quiet,” and let a ‘fall guy’ take the blame.”
A “fall guy” is another word for “patsy.”
Harris, citing the flood of inconsistencies in the “cover story,” pointed out the following, “The facts are now becoming obvious. This is another case where Israel has chosen violence and terrorism where their bullying in Washington has failed. Israel believes the US “threw them under the bus,” particularly after the recent Gaza war, allowing Israel to be humiliated in the United Nations. YouTube – Veterans Today –
Their response was to stage a terror attack, targeting America in the most hideous and brutal way possible, in fact, an Israeli “signature attack,” one that butchers children, one reminiscent of the attacks that killed so many children in Gaza?”
Washington is terrified of Israel, their powerful lobby and its relationship with organized crime. Now, a key former Senator, Chuck Hagel, who has helped expose this fact, is likely to be nominated as the secretary of defense, despite vocal protests from Israel.
Today, Israeli News gave further credence to Harris’ analysis when they issued the following statements regarding the probable nomination of Hegel:
“Chuck Hagel’s statements and actions regarding Israel have raised serious concerns for many Americans who care about Israel,” said the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) Executive Director, Matt Brooks. “The Jewish community and every American who supports a strong US-Israel relationship have cause for alarm if the president taps Hagel for such an important post.”
“The appointment of Chuck Hagel would be a slap in the face for every American who is concerned about the safety of Israel,” he asserted
Citing a 2006 interview with Hegel, the news continued, “The political reality is…that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. I have always argued against some of the dumb things they do because I don’t think it’s in the interest of Israel. I just don’t think it’s smart for Israel.”
Hagel also said he didn’t think he had ever signed one of the letters the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) regularly circulates to demonstrate support for Israel or tough stands against parties such as Iran.
“I didn’t sign the letter because it was a stupid letter…I’m not an Israeli senator, I’m a United States senator.”
During his interview today, Mike Harris explained his rationale for looking to Israel as responsible for Sandy Hook, saying:
“This is exactly what Israel did in Norway; the political party that voted sanctions against Israel was retaliated against by a “lone gunman” who killed 77 children.
This is what Israel always does, they go after the children. It is what they do in Gaza every day. It is what was done in Norway. It is what happened at Sandy Hook. Nobody buys the “lone gunman” story anymore, not with the Gabby Giffords’ shooting, not with the Aurora “Batman” shooting, certainly not with Breveik, and certainly not in Connecticut.”
After Harris’ broadcast, key members of the military and law enforcement community contacted Veterans Today in full support of Harris’ analysis.
One three star general is quoted as saying,
“Harris hit the nail right on the head and it is about time someone spoke up.”
From an anonymous email spreading around the country:
As days have passed, key issues involving the Sandy Hook terror attack have been cited as “debunking” the “lone gunman” cover story.
From a viral email that is growing every hour with more reasons to doubt the official story:
According to the official story, Adam Lanza was found with his older brother’s ID, and it was not stolen. However, older brother Ryan – whom officials say is very cooperative – claims not to have even seen his brother since 2010. Where would Adam get this ID? And why does such use not qualify as a theft?
According to the official story, Adam Lanza was wearing a black outfit with a mask and bulletproof vest. Why would he want to hide his identity, and why would he wear a bulletproof vest if he planned to kill himself?
The medical examiner asserts that all wounds were caused by a rifle or other long weapon, and police/FBI say that the school was littered with 223 (rifle) casings. However, Adam Lanza was found dead at the school with only handguns – a rifle was found in the trunk of his car. Then he could not have possibly been firing the rifle, and could not have committed the murders. Who did then?
According to the official story, the killings was tightly confined to two classrooms. Then why were so many children told to close their eyes while leaving the building?
Joanne Didonato, the principal’s secretary, called in sick on Friday – something she rarely does. So presumably, she must have been awfully ill. Yet she then felt well enough to give an interview. “Of all days,” she said, emphasizing the strange coincidence.
Why were there such persistent reports that Mrs. Lanza was a kindergarten teacher, and that she died at the school when the new official story is that she was not connected to the school and was killed at home?
What happened to the report that Adam Lanza’s girlfriend and another friend were missing in New Jersey?
What happened to the woodsman in a black jacket and camo pants who was arrested and handcuffed outside the school? He actually shouted to parents, “It wasn’t me.” Who was he and what was he doing there?
What happened to the dark van or SUV that the police surrounded in the parking lot or the maroon sedan with a blown-out back window they were on the lookout for?
The official story is that Nancy Lanza was a gun collector, who obeyed the law. But since 20-year-olds are not permitted to buy guns or ammo or carry guns in Connecticut, why would she give her “autistic” son access to both guns and ammo?
A child asserts that he/she heard someone say, “Put your hands up,” followed by the reply, “Don’t shoot.” This indicates that the police took a suspect into custody inside the school. But if that was Adam Lanza, how did he kill himself after that point?
Another child asserts that he/she saw a man pinned down to the ground with handcuffs on. Again, this indicates that the police took a suspect into custody. If that was Adam Lanza, how did he then kill himself?
Is it reasonable for a geeky 20-year-old to carry two pistols and hundreds of rounds of ammunition while wearing a bulletproof vest and a mask?
Did the school have one or more security cameras? What do they show?
Why did a police officer specifically mention on radio that “they’re coming at me through this wood” followed by a fellow officer saying, “This is it”?
One officer at the school said, “We’ve got one suspect down.” Who was that? Down in this situation generally means in custody (on the ground and cuffed) not dead.
Why is Adam Lanza reported to be a loner when a teenager said (oxymoronically), “[Lanza and his friends] always gathered alone in a corner in school”?
Why are Ryan Lanza and his roommates still in custody, and why are the police pretending that it is for their own benefit?
Is it a coincidence that Nancy Lanza’s brother is Kingston Police Officer James Champion, who lives next door to the former Lanza home?
Today, Fox News tells us that Adam Lanza had no history of mental illness, was not on any medication and had never been diagnosed:
This is only a small percentage of the irregularities noted in what now seems to be more of a cover-up than investigation.
In truth, the public may well just be sick of hearing stories about “lone gunmen.” Of all possible horrors, this one, even more than the Benghazi killings, is loaded with political implication, not just “gun control,” but a clear attack on the security of every American family.
The simplest thing would be to sit back and accept what we are told without examining who gains, who loses and “why now?”
Is Harris right? Would Israel order the deaths of twenty tiny children to make a political point? Have they done this before?
Is Harris right about that too?
Moments ago, Harris phoned me. I asked him if, hours later, he was still willing to back up his statements.
His answer was simple:
“You murder children as part of ‘business as usual,’ you shouldn’t be surprised that when children are murdered, people look to you.”
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenceless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!
The next time someone talks in favour of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun-control message to all of your friends.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND’S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!
Back to the Future: What History Teaches About Gun Confiscations
It is clear that Obama, Boxer, a host of other elected representatives, the media, and Hollywood stars are coming after our guns. Leading the media charge is none other than Michael Moore; he implores the nation to let the murders of 20 Sandy Hook elementary students not “be in vain and stand for gun control.” Moore seems to forget that he and his family have several armed bodyguards.
Then there is Obama who refuses to mandate that gun free zones at schools be replaced with armed guards designed in order to protect our children. And Obama also seems to forget to mention that he has 11 armed guards protecting his children while they attend school in a “gun free zone.”
Oh, I think Obama and Moore think that our children are important. It is just that their children are much more important than our children. Simply put, Obama and Moore advocate for “rules for thee but not for me.”
Outright Gun Bans Are Looming
Regrettably, I believe that we are going to see an incrementally based approach to seizing our guns on the part of the Obama administration. Subsequently, Americans could very well be on the verge of committing “National Suicide by Gun Control”.
The gun control advocates are positioning themselves and their gun-grabbing policies to be perfectly timed to influence people during this window of opportunity motivated by the highly suspicious set of mass shootings (e.g. Batman shootings, Sandy Hook shootings)
All totalitarian governments begin their invasion into civil liberties with the promise of safety from whoever plays the convenient role of the “bogeyman” of the day. In Nazi Germany, the original bogeymen were the communists, and then this specter of bogeymen kept expanding until anyone who was an enemy of the State needed to be controlled and disarmed. Isn’t this what we have witnessed since the days of 9/11 with the creation of the DHS-inspired MIAC report which lists returning veterans, gun owners, Libertarians, Ron Paul supporters and Constitutionalists as domestic terrorists. This is your list of people who will be disarmed first, and the list will keep growing until all Americans are disarmed. The totalitarian pleas of “Let us protect you from yourself” ring loudly and clearly through the halls of Congress and in the Oval Office. History shows that when governments demand to protect you from yourself, we should all get a little bit nervous.
History Speaks Will American Listen?
History shows that bad things, very bad things, happen when a government confiscates the guns of its citizens. It is an undisputed fact that gun control and gun confiscation have preceded every instance of genocide in the 20th century. How quickly we forget the lessons of history, or, perhaps we never bothered to learn the true lessons of history in the first place.
If we ever allow government to subvert the Second Amendment, we very well could be witnessing a prelude to an American genocide for specific targeted groups, for there is nothing as dangerous to a totalitarian regime as an educated and well-armed populace. Totalitarian regimes flourish in an atmosphere of ignorance. The dumbing down of American students has removed the first obstacle which could stand in the way of the establishment of a brutal police state control grid. The second obstacle, the removal of America’s citizens guns as a last line of defense against tyrannical government has commenced with the catalyst being the Sandy Hook shootings.
And let’s not forget that this criminal Obama administration has been caught shipping guns into Mexico to the drug cartels in order to undermine the Second Amendment; and we are supposed to trust these proven criminals to be the only ones who will have guns in the new UN-controlled America?
What Happens After Gun Confiscation?
Before we passively allow the Obama administration to strip away our last line of defense from an increasingly totalitarian government, by acquiescing to the United Nations and American advocates for gun control, perhaps we should examine the end game resulting from past gun control efforts:
1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated.
2. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the “more difficult” of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 40 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated.
3. After the rise of the Nazis, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the “Brown Shirts”, were arrested and exterminated. Interestingly, the Brown Shirts were eventually targeted for extermination themselves following their blind acts of allegiance to Hitler. Any American military and police would be wise to grasp the historical significance of the Brown Shirts’ fate.
4. After Communist China established gun control in 1935, an estimated 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated.
5. Closer to home, Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayans, unable to defend themselves against their ruthless dictatorship, were arrested and exterminated.
6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves from their dictatorial government, were arrested and exterminated.
7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million of the “educated” people, unable to defend themselves against their fascist government, were arrested and exterminated.
8. In 1994, Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves from their totalitarian government, nearly one million were summarily executed.
The total numbers of victims who lost their lives because of gun control is approximately 70 million people in the 20th century. The historical voices from 70 million corpses speak loudly and clearly to those Americans who are advocating for a de facto gun ban. Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined. Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals and it all followed gun control.
Historically, American gun control legislation has been imitating Hitler’s Nazi Germany gun control legislation for quite some time. Consider the key provisions of the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 and compare it with the United States Gun Control Act of 1968. The parallels of both the provisions and the legal language are eerily similar.
The Nazi Weapons Act of 1938
1. Classified guns for sporting purposes.
2. All Germans desiring to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and submit to a background check.
3. The law assumed that non-Nazi German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
4. The Nazis assumed unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not, be owned by private persons.
5. The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by governmental bureaucrats.
6. Citizens under 18 years of age could not buy firearms and ammunition.
United States Gun Control Act of 1968
1. Introduced term “sporting purpose.”
2. Exempted government agencies from the controls which applied to law-abiding citizens.
3. Age restrictions of 18 years and 21 years were applied to anyone who wished to purchase firearms and ammunition.
4. Authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to decide what firearms could or could not be owned by private persons.
5.The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by governmental bureaucrats.
6. Age restriction of 18 years and 21 years were applied to anyone who wished to purchase firearms and ammunition.
Thomas Jefferson was very clear in his writings regarding the right to bear arms. Jefferson knew that the preservation of the Republic ultimately rested upon a well-armed citizenry. Jefferson felt it was absolutely necessary for American citizens to be able to protect themselves. The protection that Jefferson spoke of was not from our obvious enemies of the day (France and Britain), but from our own government. Jefferson made this point quite clear when he admonished future generations of Americans to fulfill their duty to overthrow a government if they failed to serve the needs of the majority of its citizens.
Private ownership of guns is the necessary component needed to fulfill the Jeffersonian mandate for national self-defense. Yet, increasingly reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the United States government is incrementally chipping away at private citizens’ right to own a gun. This does doesn’t make sense because FBI statistics clearly show that 90% of the guns used in the commission of a crime are stolen! Does the government really believe that criminals, both American citizens and illegal aliens, as well as terrorists, are suddenly going to perform their civic duty and immediately register their guns? How is America better-served if the only ones who don’t have access to guns are the law-abiding citizens? So, one must ask who are the gun control laws designed to protect and why?
Finally, most would wonder what gun confiscation would look and feel like in America. No speculation is necessary because of the gun confiscations which took place in New Orleans in 2006 in the aftermath of Katrina. Any American who thinks that gun confiscation is a good idea, needs desperately to watch the following video.
Is this the government that you are going to accept? Even the most brainwashed of Americans cannot deny what you just watched on the preceding video. If we allow Obama to possess the ability to ban our guns, this is what you will likely see across the country; and the potential for this to spread into a flashpoint for widespread violence, and even revolution, should be concerning to all of us. This issue, in my humble opinion, needs to be our line in the sand against this tyrannical government.
Historians generally agree that there are eight identifiable stages associated with an unfolding genocide. It would behoove all Americans to familiarize themselves with these stages in order to accurately assess the developing threat should gun confiscation ever become a reality. An analysis of the applicability of the eight stages of genocide to present day America will be the focus of the next part in this series.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
~Thomas Jefferson
Posting Truth,Info,Questions or not believing official story Related to Mass Shooting In Newtown Connecticut at Sandy Hook Elementary School will result in arrests and prosecutions of perpetrators of WHISTLEBLOWING.
If you pay attention to what he says, he’s not talking about people impersonating the killer, he said “in any form” posting what he considers disinfo. This is a pathetic last ditch attempt to clamp down on info and try to salvage their official story.Will these guys prosecute themselves for violating First Amendment’s Rights Of The U.S. Contitution?
Now Come And Get Us Or Expect US.1-(800)-575-6330 Is how you can reach the offices of Lt J Paul Vance.
On 12/14/12, at approximately 9:30 a.m., Newtown Police received a 911 call reporting a possible shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School located at 12 Dickenson Drive in Newtown. Newtown Officers immediately responded and requested assistance from Connecticut State Police. Surrounding police agencies also sent assistance to the scene. Troopers, both on-duty and off-duty, responded to the scene.
Upon arrival, teams of Troopers and Officers formed “Active Shooter Teams” and immediately entered the school. Teams performed rescues of students and staff, removing them to a safe location as they searched for the shooting suspect within the building. The building was evacuated and students walked hand in hand out to a safe location.
Teams encountered several students and staff suffering from gunshot wounds. The building was secured, the ”shooter” was located deceased, and Newtown EMS personnel entered to provide emergency care for the wounded. Eighteen (18) children were pronounced dead at the scene, two children were transported to Danbury Hospital and later pronounced dead. Six (6) adult victims were also pronounced dead at the scene. Teams located the shooter on scene; he was also pronounced dead. The perimeter was also searched and secured by responding law enforcement.
The building was secured and at the request of the Newton Police Chief and Danbury State’s Attorney, two Connecticut State Police Major Crime squads responded to conduct the investigation into this crime. Troopers are assisted by Newtown Police Detectives, Danbury State’s Attorney, and many Federal, Local, and States Law Enforcement Agencies
The processing of the scene began immediately with documentation of the crime scene and identifying and gathering both physical and forensic evidence. The urgent focus of the Major Crime investigators was to work with the Office of the Chief State’ s Medical Examiner to establish the identity of all the deceased victims. This was accomplished overnight and the next of kin were all notified that positive identification was made.
The family of each victim was assigned a Trooper or Officer to establish and maintain an open line of communication. This was put into place so families of the victims can have immediate contact related to any questions they may have and to also provide State Police investigators the ability to communicate with families without delay.
The families have requested no press interviews and we are asking that this request be honored.
The deceased victims have been transported to the Office of The Chief State’s Medical Examiner where a post mortem examination will be conducted to determine the manner and cause of death.
State Police Major Crime Investigators are continuing to process the school crime scene, gathering evidence and documenting the entire facility. State Police Detectives assisted by Newtown Detectives processed the interior and exterior crime scene. Teams of investigators flooded the community and followed each lead, developing extensive information.
A second crime scene was located by investigators at a residence on Yogananda Street. A female was located deceased inside the residence. This scene was secured and an additional State Police Major Crime Squad responded to this scene to investigate this incident. Preliminary information determined that the deceased was a relative of the “shooter” at the Elementary School.
Presently, the school scene is still being processed by detectives and it anticipated that this process will take several days. In addition, Troopers are continuing to follow any and all leads in this case utilizing Law Enforcement in-state as well as out of state as required.
Crisis counseling teams are on-site to provide support to the families of all of the victims.
The investigation is continuing.
State Police Release Names of Deceased in Newtown School Shooting
Charlotte Bacon 02/22/06
Daniel Barden 09/25/05
Rachel DaVino 07/17/83
Olivia Engel 07/18/06
Josephine Gay 12/11/05
Ana M. Marquez-Greene 04/04/06
Dylan Hockley 03/08/06
Dawn Hochsprung 06/28/65
Madeleine F. Hsu 07/10/06
Catherine V. Hubbard 06/08/06
Chase Kowalski 10/31/05
Jesse Lewis 06/30/06
James Mattioli 03/22/06
Grace McDonnell 11/04/05
Anne Marie Murphy 07/25/60
Emilie Parker 05/12/06
Jack Pinto 05/06/06
Noah Pozner 11/20/06
Caroline Previdi 09/07/06
Jessica Rekos 05/10/06
Avielle Richman 10/17/06
Lauren Russeau 06/82
Mary Sherlach 02/11/56
Victoria Soto 01/04/85
Benjamin Wheeler 09/12/06
Allison N. Wyatt 07/03/06
http://youtu.be/p_ODW4JG9y8
HistoricalRecordsVLT A witness describes the man fitting the shooter’s description, that was walked out from the woods behind the school in handcuffs.
Police Search Woods Behind School For Additional Suspects: Newtown Connecticut School Shooting
http://youtu.be/Y6C2YmOLWnM
http://youtu.be/Ui39_EczmAA
http://youtu.be/S59IXI9g6VE
Sandy Hook Elem: 3 Shooters (A CLOSE LOOK)
Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Police Scanner Audio pt. 1 uploaded by Sheilaalien
This audio is presented as-is from the source http://www.radioreference.com aside from the deletion of some scrambled, inaudible portions and editing out of dead air/silence.
Little boy gives evidence of a second shooter.]Sandy Hook Elem: 3 Shooters (A CLOSE LOOK)
Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Police Scanner Audio pt. 1 uploaded by Sheilaalien
This audio is presented as-is from the source http://www.radioreference.com aside from the deletion of some scrambled, inaudible portions and editing out of dead air/silence.
Police Walked A Man In Camo Pants And Dark Jacket Out Of Woods: Newtown Connecticut School Shooting
HistoricalRecordsVLT A witness describes the man fitting the shooter’s description, that was walked out from the woods behind the school in handcuffs.
Police Search Woods Behind School For Additional Suspects: Newtown Connecticut School Shooting
As in the Aurora, Colorado movie theatre massacre earlier this year, witnesses provided testimony of a second shooter beyond James Holmes, the man accused in that horric killing. James Eagan Holmes (born December 13, 1987) is the suspected perpetrator of a mass shooting that occurred on July 20, 2012 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. He had no known criminal record prior to the shooting.
The differing eyewitness accounts of a possible 2nd shooter or accomplice must be examined & not dismissed outright as ‘fog of war’ type confusion. In this video compilation, 2 separate eyewitnesses give very specific details about a tear gas can being thrown from the other side of the theater, opposite the alleged gunman. Another reports that someone sitting in the front row received a cell phone call or text & then proceeded to the emergency exit from where the gunman entered – He did not say if this individual returned to their seat or not, or give a detailed description: Was it Holmes or someone else? These are very specific details & cannot be simply ignored in lieu of the “official story” that will inevitably emerge. – Attendee (Holmes?) received a cell phone call, left through exit Was there an accomplice? Someone in the audience? A movie theater employee? Or did Holmes simply set a reminder on his own phone? – Gas canister coming from opposite side of theater Could a gas canister have ricocheted off the back wall of the theater? Was it rolled across the floor in the front, making it appear to come from the opposite side? Or, did someone else discharge the gas canister?
Holmes was initially jailed at Arapahoe Detention Center, under suicide watch. He is being held in solitary confinement to protect him from other inmates, a routine precaution for high-profile cases.
Holmes made his first court appearance in Centennial, Colorado on July 23, before Judge William B. Sylvester. He was read his rights and no bond was given. A mandatory protection order was issued by the judge. The judge appointed a public defender. Holmes said nothing and never looked at the judge. His appearance, which was described as “dazed” and “confused” fueled speculation about his mental state.
On July 30, Colorado prosecutors filed formal charges against Holmes that included 24 counts of first degree murder, 116 counts of attempted murder, possession of explosive devices, and inciting violence. The multiple charges expand the opportunities for prosecutors to obtain convictions. For each person killed in the shooting, Holmes is charged with one count of murder with deliberation and one count of murder with extreme indifference. Holmes agreed in court to waive his right to a preliminary hearing within 35 days.
On August 9, Holmes’ attorneys said their client is mentally ill and that they need more time to assess the nature of his illness. The disclosure was made at a court hearing in Centennial where news media organizations were asking a judge to unseal court documents in the case.
On September 19, the prosecution filed a motion to add 10 new charges against Holmes and asked to amend 17 others. The additional charges would bring the total counts Holmes faces to 152. Holmes appeared in the Arapahoe County Court house the following day for the first time without his dyed-red hair, but with cropped hair revealing his natural brown color.
On September 28, court documents released by prosecutors say Holmes was revoked access to the University of Colorado campus because he threatened a professor. The university has said Holmes was denied access to non-public parts of the campus because he had withdrawn from school.
On October 11, 2012, Holmes’ attorneys asked Judge William Sylvester to postpone a preliminary hearing scheduled for November. On October 25, the preliminary hearing was set for the week of January 7.
Holmes’ lawyers filed an emergency motion on November 14, 2012 to delay a pre-trial hearing, citing an unspecified condition that has left him unable to appear in court. “As a result of developments over the past 24 hours, Mr. Holmes is in a condition that renders him unable to be present in court for tomorrow’s hearing,” They requested to delay the hearing, which they received. It was rescheduled for December. Evidently, Holmes made various suicide attempts referred to as “half-hearted” in days before the scheduled hearing on November
In the wake of the recent Sandy Hook shooting, I reached out to my contacts in law enforcement, military and (retired) FBI over the last three days, asking three simple questions:
#1) Do you think Obama will use executive orders to demand nationwide gun confiscation?
#2) If such an order is given, will you or fellow members of your organization enforce it against the citizens? (And if so, how?)
#3) What is the solution to stopping future mass shootings?
I posed these questions to one ex-FBI agent, one retired Sheriff’s deputy, two active duty city police detectives, one retired former police captain of a major U.S. city, two U.S. Army veterans and one USMC veteran, discharged several years ago after two tours in Afghanistan during which he sustained a severe personal injury. For obvious reasons, none of them wish to be identified by name, but their answers below speak to their credibility and authenticity.
Here are their answers.
#1) Will Obama use Executive Order to call for gun confiscation?
The majority of those answering this question told me they did not believe Obama would call for outright gun confiscation. One detective told me, “Obama will probably try to roll out an incremental restriction similar to the ’94 Clinton assault weapons ban.” He would then wait for another mass shooting and use that event to ratchet up the restrictions, I was told.
Only two of the eight people I questioned thought that Obama would call for outright gun confiscation, and one of those believed it would only be a restriction on so-called “assault rifles” but not shotguns or handguns.
Everyone believed that Obama would at minimum call for restrictions on weapon magazine capacity, most likely seeking to limit that to ten rounds per magazine (which is also the current limit in California). I was also told that Obama might attempt to federalize mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases, which already exist in some states but not all.
#2) Will you enforce gun confiscation against the citizens?
On this issue, the answer was resounding and unanimous: NO!
The retired police captain told me that, “Door-to-door confiscation by men and women in blue [i.e. city cops] would be a suicide mission.” If ordered to conduct such gun confiscation actions, many would simply resign on the spot rather than risk their lives in firefights with determined gun owners, he explained. “Our officers are not generally willing to assume the increased risk of such a police action.”
He also explained, importantly, that most police officers have not even been trained to conduct sweeping, community-level weapons confiscation programs. “This goes against all our community outreach efforts where we try to earn the trust of the community.” If cops suddenly became gun confiscation enforcers, trust would break down and policing would become extremely difficult, he explained.
The USMC veteran told me that some of the younger soldiers would go along with gun confiscation if ordered, but that nearly all the older military personnel would likely refuse such orders, even at risk of a court martial. “Some of the guys actually talked about this on deployment. The E-1’s might follow those orders but most of us who managed to stay alive through a couple of tours are too smart for that. You’d have AWOL out the ass. We didn’t sign up to engage Americans as enemy combatants. The answer would be F*%K NO all the way up the chain of command.”
One of the police detectives explained another reason for saying no: “There is no love for gun confiscation in law enforcement. We’re all gun owners and most of us grew up with guns, hunting, target shooting or just collecting. Most of us have gun collections when we’re off duty, and Obama himself isn’t well liked across law enforcement. There’s no way police officers are going to put their lives on the line to go along with an order from a President who really doesn’t have moral authority among cops.”
When I asked what if Bush had called for gun confiscation, and would cops be more likely to comply if the order was given by a Republican, the reply was, “For some guys, yes, because they will listen to a Republican more than a Democrat, but still for rank-and-file officers who are just here collecting a paycheck for a risky job, they’re no way they’re going to engage in what is basically a war action just to keep that job. You can’t pay them enough to pull that kind of duty, gun confiscation.”
I was told by more than one person in this group that any effort by Obama to invoke gun confiscation could lead America to civil war if any real effort were made to enforce it.
#3) What is the solution to stopping mass shootings?
The former police captain explained that the real problem with shootings in his city was, “dirt-cheap handguns” also called “Saturday Night Specials.” As he explained, “People that spend $500 on a nice handgun are almost never the problem when it comes to violent crime. It’s the ones who pick up a junk gun for $50 on the street.”
When I asked him about a practical solution to reduce shootings, he said that in his opinion, “Levying new taxes on all handguns like the tax stamps on class three weapons” would likely prevent new guns from being purchased by most violent criminals, but it wouldn’t take guns out of the hands of criminals who already have them. “These people will break into your car to steal the coins out of your vehicle console. They have no morals, no limits. There’s almost nothing they won’t do to get what they want, which is usually drugs.”
As background, the BATF currently levies a $200 tax stamp for the transfer of any suppressor (silencer), short-barreled rifle, or full-auto weapon, all of which are VERY expensive to acquire and require extensive background checks to legally own.
“Most of the gun violence in our city is drug addicts raiding the homes of other drug addicts. The statistics might appear to show a lot of armed robberies and shootings, but it’s really just a small subset of homes or apartments getting raided over and over again by the same people, the drug dealers.” When I asked what the real drug problem was, he answered without hesitation. “Meth.” Not pot, not marijuana, not even heroin. Meth is the drug that drives violent crime in America’s cities.
The retired Sheriff’s deputy told me that the solution was to, “Arm the teachers. Tear down the ‘gun free zone’ signs and put weapons in the hands of school personnel.”
This opinion was seconded by one of the active-duty police detectives, who said he had actually worked several shootings, but never a mass shooting. “A mass shooting takes time, often several minutes,” he explained. “That’s too fast for the police to arrive on scene, but it’s plenty of time for someone already on location to pursue and engage the active shooter.”
He went on to explain that in the training they have been receiving over the last five years, they have been taught that ANY engagement of an active shooter — even shots that don’t hit the shooter — are now believed among law enforcement to disrupt the shooter and force him to seek cover, during which his massacre is interrupted and delayed. Where police have traditionally been trained to “confirm your sight picture” of weapon sights on the target before pulling the trigger, that training is being modified in some cities where, in the context of a mass shooter firing off a large number of rounds, even returning so-called “suppressing fire” is now considered tactically acceptable until additional backup arrives. The idea now is to go in and engage the shooter, even if you’re just one officer on the scene.
This is contradictory to previous training, and it goes against most cops’ safety rules which include, “always know what is BEYOND your target.” But tacticians in law enforcement are apparently now figuring out that the opportunity cost of NOT shooting back is much greater than the relatively small risk of hitting an innocent victim when laying down suppressing fire.
It is therefore believed, I was told, that even concealed carry principals or other school staff can effectively lay down that “suppressing fire” even if they are not nailing the active shooter. Obviously, this does not mean firing blindly into a crowd, for example. Each tactical situation is unique and requires rapid assessment before pulling the trigger in any direction.
The challenge for law enforcement agencies and officers, then, is to overcome not only the attacks taking place in schools, but to first overcome the denial in the minds of mayors, city councils, school administrators, and parents. Grossman said that agencies and officers, although facing an uphill slog against the denial of the general public, must diligently work toward increasing understanding among the sheep that the wolves are coming for their children. Police officers must train and drill with teachers, not only so responding officers are intimately familiar with the facilities, but so that teachers know what they can do in the event of an attack.
“Come with me to the library at Columbine High School,” Grossman said. “The teacher in the library at Columbine High School spent her professional lifetime preparing for a fire, and we can all agree if there had been a fire in that library, that teacher would have instinctively, reflexively known what to do.
“But the thing most likely to kill her kids — the thing hundreds of times more likely to kill her kids, the teacher didn’t have a clue what to do. She should have put those kids in the librarian’s office but she didn’t know that. So she did the worst thing possible — she tried to secure her kids in an un-securable location. She told the kids to hide in the library — a library that has plate glass windows for walls. It’s an aquarium, it’s a fish bowl. She told the kids to hide in a fishbowl. What did those killers see? They saw targets. They saw fish in a fish bowl.”
Grossman said that if the school administrators at Columbine had spent a fraction of the money they’d spent preparing for fire doing lockdown drills and talking with local law enforcers about the violent dangers they face, the outcome that day may have been different.
Rhetorically he asked the assembled cops, “If somebody had spent five minutes telling that teacher what to do, do you think lives would have been saved at Columbine?”
Conclusion: Civil War?
All my contact in law enforcement are in Southern U.S. states. Opinions may be very different in Northern or Eastern cities such as Chicago, New York or New Jersey.
Nevertheless, even if opinions are different in other cities and states, it is clear to me that law enforcement in Southern states will NOT comply with gun confiscation directives issued by Obama. Obama simply does not have the moral authority — nor the law enforcement support — to pull off such an action. While his political supporters claim he has a “mandate” across America, that’s far from the truth. Obama is widely despised across states like Texas, Florida, Arizona and nearly all of rural America. He only enjoys support in the cities, and primarily in the inner cities.
Also, throughout law enforcement it is widely known that Obama staged Operation Fast & Furious and then got caught. The fact that at least one murder of a U.S. border patrol agent was caused by one of these weapons has made U.S. law enforcement officers realize that the Obama administration is, in many ways, actively working against their interests and even compromising their safety.
The question was raised to me: If Obama is against gun violence, why did he allow thousands of guns to “walk” into the hands of Mexican drug gangs, knowing they would be turned against U.S. law enforcement officers? (Don’t hold your breath waiting for Obama to shed a tear for Brian Terry…)
Conclusion? If Obama were to announce a nationwide gun confiscation order, it might set off a civil war, pitting armed gun owners, cops, veterans and preppers against the completely disarmed, trendy, undisciplined anti-gun inner-city liberals. Gee, I wonder who would win that war?
Is this all a ploy to open the door for UN troops on the streets in America?
Finally, it’s worth considering that civil war may be exactly what Obama wants to cause. It would rip America apart, making way for United Nations troops to invade and seize control, claiming “humanitarian” justification. This could be precisely the action needed to unleash blue helmets across America and push for nationwide disarmament and military occupation.
For the record, Natural News supports cops, veterans and Sheriffs in the fight to defend the U.S. Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and real freedom in America. We will not stand idly by and let a group of political thugs and bullies take away our sacred right to self defense. www.InfoWars.com
Universal socialized healthcare has long been the goal of the Vatican and its Secret Societies. So when U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts single-handedly forced United States citizens to accept President Obama’s unsavory and heavily socialist “ObamaCare” legislation
Supreme Court Chief Justice arrives at the Knights of Malta building in Malta for his meeting with the Grand Master and other officials. Notice the Knights of Malta logo to right of entrance—the 8-pointed spear cross with red background. (AP Photo/Lino Arrigo Azzopardi)
with his deciding (5-4) vote, the American judge, a devout Roman Catholic, won the immediate acclaim of his brothers in such secretive and infamous groups as the Knights of Malta and Opus Dei.
Off to the “Impregnable Fortress” in Malta
Immediately after casting his vote and writing the majority opinion on ObamaCare, John Roberts told the Washington, D.C. press corps that, to escape the furor and controversy that erupted, he was heading to an “impregnable fortress to escape.” Roberts choice of words was carefully coded with secret and embedded meaning.
That impregnable fortress, as it turns out, was to the Mediterranean island of Malta, the unofficial citadel of the papacy’s Knights of Malta. It was to Malta where, after their stunning defeat in Jerusalem, the Knights and crusaders had retreated to what they referred to as their “impregnable fortress.”
European Council President Herman Van Rompuy (left) in Malta
Malta and the New World Order
It was on this same geographic island location where, in 1984, President George H. W. Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev had met on ships in the harbor and forged the “New World Order.” While the two leaders conferred on-ship, Gorby’s wife, Raisa, dressed in a symbolic, Communist red-colored dress, was taken on a pilgrimage to the Knights of Malta’s historic St. John’s Chapel, where a statue of Jesus’ mother, Mary, holds forth as the chosen icon. It sits on the exact spot where there were found ancient ruins of a great temple devoted to Goddess worship.
At Malta, U.S. Judge Roberts was met by the top potentates of the Rome-headquartered Knights of Malta, including Grand Master Matthew Festig of Great Britain. Also on hand to congratulate Justice Roberts on his monumental socialist “achievement” was Herman Van Rompuy of Belgium, a Bilderberg leader who is currently the President of the European Council.
After joking about heading to Malta to escape criticism….Chief Justice Roberts heads to Malta as it emerges that he may have written for AND against opinions on Obamacare
Chief Justice John Roberts fled the country on Tuesday opting to take up temporary residence in an ‘impregnable island fortress’.
Was it to avoid constant questioning over the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling on health care reform? To get out of the glare of Republican ire after siding with the Court’s liberal judges and deeming the law constitutional?
He waved such explanations off, saying instead that he was traveling to Malta to teach a two-week class at the Mediterranean island’s University.
His departure comes as new conspiracies are floated about his supposed flip-flopping on the health care decision, with the latest theory suggesting that he actually wrote both sides of the legal argument for the Affordable Care Act.
Last Thursday, the Chief Justice became the object of affection for many liberals as he was the deciding swing vote that gave the five-judge majority to allow the law to stand.
In the following days, numerous reports have revealed various explanations about the months-long debate among the nine judges over the legality of the bill which would effectively force all Americans to buy health insurance.
On Saturday, a CBS report cited unnamed sources as saying that the Chief Justice started off siding with his fellow Conservative judges during their private debate sessions, but then changed his opinion and went on to write the majority opinion conclusion statement for the liberal approval of the law.
That report said that the four conservatives, who were then left in the lurch as the minority, went on to write their opinion as a joint effort.
Such a move is extremely rare in the history of the Supreme Court, where each opinion is typically written by one justice from either side of the legal spectrum. As a result, they sign their name on the verdict and it is credited to them in public discussion and historical records.
Swing vote: By switching to the liberal side, Roberts effectively insured that the Affordable Care Act passed
Because it was supposedly done as a united effort, however, the minority health care opinion was left unsigned.
Salon reported today, however, that the reason why the minority opinion was left unsigned was because it was written mostly by the Chief Justice before he made the switch to the liberal side.
Paul Campos wrote that a source ‘within the court with direct knowledge of the drafting process’ said that ‘most of the material in the first three quarters of the joint dissent was drafted by Chief Justice Roberts’ chambers’.
The question of what role he actually played in the minority’s report will undoubtedly be speculation until one of the nine notoriously tight-lipped justices publicly confirms the rumors.
As for Mr Roberts himself, he is shying away from any such statements.
At a conference of 300 judges in Pennsylvania on Friday, he declined to answer any questions about the health care decision. He went on to say that it does not bother him that he cannot directly answer his critics.
Instead, he was focusing on enjoying his summer break.
‘Malta, as you know, is an impregnable island fortress. It seemed like a good idea,’ he said of his then-pending trip.
Police have arrested a possible second shooter in the Connecticut school shooting that took the lives of at least 18 children and 27 people in total.
The death toll in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is said to be preliminary and will likely change, CBS News senior correspondent John Miller reported. Though it is not clear if there was a second shooter inside the school, but police reportedly had another individual in custody who was suspected of being involved in the massacre.
Initial reports noted that unconfirmed information indicates that the gunman was the father of one of the students. The second shooter suspect is close to 20 years old and reportedly drove to the school from New Jersey, CBS News reported.
Witnesses described a chaotic scene with multiple people shot. An 8-year-old student told WCBS-TV he encountered the gunman as he was walking to the school’s office.
“I saw some of the bullets going down the hall and then a teacher pulled me into her classroom,” the boy said.
Witnesses say that the principal, Dawn Hochsprung, was shot, along with a school psychologist and the vice-principal, CNN reported. Much of the shooting took place in a kindergarten classroom, the Courant added.
The Associated Press added more details to the developing Connecticut school shooting story, nothing that the 20-year-old man arrested had two guns including a .223-caliber rifle. New Jersey State Police were reportedly searching a location in the state in connection with the Connecticut school shooting, which is said to be the home of the potential second shooter.
Newtown School Shooting Story Already Being Changed by the Media
The national media is ablaze today with coverage of the tragic elementary school shooting in Newtown, CT, where 27 people have reportedly been killed, including 18 children.
As always, when violent shootings take place, honest journalists are forced to ask the question: “Does this fit the pattern of other staged shootings?”
One of the most important red flags of a staged shooting is a second gunman, indicating the shooting was coordinated and planned. There are often mind control elements at work in many of these shootings.
There were also chemical mind control elements linked to Jared Lee Loughner, the shooter of Congresswomen Giffords in Arizona in 2011.
According to multiple eyewitness reports from Aurora, Colorado, including at least one caught on camera by mainstream media news reports in Colorado, James Holmes did not operate alone.
There was a second shooter involved. But the media quickly eliminated any mention of a second shooter from its coverage, resorting to the typical cover story of a “lone gunman.”
Today, the exact same thing is happening with the Newton, CT school shooting.
Eyewitness reports of a second shooter now being “scrubbed” from the news
As the story of this shooting was first breaking, the news was reporting a second gunman.
FoxNews reported that this second gunman was “led out of the woods by officers” and then questioned. The original source of this report was the Connecticut Post.
A local CBS affiliate was also reporting the existence of a second gunman and said “Police believe there may be a second gunman and are looking for a red or maroon van with its back window blown out…”
A local CT CBS affiliate was also reporting, “CBS News reports that a potential second shooter is in custody and that SWAT is now investigating the home of the suspect.
A witness tells WFSB-TV that a second man was taken out of the woods in handcuffs wearing a black jacket and camouflage pants and telling parents on the scene, ‘I did not do it.’”
But the more recent stories being put out by the media are scrubbing any mention of a second gunman and going with the “lone gunman” explanation, which holds about as much water as the “lone gunman” explanation of the JFK assassination.
“A lone gunman killed 27 people at an elementary school here, including 18 children, in a terrifying early Friday morning shooting spree,” reports USA Today. It makes no mention whatsoever of a second gunman.
NBC News is also now chiming in with the “lone gunman” version of the story, eliminating any mention of a second gunman from its coverage of the tragic event.
Another story authored by NBC News carries the title, “26 dead after lone gunman assaults Connecticut elementary school.” Once again, no mention of a second gunman as reported by eyewitnesses.
When key elements of the story keeps changing, something is fishy
Journalists are trained to ask questions, and one of the questions I have right now is: Why was the second gunman suddenly dropped from media coverage after the first few hours of this story developing?
And why is there always a second gunman in these recent mass shootings that seem to be engineered to maximize emotional shock value due to the sheer horror of all the innocent deaths?
This story is continuing to develop, and we’ll keep asking questions here on Natural News. Our hearts and prayers go out to the children and families impacted by this violent tragedy.
Given the terrible loss of life that has taken place here, shouldn’t we all seek to get to the bottom of WHY these shootings all seem to fit a common pattern of multiple mind-controlled shooters followed by an almost immediate media cover-up of the facts?
For the sake of those children who were killed today, I want to get to the bottom of this and expose the REAL story, for the purpose of stopping this violence from targeting yet more innocents in the future.
Talk to someone who has never dealt with the cops about police behaving badly, and he or she will inevitably say, “But they can’t do that! Can they?” The question of what the cops can or can’t do is natural enough for someone who never deals with cops, especially if their inexperience is due to class and/or race privilege. But a public defender would describe that question as naïve. In short, the cops can do almost anything they want, and often the most maddening tactics are actually completely legal.
There are many reasons for this, but three historical developments stand out: the war on drugs provided the template for social control based on race; 9/11 gave federal and local officials the opportunity to ensnare Muslims (and activists) in the ever-increasing surveillance and incarceration state; and a lack of concern from the public at large means these tactics can be applied, often controversy-free, to anyone who resists them.
What follows are 10 of the innumerable tactics the police can use against a population often incapable of constraining their behavior.
1. Infiltration, informants and monitoring. The NYPD’s Demographics Unit has engaged in a massive surveillance program directed at Muslims throughout the entire Northeast region, ignoring any jurisdictional limitations and acting as a secret police and intelligence gathering agency – a regional FBI of sorts. The AP’s award-winning reports [3] on the Demographics Unit helped bring some information about the program to light, including the revelation that its efforts have resulted in exactly zero terrorism leads. [4]
Although a lawsuit from 1971, the Handschu case, [4] “resulted in federal guidelines that prohibit the NYPD from collecting information about political speech unless it is related to potential terrorism,” legal experts worry that privacy rights have been so diminished that Muslims who are spied on may not be able to seek recourse. The AP quoted [5] Donna Lieberman in November 2011, who said, “It’s really not clear that people can do anything if they’ve been subjected to unlawful surveillance anymore.”
Muslims are not the only group that has been targeted. The AP reported [6] that the NYPD has also infiltrated liberal groups and protest organizers. Other cases of entrapment of activists, such as the NATO 5 [7] and the Cleveland 5, are also troubling. [8]
2. Warrantless home surveillance. Just in case you still think there must be some limit on how the authorities can surveil you, there’s this — a federal agency, not the police, but the larger point stands. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that it is legal for a law enforcement agent [9] to enter your house and videotape you without your consent. The case, United States v. Wahchumwah, revolved around a U.S. Fish and Wildlife undercover agent who recorded Wahchumwah without a warrant. The Ninth Circuit found the search to be “voluntary,” which led the EFF to write on its Web site: “The sad truth is that as technology continues to advance, surveillance becomes ‘voluntary’ only by virtue of the fact we live in a modern society where technology is becoming cheaper, easier and more invasive.”
“CNET has learned that U.S. District Judge William Griesbach [11] ruled that it was reasonable for Drug Enforcement Administration agents to enter rural property without permission — and without a warrant — to install multiple ‘covert digital surveillance cameras’ in hopes of uncovering evidence that 30 to 40 marijuana plants were being grown.”
During the Bush years, Congress had to grant retroactive immunity to giant telecoms that engaged in warrantless wiretapping. It seems, the judicial branch wants to save Congress the trouble.
3. Preemptive visits and harassment. One of the favorite tactics of police departments is targeting activists a day before a large event. We saw this on May Day in New York City, as cops descended on several activists’ apartments before the day of action, [12] and in Chicago before the massive No NATO protests. [13] The Cleveland 5 were also arrested before May Day, and back in 2008 the RNC8 were also preemptively arrested. [7]
4. Creating call logs from stolen phones. If you lose your phone in NYC and report it to the police, they’ll help you find it. So far, so good. Where the agreement turns pear-shaped, however, is what they do with your call logs. The NYPD subpoenas your call log from the day it was stolen onward, under the logic that the records could help find your phone.
But — and here’s the kicker — they get info for the calls you made on the day it was swiped, and possibly even info from your new cell phone if you keep your number. The information is added to a database called the Enterprise Case Management System, and the numbers are hyperlinked for cross-referencing. The call logs, all obtained without a court order and often without the victim’s permission or knowledge, could “conceivably be used for any investigative purpose,” according to the New York Times. [14]
5. Consent searches. Sometimes a cop gives you a command, but phrases it as a question, like, “Would you open your bag so I can look inside?” If you’re anything like the vast majority of people in the United States, you have no idea that you’re under no lawful obligation to answer in the affirmative. You can, legally speaking, ask if you are being detained, and if the answer is no, you are free to walk away. Or at the very least, not open your bag.
Cops are aware that they can intimidate someone they decide to search, and once they obtain “consent” – e.g. “Yes, man with a gun who is towering over me, you can look in my bag” – any evidence of criminality they find can be used in court. This method of searching people was developed, like several other tactics on this list, during the early 1980s when the Reagan administration ramped up the so-called war on drugs.
Many critics argue that the very idea of a “consensual” interaction between police and the public is impossible, if the police initiate contact. As Justin Peters writes [15], “[Police] know the average person doesn’t feel they’re in a position to decline a conversation with a cop.” A common tactic [16] is for officers to say they’ll let someone off with a warning, then proceed to ask a bunch of questions, even though the person is technically free to go.
6. Stop and frisk. You’ve probably heard about stop and frisk by now, but for years this odious tactic – and close cousin to consent searches – went woefully underreported in establishment media. The NYCLU released staggering statistics for the year 2011 detailing the massive size of the program in New York City. One particularly memorable figure was that the NYPD stopped more young men of color than there are men of color in NYC. [17] (More information at stopmassincarceration.org [18].)
7. Pretext stops (Operation Pipeline). The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that cops are free to use minor traffic violations as a pretext to pull over people they suspect of committing drug crimes. Once pulled over, the police obtain “consent” – “Would you get out of the car and empty your pockets?” – and can go on fishing expeditions.
In the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ohio v. Robinette, “The Court made clear to all lower courts that, from now on, the Fourth Amendment should place no meaningful constraints on the police in the War on Drugs,” writes Michelle Alexander in The New Jim Crow. The Court determined [19] that cops don’t have to tell motorists they’re free to leave before getting “permission” to search their car.
In the mid-1980s, the DEA rolled out Operation Pipeline, a federal program that trained city cops in the shady art of leveraging pretext stops into consent searches. The discretionary nature of many of these searches resulted in massive amounts of racial profiling, so much so that some officials say [20] “the reason racial profiling is a national problem is that it was initiated, and in many ways encouraged, by the federal government’s war on drugs.”
8. Police dogs. Don’t consent to cops searching your bag? If you’re in a car or an airport, police can bring in the dogs to smell your stuff, and if the dog responds, they have probable cause to search you without your consent. “The Supreme Court has ruled that walking a drug-sniffing dog around someone’s vehicle (or someone’s luggage) does not constitute a ‘search,’ and therefore does not trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny,” Michelle Alexander writes.
But if a dog barks or sits, shouldn’t we be comfortable with that triggering probable cause? Radley Balko has reported on the phenomenon of drug dogs giving false positives after reading cues from their handlers [16]:
The problem isn’t that the dogs aren’t capable of picking up the scent; it’s that dogs have been bred to please and interact with humans. A dog can easily be manipulated to alert whenever needed. But even with conscientious cops, a dog without the proper training may pick up on its handler’s body language and alert whenever it detects its handler is suspicious.
This is called the “Clever Hans effect,” [21] named after the horse who could do arithmetic by tapping his hoof. In reality, the horse could recognize the shift in his owner’s body language when he had arrived at the right number.
9. Surveillance drones. The drones are coming, and the few illusions of privacy we cling to will soon disappear. The domestic market for drones in the next decade is estimated in the billions, [22] and police departments are chomping at the bit to implement this new technology. Drones already patrol the US-Mexico border, [23] and cities such as Seattle are moving toward using surveillance drones [24]. In August, a North Dakota court ruled [25] that the first-ever drone-assisted arrest was perfectly legal.
In our ever more authoritarian society, [26] expect politicians and the lobbyists who fund their campaigns to justify increased incursions into privacy in the name of security. The short-term incentives to value privacy have been all but forgotten, as “if you’re not doing anything wrong you’ve got nothing to fear” has gone from self-evidently absurd cliché to national motto.
10. Enlist the private sector. The comedian Chris Laker says of privatization: “You can’t privatize everything. Learned that from RoboCop.” But it seems police departments haven’t learned that lesson. In Arizona, police enlisted the help of the Corrections Corporation of America, a private, for-profit prison corporation, in a drug sweep of a public school. PRWatch reports: [27]
“To invite for-profit prison guards to conduct law enforcement actions in a high school is perhaps the most direct expression of the ‘schools-to-prison pipeline’ I’ve ever seen,” said Caroline Isaacs, program director of the Tucson office of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), a Quaker social justice organization that advocates for criminal justice reform.
The privatization of nearly all aspects of public life, from education to law enforcement, is a trend we should all find disturbing, not least of all when a company that profits from locking humans in cages is directly involved in the arrest process.
The larger point here is obvious. In the last decade, the Bill of Rights has been shredded at the federal level and the local level. There are few constraints on police, FBI, NSA, and private intelligence companies when it comes to surveillance of the public. That many of these programs and tactics are discretionary exacerbates and magnifies conscious and subconscious racist and classist attitudes among those who carry them out.
Editor’s note: a formatting error which has since been corrected erased a block quote from the text of this article, leading to inadvertently incorrect attribution of a quote.
Max Interviews guest Eric Jon Phelps on the Jesuits Part IV
Topics Covered:
Assassinations Throughout History!
14 American Presidents
Vatican Popes
Mexican Leaders
Russian Leaders
Iranian Leaders
Ireland Leaders
Bolshevick Leaders
and other Various opponents of the Jesuits / Knights of Malta
© The Newtown Bee
The three guns Adam Lanza is supposed to have brought to the school with him. © New York Daily News. The rifle was left in the trunk, leaving ‘Adam Lanza’ just the two handguns to let off “hundreds of rounds”… firing .233 caliber bullets that belonged to the rifle… which was left in the car
Similarly heavily armed men wearing black combat gear from head to toe… their job is to kill ‘terrorists’ to keep us safe, which they do by terrorising us all
reported. 
Swing vote: By switching to the liberal side, Roberts effectively insured that the Affordable Care Act passed
