Sunday, December 4, 2016

Is Despicable Jill Stein Trying to Drag Us Past the Safe Harbor Deadline to Save Killary’s Coronation? Looks that way, yeah

by Scott Creighton

CIAnonymous has put out a video in which they claim a major disruption in the force is going to take place in 9 days here in the States. They say Jill Stein’s recount effort isn’t actually about having the votes recounted or exposing the deeply problematic “black box voting” system we have here in the United States as much as it is about delaying the certification of the Electoral College votes of three states (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan) past the Dec. 13th deadline.
As their theory goes, if Stein’s effort, run by a slew of Democrats by the way, is successful in delaying the states’ confirmation of the vote tallies past that Dec. 13th deadline, in theory, they could then use that delay to throw a wrench into the official confirmation process resulting ultimately in the US House of Representatives holding a vote on the floor to decide who the next president of the United States would be from a pool of three possible candidates, the three who earned the most EC votes in the election. The office of Vice President would be decided the same way meaning there could in fact be an outcome that sees Hillary Clinton made president and Mike Pence her Vice President. The applicable law is the 12th Amendment to the Constitution.
That brings up an interesting problem in that only Trump and Clinton have any EC votes. Coming in third is everyone else. So theoretically, Stein and Gary Johnson would both be eligible for that “election” in the House. So would their respective VP nominees.
Here is the applicable deadline breakdown as per US law:
December 13, 2016 (“safe harbor” deadline)
States must make final decisions in any controversies over the appointment of their electors at least six days before the meeting of the Electors. This is so their electoral votes will be presumed valid when presented to Congress.
Decisions by states’ courts are conclusive, if decided under laws enacted before Election Day.
December 19, 2016
The Electors meet in their state and vote for President and Vice President on separate ballots. The electors record their votes on six “Certificates of Vote,” which are paired with the six remaining Certificates of Ascertainment.
The electors sign, seal, and certify six sets of electoral votes. A set of electoral votes consists of one Certificate of Ascertainment and one Certificate of Vote. These are distributed immediately as follows:
  • one set to the President of the Senate (the Vice President) for the official count of the electoral votes in January;
  • two packages to the Secretary of State in the state where the electors met—one is an archival set that becomes part of the public record of the Secretary of State’s office and the other is a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes;
  • two packages to the Archivist—one is an archival set that becomes part of the permanent collection at the National Archives and Records Administration and the other is a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes; and
  • one set to the presiding judge in the district where the Electors met—this is also a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes.
December 28, 2016
Electoral votes (the Certificates of Vote) must be received by the President of the Senate and the Archivist no later than nine days after the meeting of the electorsStates face no legal penalty for failure to comply.
If votes are lost or delayed, the Archivist may take extraordinary measures to retrieve duplicate originals.
There is contemporary precedent.
“On December 12 (2000), the Supreme Court ruled in a 7–2 vote that the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling requiring a statewide recount of ballots was unconstitutional, and in a 5–4 vote that the Florida recounts could not be completed before a December 12 “safe harbor” deadline, and should therefore cease and the previously certified total should hold.” Wiki on 2000 election
In our current situation, Justice Scalia is dead and gone and the republicans have yet to hold a vote on his replacement, setting up a potential 4-4 tie in the event of another Supreme Court challenge to the process.
That year the “safe harbor” deadline was Dec. 12th. This year it’s on the 13th. And since we are bound to hear a lot more about this particular law in the coming days, I thought it would be interesting to read a little bit of R.B. Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion from back in 2000.
“The December 12 ‘deadline’ for bringing Florida’s electoral votes into safe harbor lacks the significance the Court assigns it. Were that date to pass, Florida would still be entitled to deliver electoral votes Congress must count unless both Houses find that the votes ‘had not been… regularly given.’ The statute identifies other significant dates, specifying December 18 as ‘the date electors shall meet and give their votes’ and specifying ‘the fourth Wednesday in December’ — this year, December 27 — as the date on which Congress, if it has not received a State’s electoral votes, shall request the state secretary of state to send a certified return immediately. But none of these dates has ultimate significance in light of Congress’ detailed provisions for determining, on ‘the sixth day of January,’ the validity of electoral votes.” TIME
Dec. 13th is an arbitrary date which holds no real significance in terms of setting a limit on the certification of the votes in any state. It is of course, codified into law, but notice up there what it says about the penalties for the states if they miss those key dates: there is none.
It is possible that if these states are not capable of finishing Jill Stein’s recount process by Dec. 13th, someone from the Clinton camp will present a petition before the courts to have the results of those states tossed out since they cannot be “confirmed” while the recount is ongoing.
If the EC votes of those three states are out, then no candidate has a majority and Article 12 kicks in and it goes to the US House of Representatives for a state by state vote. The House is currently made up of 244 Republicans and 188 Democrats but that doesn’t mean much due to the fact that so much of the war-mongering Republican establishment and the Big Business donor class want Hillary in the Oval Office as opposed to Trump.
On Jan. 3rd the new class of 2017 takes office. Not much of a change there.
The CIAnonymous suggests they could vote for anyone they wanted to but I think Article 12 is quite clear on who is eligible. It might be interpreted as to include candidates who ran in the primary but even then the person gaining the next highest actual vote totals would be Bernie Sanders I believe (correct me if I am wrong) and I seriously doubt they would hand over the reigns of power to him.
In looking at what Jill Stein has done since first announcing her “recount” efforts, you will notice she is plugging ahead in spite of the fact that the Green Party wants no part of it and her former running mate wants no part of it. It is clear she has been influenced by the Democrats and Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff specifically and as she gains more attention now than she ever had, it’s bad attention. The kind that ensures no party or voter will ever trust her again.

My letter to The Wisconsin State Journal, which it did not publish.
One state after another is putting up road blocks in front of her recount effort to the point where a legitimate recount is completely out of the question as is the case in Wisconsin which ruled each county Election Commission could decided if they wanted to do an actual count of the ballots or simply recheck the flawed tallies from the electronic voting machines. At that point, a recount is pointless because the individual Election Commissions that rigged their elections in the first place will be deciding whether they should do a real recount and expose themselves and their crimes. So recounting Wisconsin is pointless… but Jill Stein pressed forward anyway. They are not expected to complete the recount by Dec. 13th
In Pennsylvania they ruled against a mandated state-wide recount because Stein presented no evidence of malfeasance. Now Stein has filed in federal court to force a recount in the state. That will take precious days to decide and in the end my guess is they will rule in her favor, but again, with no hope of completing the delayed recount on time to meet the “safe harbor” deadline. It should be noted that Pennsylvania uses electronic voting machines, not ballot counting systems, so there are no paper ballots to count by hand. In short, there is no reliable way to recount the votes in Pennsylvania. All you can do is recount the votes from the rigged machines. Also, in this state 3 voters from each voting divisions have to formerly file a complaint locally with their election boards in order to get a recount. So far Stein’s people have a total of 75 divisions meeting that criteria out of  1,600. Statistically, that is nothing in terms of support. So she can’t even get people on the ground to come out in support of her actions. This one should be over as well but Stein continues to push forward.
In Michigan Trump’s team has filed a lawsuit to block the recount but that promises only to slow the process, not halt it altogether. The Stein people are fighting it and in the end, the truth of the agenda is expressed in the suit itself
“In Michigan, Mr Trump’s team filed a complaint with the elections board to block a recount of all 4.8 million ballots cast in the state, which he won by 10,700 votes. A recount there could begin next week.”  BBC
“”If allowed to proceed, the statewide hand recount could cost Michigan taxpayers millions of dollars and would put Michigan voters at risk of being disenfranchised in the electoral college.” Michigan Attorney General
The three states in question represent 46 Electoral College votes: Pennsylvania has 20, Michigan has 16 and Wisconsin has 10. Donald Trump now has 306 votes as it stands and in order for the 12th Amendment rule to apply, all three states must withhold their EC votes. If only the two largest do so, Pennsylvania and Michigan, Trump still has the necessary 270 majority needed to confirm his election.
In short, in order to miss the “safe harbor” deadline, Jill Stein’s recount effort has to press forward in all three states regardless of what folks are saying about her and regardless of how pointless the recounts are in terms of exposing our flawed, rigged election system.
In fact, her efforts are now doing more harm to the election integrity movement than they are helping it.
And it’s fare to talk about this effort to throw the election into turmoil via the dismissal of Electoral College voters because on several other fronts, the Clinton campaign is doing the same thing.
There is a petition on Change.org calling for EC voters to cast their votes for Hillary as opposed to how the voters in their districts want them to vote. They say the “real election” is on Dec. 19th and that voters can vote however they want.
Donald Trump has not been elected president. The real election takes place December 19, when the 538 Electors cast their ballots – for anyone they want.
We are calling on “Conscientious Electors” to protect the Constitution from Donald Trump, and to support the national popular vote winner.
Ironic isn’t it? A week ago all the Hillary supporters were talking about how the Electoral College was set up to keep slave owners in power and suggesting that’s why Donald Trump actually won and now those same folks are calling on the corruptible EC system to vote against the will of the people and install Hillary Clinton (and her Haitian slave owning husband) as president. That, ladies and gentlemen is how the slave holders of the old days intended the EC to keep them in power.
In Michigan EC voters are receiving death threats from folks telling them there will be consequences if they cast their vote in line with the way the voters decided.
On the day after the election, several “progressive” websites including Politico, published the names of all the EC voters from each state. That certainly made it easier to pressure them, now didn’t it?
Seems to me someone is setting up a rather unsettling development in this year’s election. Stein’s seriously flawed recount effort is actually recounting nothing of consequence and seems to only be serving to bog down the process long enough to run headfirst into the “safe harbor” deadline of Dec. 13th. An arbitrary yet legally binding date to certify election totals in each state.
The fact that she picked these three particular states who’s EC vote totals will be JUST ENOUGH to force an “election” in the House of Representatives is also extremely suspect in my opinion.
And the fact that she continues with this deeply flawed effort of hers in spite of developments in each state which will absolutely prevent a real recount leaves me to believe she has been hired by the Clinton machine to toss this election into complete chaos in order to install Hillary Clinton (and possibly Mike Pence) in the White House.
Jill Stein should be ashamed of herself. She’s:
  1. destroying the real election integrity movement
  2. positioning the country for a major civil disruption
  3. making this effort in hopes that the election results are ultimately tossed because Americans “voted the wrong way’
  4. fighting like hell to install the SINGLE MOST CORRUPT WAR-MONGERING CANDIDATE WE HAVE EVER SEEN in the Oval Office.
Seems to me CIAnonymous has this one figured out. Also seems to me that Jill Stein is a despicable human being.

Saturday, December 3, 2016

Fake News: NEWSWEEK didn’t write or read fake ‘Hillary won’ cover story


Fake News Alert!!!


Do you remember Newsweek‘s November 8, 2016 “Special Commemorative Edition” — the one declaring Hillary Clinton as the winner of an election that hadn’t yet taken place? (See “The fix is in: Newsweek already has an issue in print declaring Hillary Clinton the winner”)

newsweek-hillary-edition1

Believing in the media’s rigged election polls, Newsweek was so confident Hillary would be the winner that they had the “Madame President” issue already in print and sent to vendors before the election results. The National Enquirer reports:
Newsweek was left with a huge stash of magazines to burn — after their Special Edition ‘Madam President’ cover featuring Hillary was sent out to news vendors. An alternate cover celebrating ‘President Trump’ was also prepared, but the publishers had only printed copies of Hillary’s ‘winning’ issue.
According to Topix Media, 17 of the 125,000 “Madam President” issues had been sold before they were recalled by Newsweek.

The following is a quote pulled from the fawning “Madam President” cover story, in which Trump and his supporters are demonized as “deplorable,” fearful and hateful, who want to repeal the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which gave women the right to vote:
“…as the tone of the election grew darker and more bizarre by the day, President-Elect Hillary Clinton ‘went high’ when her opponent went even lower. No stranger to trudging through the mire of misogyny in her career as first lady, senator, and secretary of state, President-Elect Clinton continued to push for an issues-based campaign even as a handful of Trump’s most deplorable supporters, seeing the wide margins Clinton held among female voters, called to repeal the 19th amendment. On election day, Americans across the country roundly rejected the kind of fear and hate-based conservatism peddled by Donald Trump and elected the first woman in U.S. history to the presidency. The culminating election of a career in politics spanning 3 decades and arguably more experience than any other incoming president, 2016’s was not an easy race to watch, comment on or be a part of–but when the dust cleared it revealed a priceless moment in American history. The highest glass ceiling in the Western World had [been shattered]…”
I don’t recall Trump or his supporters calling for the 19th Amendment to be repealed, do you?

Even more ridiculous is the fact that Newsweek‘s political editor, Matthew Cooper, admitted that no one at Newsweek had either written or read the “Madam President” story.

matthew-cooper-newsweek-political-editor

Appearing on FoxNews’ Tucker Carlson Show on Nov. 30, 2016, Cooper said, referring to the “Madame President” issue (1:07 mark):
“It’s embarrassing. Let me tell you how it happened, and what we’re doing to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Newsweek, like a lot of publications, puts out special commemorative issues . . . these are big parts of the magazine business. What we did for the election was the company that we subcontract to . . . produced two editions: One, ‘President Trump’, and ‘Madame President’. They both . . . the ‘Madame President’ one mistakenly went out, which was the first embarrassment, it should never have happened. But it can happen . . . not up to our editorial standards. . . . No one on our staff wrote it, we subcontracted it out . . . [no one] read it before it went out . . . . You see, we subcontract these commemorative issues out to a company. This is pretty common in the magazine business . . . . It’s sort of been done on a separate track, and we did not review it before it went out.


As you heard from the video, Newsweek is blaming its premature “Madame President” issue on its subcontractor, Topix Media:
From the Editors: 2 special edition covers for 2016 election outcomes were produced by a Newsweek licensee, Topix Media, and not by Newsweek 
                                   — Newsweek (@Newsweek) November 7, 2016
In other words, Newsweek‘s own editors and reporters don’t read the magazine. Kinda like Congress not reading a bill before they pass it, or as Nancy Pelosi put it in perfect Orwellian Newspeak: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.”


The question then is:
If Newsweek’s own staff don’t write or read the magazine, why are you?
Finally, the question must be asked:
So who actually wrote the McCarthyist “Madame President” cover-story?
Take our poll!😀
Who really wrote Newsweek's "Madame President" cover story?


H/t ZeroHedge


~Eowyn

Threat to Alternative Media: House passes HR 6393 ‘Russian propaganda’ bill



Three days ago, on November 30, 2016, the House of Representatives passed a bill that can be used against the Alternative Media, maliciously labeled “fake news” by the corrupt MSM — proxies of Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration, and the ironically-named Democratic Party.


The bill is H.R 6393: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, sponsored by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) and co-sponsored by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). See full text of HR 6393 here.

devin-nunes-adam-schiff

HR 6393’s purpose is to authorize FY2017 appropriations for the conduct of intelligence and intelligence-related activities of various federal government agencies, including the CIA; FBI; the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, State and Army, Navy and Air Force; and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Where the Alternative Media come in is where HR 6393, in its Title V: Matters Relating to Foreign Countries, addresses alleged efforts on the part of the Russian government to secretly influence American politics.
ACTIVE MEASURES BY RUSSIA TO EXERT COVERT INFLUENCE.—The term “active measures by Russia to exert covert influence” means activities intended to influence a person or government that are carried out in coordination with, or at the behest of, political leaders or the security services of the Russian Federation and the role of the Russian Federation has been hidden or not acknowledged publicly, including the following: 
(A) Establishment or funding of a front group.
(B) Covert broadcasting.
(C) Media manipulation.
(D) Disinformation and forgeries.
(E) Funding agents of influence.
(F) Incitement and offensive counterintelligence.
(G) Assassinations.
(H) Terrorist acts.
To counteract the alleged covert Russian efforts, HR 6393 “places travel restrictions on personnel and consulars of the Russian Federation in the United States,” as well as “establishes an executive branch interagency committee to counter active measures by the Russian Federation to exert covert influence over peoples and governments.”

HR 6393 Section 501 (e) says the duties of this special interagency committee shall be as follows:
(1) To counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence, including by exposing falsehoods, agents of influence, corruption, human rights abuses, terrorism, and assassinations carried out by the security services or political elites of the Russian Federation or their proxies. 
(2) Such other duties as the President may designate for purposes of this section. [Note from Eowyn: The vagueness and open-endedness of this clause should concern every American who cherishes our civil liberties.]
As Kurt Nimmo of Activist Post — one of the List of 200 websites, including FOTM, identified by a shadowy and anonymous group called Is It Propaganda Or Not? as as “fake media” sites that “reliably echo Russian propaganda,” whether consciously or unconsciously — points out:
“It’s easy to see how this law, if passed by the Senate and signed by the president, could be used against [alleged] ‘fake news’ websites. 
At this point it is unknown if the bill will work its way through the Senate and become law and if it will be used to shut down or curtail websites anonymously characterized as useful idiots or willing participants in disseminating supposed Russian propaganda.”
Contact your senators (click here) and ask them to vote against HR 6393 in its present version that contains the dangerous Section 501!

~Eowyn

Monday, November 28, 2016

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


by Jim Fetzer

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

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

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

Americans are hard pressed to sort these things out, because they are hit with a blizzard of reports that appear to confirm the official account, leaving them in the predicament of not being able to tell if it was real or fake.
It matters even more today because gun control has become one of the defining issues of politics in America, where leading Democrats (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) are using their authority as President (in the first instance) to issue Executive Orders constraining our 2nd Amendment rights and (in the second) threatening to impose liability laws upon their manufacturers for their use by those who buy them. Ben Carson, on the Republican side, has observed that Jews would have been better able to fend off The Third Reich had they not been disarmed; and Matt Drudge has challenged the President to demonstrate his sincerity by giving up his (heavily armed) Secret Service protection.
The appeals to Sandy Hook (shooting 20 children), the Charleston shooting (of nine blacks) and the  Oregon shooting (where college students were asked their religion and those responding "Christian" were shot in the head) have struck some observers as appearing to be calculated to instill fear into specific targeted subpopulations of the American community: parents, blacks and Christians, for example, where it's as though we were experiencing a series of psy-ops to convince the public that we ought to give up our guns. That troubles many, because disarming populations has all-too-often occurred to set the stage for tyranny in world history past. What if Sandy Hook was only an illusion?


Probabilities vs. Certainties



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

The occurrence of an elaborate hoax intended to fool the people does not occur often, but there can be no doubt that it does sometimes occur. The Warren Report (1964), for example, provides an indictment of Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin of JFK, where the evidence for that conclusion was carefully selected and, in some cases, completely fabricated. The backyard photographs were faked, for example, and the home movies of the assassination were edited. That he had been captured in a famous photo taken during the shooting was suppressed. (Check out The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003) or many articles about JFK at jamesfetzer.blogspot.com for abundant proof, if you like.) These things can and sometimes do happen. And one of them happened here.
If you only read the government’s account, you might very well be convinced that JFK had been killed by Lee Oswald. And if you only paid attention to the mass media, you would probably believe that 20 children died at Sandy Hook. Once you acknowledge that some of the evidence has been fabricated or faked, however, the case begins to assume a completely different character. This does not mean we cannot know what happened in this instance, but it should not have been necessary to frame a guilty man.  New evidence or alternative hypotheses may thus require us to revised our position by rejecting hypotheses we previously accepted, accepting hypotheses we previously rejected and leaving others in suspense. We now know more about Sandy Hook.

Inference to the best explanation


The principle known as “inference to the best explanation”, has the potential to turn every American into a critical thinker  in comparing alternative hypotheses. In relation to Sandy Hook, there are two alternatives, which have consequences that would also be true (or probably true) if they were true and others that would be false (or probably false) if they were not (setting the alleged suicide by Adam Lanza to the side):
(h1) Sandy Hook was a real event, where 20 children and 6 adults were killed at a school;
(h2) Sandy Hook was an elaborate hoax, where a drill was conducted and no children died.
But the key to understanding is making an appraisal of which of these hypotheses is better supported by the evidence. We can think of the evidence as effects of one or another hypothesis as their cause.  When one hypothesis makes the effects more probable than the other, it is more likely to be true and the alternative false. For the shooting to have been real, the school had to have been operational in 2012; yet we have indication after indication that it had been abandoned by 2008 (which you will discover in Chapters 2 and 3), including not only its deplorable physical condition (both inside and out), but also that it was not in compliance with both federal and state laws required in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act: 
Analogously, we know from past experience that the names, ages and sex of victims of crimes are almost invariably printed in newspaper accounts of crimes. In this case, however, the final reports coming from the Connecticut authorities did not include them. That is a very odd aspect of this event, but an attempt has been made to explain it away on the ground of preserving the privacy of the families of the victims. But if there were victims, their families already know they are dead. There is no evident benefit to the families, if it was real, but a major element of the cover up, if it was not. 
From the date of the event, we have a photograph taken from a CT State Police chopper at 9:15 AM/ET, which is 20 minutes before the first 911 call came in; there was no surge of EMTs into the building to rush those little bodies off to hospitals, where doctors could pronounce them dead or alive; virtually all of the emergency vehicles were kept at the Firehouse, which became the center of activity as opposed to the school; the parents were not even allowed to identify their children, which was done using photos. As a parent myself, I can emphasize that there is no way I could have been kept from viewing the body of a child of mine, where the conduct of the "parents" in this case is unlike that of any parents I have ever known, where these many oddities are confirmed by Chapter 5.
Other circumstantial anomalies 


If the school had been abandoned, then the shooting has to be an illusion, since there would have been no students present for Adam Lanza to shoot. And if that were the case, then we might not be surprised if any number of measures were taken at the time by authorities to suppress relevant information (and thereby making it unavailable) or by otherwise circumventing what would have been the ordinary and normal procedures of investigation and administration by local and state authorities. But the measures that were taken were rather extraordinary, including these examples:
* the Attorney General of Connecticut argued against releasing the 911 calls, where the court ruled against him;
* the Clerk of Newtown entered into secret negotiations with the state legislature to avoid issuing death certificates;
* a special panel of the state legislature recommended that any state employee who released information about Sandy Hook other than via Freedom of Information Act request be prosecuted as an E-felony with a five year sentence; and,
those who were hired to participate in the demolition of the school building were required to sign life-time gag orders that prohibit them from talking about what they saw or did not see during its destruction.
Each of these qualifies as a “fact” insofar as its truth can be confirmed by research you can conduct yourself. Admittedly, if all the information accessible via the internet about Sandy Hook were fabricated or faked, that would not be the case. But I know of no one who seriously contests any of these points.  So ask yourself, what is the probability that these five claims (if we also include the missing names, ages and sex from the final report) would be true if Sandy Hook had been a real event? And by comparison, what is the probability these five claims would be true if Sandy Hook had been a hoax? Which hypothesis is more likely to be true?

The Governor's Press Conference



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


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

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

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


We have the FEMA manual 


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




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

The Requirement of Total Evidence

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


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


Rearranging the kids to get a better shot  

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



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




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

More parking lot anomalies--and a stunner!




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




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

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


Benefits to the Participants 


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



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


The Gun-Control Agenda 





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

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


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

NOTE: This is the republication of my blog for 24 October 2015 as we approach the fourth observance of an elaborate scam. The book was banned by amazon.com less than four months after having been placed on sale and having sold over 500 copies between 22 October and 19 November 2015. We now have a new publisher and the book can be obtained again at moonrockbooks.com in both black-and-white and color editions.