Stealth Terror III: Sandy Hook, Terrorist Enclave

By James R. Hanson*

The following is the third installment of an exclusive four part series on memoryholeblog.com probing the relationship between America’s police state and less-understood weather warfare programs. Part I of Stealth Terror may be found here and Part II here. The final installment will appear the week of July 29. -JFT

To “defend” our nation by use of weather warfare, instead of more military bases and more enemies around the world, it is necessary that what I want to know for due process reasons be kept secret.  An entirely different conflict arises when the technique is used on us domestically, to change our existence as per Carnicom’s analysis of chemtrail content, or for the intentional killing in weather incidents.  We see both outline and substance of a police state descending upon us that we, as Americans, should be unable to tolerate.

Before you dismiss this chemtrail conspiracy analysis, consider that Sandy was not just another hurricane, and that Sandy Hook did not just experience another heart-wrenching massacre, but rather contained the elements of another 9/11–the event that took us to a disastrous war.  The Sandy Hook affair is taking us further into a police state by deceitfully popularizing a basic element of that status: gun control.

Six weeks after Hurricane Sandy caused her unsettling, debilitating and deeply distressing event, our mental image turned to another event so repulsive and so apparently threatening to the well-being of our culture that it dug deeply into the meaning of “freedom” which we have grasped as integral to a free society.  We were informed that a miscreant had shot and killed 20 school children and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut, uniquely horrible because the assailant is said to have shot repeatedly until he was certain that each child he shot was dead.  Newtown was in Hurricane Sandy’s track, trees down, electricity out, one item of severe damage a Newtown fire truck crushed by a tree.

Hurricane Sandy had killed more, at monstrous expense and discomfort to millions of innocent people and a disabling threat to their future, but the philosophical conflict aroused by the warped mind said to be behind the terror at Sandy Hook Elementary School aroused a national debate as to the role of the Second Amendment, or even the desirability of it in American civil society—not for the future, but as we see it today, which is a very short view considering how the U.S. government and the media have wobbled since 9/11.  This constitutionally high-ranked amendment was considered fundamental by our forebears as a guard against the ancient governmental passion for monarchy—i.e. “police state.”

Anyone with a heart must find it as horrible as I did, more troubling than any mass murder in the U.S. in current memory.  It has been deplored not only by organizations private and public throughout the country and the world, but strongly, specifically and repeatedly by the President and Vice President of the United States, with obviously deep, but theatrical, emotion.  It is deplored by legislators and public officials such as the Mayor of New York City, by newspaper and magazine editors–the New York Times leading the field–with front page coverage and opinion urging legislative prohibition of firearm possession and the need for invasive background checks to eliminate lawbreakers and mental cases, even to requiring annual re-registration by gun owners, as with automobiles.  The Connecticut state legislature swiftly enacted a law in response to the horror, said to be a model for other states and the federal government, the strictest of any.

The campaign goes on, featuring notable public officials, and parents of the children, in an effort to take advantage of the momentum derived from the personal feelings of horror and disgust by everyone.  Proponents were shocked by the failure of the U.S. Senate to approve the strengthening amendments that were set to be approved by the House.  Members of the Senate who voted against them were characterized as “inhuman,” no matter their reason, with the National Rifle Association singled out as the heartless organization most responsible for the failure due to its “money-backed political power.”  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he will bring them up again.

The question that I see is not which gun control measures should be amended, but this:  if the motive for change is based upon a widespread and intense emotion that has been creatively launched from Newtown, should voters ignore the frailty of the story upon which they are basing their judgment?  Above this is the larger overall consideration:  In urging our elected representatives to vote for strictures that many believe to be for public safety, but which appear to have been principally desired by government-control (“police state”) advocates, we will have demonstrated a 9/11-type loyalty that allows the media to act as respectable sources of truth when their output misleads us, as by a faulty compass.

In the heading for this subject I refer to “terror,” as if that is what we are talking about.  That would depend upon its being organized and managed for the purpose of intimidation or coercion.  A lone individual can be a terrorist who strikes terror, thus Adam Lanza could be classed as a terrorist if he acted out of an intention rather than madness.

What I see as common sense in this case is that the “Sandy Hook massacre” was an organized event managed for the purpose of intimidation of government, federal and state, to coerce removal of firearms from personal ownership in the United States, in context of a movement by powerful individuals who view the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as an obstacle to their absolute control.  With the First Amendment, these two are the strictures that make the United States of America unique in the world, rather than its supreme military power which honors cynicism, insensitivity and indifference to human rights, motivated by national or individual self-interest.

The following six numbered headings list elements revealing the “Sandy Hook massacre” to be an organized scam, in effect a terrorist event.  I have chosen these as six factors any one of which reveals the falsehood of the “Sandy Hook massacre” as portrayed by the media.  I have not included some other features supporting this conclusion because of the additional detail that is required for their proof, as different from these six which I believe to be insurmountable for the terrorists to avoid—unless our system has become lawless..

1. The death certificate.  The people officially responsible at Newtown refuse to allow proof of the massacre, to the point that a reporter for the New York Post has filed a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) of Connecticut’s “Office of Governmental Accountability” to require release of the death certificates as required by state law.  (Complaint reference “Document 2013-120”, on the hearing list as of May 3, on May 29 preparing hearings for 2013-20 to –30.  The hearings are handled in numerical order, thus a hundred to go before Document 2013.120.) (On June 18, 2013 the State of Connecticut compelled release of “terse, one-page death certificates” in response to the New York Post’s request.-JFT)

The statute (7-62b) states:  “A death certificate for each death that occurs in this state shall be completed in its entirety and filed with the registrar of vital statistics in the town in which the death occurred not later than five business days after death …” There are several statutes which affect this requirement, including one for the Chief Medical Examiner to complete his investigation “where reasonably possible within thirty days.”  The Commissioner of Public Health may also make regulations for the extension of time periods prescribed for the filing of death certificates “in cases where compliance therewith would result in undue hardship.” (7-62b(f))  But for centuries in Connecticut, as a simple matter for a civilized society, there must be a death certificate, the sooner the better.

            One can understand the need for obfuscation.  Try proposing seriously to someone that no one was killed at Sandy Hook that day.  The predictable and universal reaction is that your sense of humor is in bad taste, and inquire of someone whether you are mentally sound.  Considering how every regular news source or TV personality has become confident that 20 children were slaughtered that day, many righteously declaring that pro-gun advocates have no worth or humanity, turning this around would result in embarrassment more acutely painful than the admissions of those who finally saw the light on 9/11.  Yet the Sandy Hook case is not so complex.  No death certificates?  Nobody died.

A video of one of the children’s funerals indicates that certificates must have in fact been properly issued, or there couldn’t have been a funeral.  The funeral was spectacular for the rows of uniformed officers of various stripes.  Nicole Hockley, mother of victim Dylan, stated on an April 7 60 Minutes:

We had Dylan cremated so I have his urn next to his picture in a cupboard in our bedroom, on a dresser.  Every morning I kiss him good morning and say ‘hi.’  Every night I pray for him to come to me in my dreams so that I can see him again.  And during the day, I hope that what I need to do will honor him and make change.  That’s the private moments at home that I speak to him.

Cremation has special certificate requirements before allowing the body to become unidentifiable.  Even if the video funeral was simply a show, it cannot be convincing if no one can find certificates on record.  The maximum penalty for false representation is five years in prison.

I first contacted the Newtown Town Clerk who by statute is central for certificate recording in that area and was bumped to the office of the State Attorney where I was told by a secretary that there was a delay and it would be “quite a while” before certificates would be available.

Newtown Town Clerk Debbie Aurelia later decided to take the heat, simply refusing to release certificates, and when taken to task by the editor of the Hartford Courant on May 22 she said that death certificates were not the kind of information that the Freedom of Information law was meant to protect.  The Courant: “We understand the sensitivity to grief, but not the willful disobeying the law by a public official who should know better.”

In the meantime, 20-year-old Adam Lanza stands convicted of the most heinous crime in history, with no opportunity to plead “not guilty” unless he shows up in person.   His death certificate is the one I pursued, similarly unavailable, although Aurelia’s rationale as yet doesn’t fit the case made for children or teachers.

2. No crime-scene photos.  Unexplained is the lack of any photograph of the schoolrooms where the shooting was said to have occurred, nor surviving witnesses at the school whose unofficial remarks thus far offer no description to back the “official reports.“  The school has been locked and fenced off since the event, as required by the state attorney while his investigation is underway.

The proof is there, sitting quietly in the great empty building, undisturbed, as the national atmosphere fills with anti-gun rhetoric that would not be occurring if it had not been launched by the fabrication of 20 first graders slaughtered in their classrooms.  Dr. Wayne H. Carver II, Chief State Medical Examiner or members of his staff who arrived there a “couple of hours” after the attack, had to have seen the bodies in place, thus they would be able to give probative testimony.  The State Police counted 154 bullets fired, but this may have been by counting the bullets left in the ten 30-round magazines said to be found at the scene.   Findings of fact such as these may yet be available, awaiting their announcement.  The mysterious part is that the people in power are making it mysterious, while it obviously serves the function of allowing gun control to move into more extensive and permanent status in state and federal law based on an emotion designed through terrorism.

A coincidence that struggles for credence is that the new door camera system, proudly announced when installed last fall, did not record an assailant shooting through the glass entryway door and plunging inside.  There is also no photograph of this door.  Has it been replaced?  If so, may we see the door that was in place that day?  Do the school financial records show the cost of purchase and installation of a replacement?

The counter argument would be that there is no connection between the slaughter and the need for gun control, that Sandy Hook is only the latest of multiple shootings by people who seem mad, and no matter the truth of Sandy Hook, the phenomenon it represents warrants strict gun control.  Better now than after the next slaughter.  People don’t speak this argument, because despite its benevolence, it admits deception.

3. Suppressed murders?  A bizarre feature of the official explanation is that it contains no justification or excuse for the proven fact that the Emergency Medical Corps, arriving immediately after receiving a 9-1-1 call at 9:35 a.m. was refused entry by police guarding the school—police who reportedly received the same call as the EMS.  If the police were there sooner, what reason has been provided for this discrepancy?  Theoretically one policeman present at 9:30 would have prevented the attack, as proposed in The National Rifle Association’s suggestion for all schools that one policeman be present at each school, not for discipline of students but to prevent massacres.  This precaution would have also worked at Columbine, or even at Virginia Tech if one police officer were present to react promptly after the first shooting.

A State Police report was that the shooting took five minutes, thus it was over by roughly 9:40 a.m.  At this point, the facts show that there was no one inside the school who had the emergency medical skill that trained technicians use to (1) stop the bleeding (2) start the breathing, and (3) protect the wound.  I learned that in Army basic training.  For civilian emergency technicians it would be more complex, with significant improvement in survival skills.  Who was in there letting those children die by intent (murder) or reckless homicide?  Who ordered the police to keep everyone out long enough for them to die?

No one with bullet wounds emerged from the school building other than as corpses under cover of the night and oddly undocumented by the gaggle of news media then present.  As ambulances from neighboring communities rolled up, sirens blaring, potential rescuers had to sit beside the Newtown crew, watching the clock.  An emergency medical technician, James Wolfe, told NBC News: “You may not be able to save everybody, but you damn well try, and when (we) didn’t have the opportunity to put our skills into action, it’s difficult.” (U.S. News on NBC, December 20, 2012.)  The testimony of these EMS technicians warrant presentation to a grand jury.

4. A telling fabrication.  Much has been made of the fact that there were no wounded children.  All 20, plus the principal, teachers, shot dead.  This was said to be indicative of Adam Lanza’s mental problem, to think that he was compelled to diagnose death before turning to another victim.  The Bushmaster .223 is a semi-automatic rifle, not automatic—thus one shot per trigger-pull, and after 30 shots a change of magazine, or 60 if the user knew how to attach a second one to the first.  The assailant did his shooting in two classrooms according to the informal official report.  Somewhere in Sandy Hook classrooms that morning there were some 90 first graders.  It’s possible they were so shocked they could not run, but there was a second roomful with a teacher or teachers guarding.  Use of a diagram, the kind we see in all other incidents of this nature showing body locations and times, is essential if an investigating body is to do more than leave us in a fog.  June 14 is half a year.

To have 26 people killed, with no wounded, is one of those unprecedented aspects of the story, however necessary to the Sandy Hook episode becoming a workable charade.  This could happen with a killing of imprisoned hostages, but here we have a youthful amateur with no military training or notable size or athleticism.  Dr. Carver could withhold “dead” children by his stated impulse to keep all the children covered so that their parents would not need to personally identify them, sparing them from the horror of seeing their child in their shot-up condition.  If he was “covering” for the made-up official story and he had even one wounded, it would have to be a grazing shot identifiable as from a .223 Bushmaster, and minor as that might seem it would be a felony with a prison sentence if proven.  Better to use the explanation that the “assailant” was inexplicably thorough.  That would match the quality of other facts being offered, such as the supposition that no one would notice if the EMS crews were not allowed to attempt to save lives.

5. And fraud.  There is a further rich vein of legal action if lies are being told knowingly by officials and others with responsibility for collecting and soliciting donations by the many charitable groups amounting to tens of millions of dollars from individuals all over the U.S. and the world.  This would require that it be found that the Sandy Hook Massacre was in essence the creation of an illusion, knowingly to collect money by fraud—for use in a terrorist plot.

That is a recourse presently available to anyone who has been a substantial contributor to one of the charities receiving funds for the benefit of parents or relatives of Sandy Hook “victims,” or perhaps by someone or an organization or corporation which finds that it has been financially damaged by the procedure or its effects.  They need not wait for more proof.  A lawyer could begin that process today.

It is not a defense that the New York Times declared that it to be true.  From this time forward the Times will bear the scar of Sandy Hook on its credibility.  It will stand out against earlier scars which every newspaper must wear, because the Times has not been just the drummer or fife player for the gun control movement, but the stern-faced idealist carrying the American flag singing “The Star Spangled Banner” in a rich baritone voice, its legion of op ed writers in 1776 uniforms, fists raised for a gun-free world of obedient citizens.

6. Foreknowledge.  If there is any provable act or reference to the “killing” prior to December 14, it should have the effect of poking a pin into a balloon.  It would take just one, and there have been several that would require only a brief investigation to substantiate.  The last one I heard was on YouTube:  “Mary, in Nebraska” was on Facebook while waiting for a program at 8:30 (9:30 EST) that day which she needed to watch hoping to win $100.  She kept close watch on the time, marked once by a call from her husband.  A minute or two before her not-to-be-missed 8:30 target there was an announcement on Facebook telling of a massacre of children at Sandy Hook, a place she had never heard of.  “Officially” the attack was at 9:35 EST.

The December 15 State Police Public Information Office release includes the following assertions to compare with what you have learned elsewhere: “Upon arrival, Active Shooter Teams performed rescues of students and staff, removing them to a safe location as they searched for the shooting suspect within the building.  The building was evacuated and students walked hand in hand out to a safe location.  (One video of about twenty students is the only one.)  Teams encountered several students and staff suffering from gunshot wounds.  The building was secured, the “shooter” was located deceased, and Newtown EMS personnel entered to provide emergency care for the wounded.  (See “4” above)  Eighteen (18) children were pronounced dead at the scene, two children were transported to Danbury Hospital and later pronounced dead.  Six (six) adult victims were also pronounced dead at the scene.”

Although dated on the 15th, whoever wrote it could have come closer to the truth by speaking to anyone on the 14th as to what the story was supposed to be.  Most likely it is a creative work by someone who had to come up with a professional reaction to a sudden event involving many people, where a first impression tends to stick.

The release reported that two Connecticut State Police Major Crime squads responded to conduct the investigation assisted by Newtown Police Detectives, the Danbury State’s Attorney, and “many Federal, Local, and States Law Enforcement Agencies.”  The release said that these people gathered both physical and forensic evidence, the urgent focus being to identify the victims, which was accomplished overnight and the next of kin all notified.

According to parents on the April 7 60 Minutes television program they were notified about half an hour after the attack by an automated telephone call telling parents to come to the firehouse, where those whose children were not involved went home, and those in a group whose children might be involved were sent to the “back room” where they were told which children had been “killed.”  Their uncertainty, more likely than any other option, appears to be due to the preliminary selection of a larger number of children whose parents had agreed to be involved, awaiting choice of the 20 who best fit capability to carry out the plan at that time.

The writer of the pre-event Public Information Office release stating that the identification of victims was accomplished “overnight” was evidently intent upon giving the planners time to do this, unaware that parents might report the earlier notification.  Because 34 sets of parents received money from the community fund, not just 20, the other 14 could be those who had gone through the expense, planning, and stress of “disappearance” of their first-grader, awaiting only notice that the child had been chosen.  An eligible child would have to have appeared perfectly normal on the 13^th, assuredly able to be gone somewhere on the 14^th   and later.

The family of each victim was assigned a Trooper or Officer to establish and maintain an open line of communication.   “The families have requested no press interviews and we are asking that this request be honored.”  This may have happened, but was it protection for the family member or for defense against fact-finders who were rebuffed by all official and private sources as so commonly reported?

The Major Crime squads are “gathering evidence and documenting the entire facility.”  State Police Detectives assisted by Newtown detectives “processed the interior and exterior crime scene.  Teams of investigators flooded the community and followed each lead, developing extensive information.”  An additional Major Crime squad investigated a residence on Yogananda Street “where a female was located deceased inside the residence.”  Preliminary information determined that “the deceased was a relative of the ‘shooter’ at the Elementary School”—the way a planner before the attack would say it, trying not to seem knowledgeable too early.  Nancy Lanza owned the house and lived there with her son Adam, a fact that neighbors knew, according to neighbor Ms. Hockley.

“The school scene is still being processed by detectives and it (is) anticipated that this process will take several days.”  If any of this occurred, I have found no reason to believe that it was more than ideas of the writer as to what would look realistic.  The school was quickly shut down, with no report of an entry since December 14, and no doubt none before the school building is torn down, to happen ASAP unless the state’s attorney intercedes.  The purpose of replacing the building, preferably in a new location, is because there is a reluctance to require parents to take their children to this symbolic place of horror.

Dr. Carver said that he and his team stayed all day, standing “ready” in the parking lot structure placed there for them by the EMS unit, which he thanked.  They left the school after midnight with the bodies, taking them to the headquarters at Farmington, west of Hartford, to do the autopsies.  I don’t know what he and his team were doing all that time in the EMS tent, but they were “ready for anything”–at the site from 10 a.m. (or so) until after midnight, according to Dr. Carver.  If there were something they wished to hide, perhaps midnight, with most people gone home, would be best.  Two nurses were said to be injured, and said to have gone to the hospital for treatment, but the injuries were not identified as bullet wounds.  That would be a record check for an investigator.

An aspect I’m not including because it is so potentially voluminous is the subject of use of professional actors, the question being only how many of the people we have been hearing from were such.  All one need do is identify one who had no other reason to act as a parent.  The nail in the Sandy Hook coffin may simply be proof of the fact that one of the speakers represented as a parent or relative of a victim, was not.

The New York Times is central to the plot because of its support—unqualified until its editorial of May 27 in which it responded to a detailed report in the Hartford Courant of May 23 which exposed the attempt of Connecticut state officials to get a bill law enacted secretly that would prevent any release of information on Sandy Hook victims without consent of the victims’ families.  Several of the Times opinions columnists early on wrote to expand on the need for action to prevent another Sandy Hook massacre.  I responded to one of Joe Nocera’s April columns on the subject entitled “That Spineless Gun Vote” excoriating the National Rifle Association   I told Joe he was one of my favorites, so it was more than a slight disappointment to see him cooperating in President Obama’s dishonest and underhanded campaign for strengthening his police state.  I gave him the number of the Newtown Town Clerk so he could call and get a copy of one of the death certificates.  (Tel 203-270-4210)  I said: “Gun control, important as it is, is a secondary issue when the emotional climate has been dishonestly engineered, the responsible media not just allowing it, but inducing it.”  (No answer.)

The May 23 Courant told of the stand-fast position of the Newtown Town Clerk in refusing to release death certificates to those who requested them as required by law.  She said that whatever one claimed as based on language of the statute, the exceptional nature of the situation required that the state prevent further harm to the people victimized—essentially consistent with the position of the secret changes which came from the office of Governor Dannel Malloy.

This issue awakened the ire of the Times editor who on May 27 severely chastised Governor Malloy and Connecticut chief state’s attorney Kevin Kane in “Public Records on the Newtown Shootings,” beginning:  “It would be hard to compound the tragedy of the Newtown school massacre, in which 20 children and six school employees died, but a misbegotten proposal aimed for the Connecticut Legislature would do just that.”  The secret proposal, “written without the knowledge of the state ‘Freedom of Information Commission,’ would stop the release of essential information that the public and government leaders need to know in considering how to prevent crimes and to understand how law enforcement responded.”

So the Times is not dead in the water.  This is what a proper newspaper can do—it writes as if the basic facts of the event were thus far under determination by the legal authorities, even when it is aware of the unproven background of cheating.  By this reprimand the Times distances itself from the process.  It can watch carefully now to see how those police authorities respond.  “Connecticut lawmakers should not be rushing to enact restrictions on public information that were produced in secrecy.  Surely, Mr. Malloy and other officials will show more sense than to accept this misguided idea.”  If they do it anyway, the Times has put up a shield and needn’t press the issue.

The next editorial, on June 1 entitled “The Gun Rampage Next Time” endorses a new study group: “the Hartford Consensus.”  Following a recommendation by the American College of Surgeons in reaction to the mass shooting in Aurora, Colo. in July, 2012 (12 dead and 58 wounded) that first responders be better prepared, the Hartford Consensus was formed in April of 2013 by a trauma physician from Hartford Hospital with experts from medicine, law enforcement and the military “to plan better emergency response to mass shootings to improve the chance for survival of gunshot victims.”  Doctors from the United States Navy, the F.B.I., and officers from several urban police forces convened in April.  The Times’ position here is a façade for dedication to a normal mass shooting where the main job afterward is saving lives of the wounded so that the massacre fits the normal expectation.  The Hartford Censensus would have no reference insofar as Sandy Hook is concerned, with no wounded, and the established fact that no emergency responders were allowed to enter.

The editorial adds a reminder that “easy accessibility of weapons” causes death from gunfire, ending with this lecture:

The public still does not know where or how the mother of the Newtown shooter purchased the weapons used by her son.  That question should have been addressed by now, but a final state police report on the massacre has been postponed until at least September.  Connecticut officials have been increasingly intent on preventing full disclosure of all facts in the case.  Official obfuscation plays into the hands of the gun lobby’s Congressional lackeys, who continue to oppose new laws despite solid popular support for tighter controls on gun sales.

By the reference to the source of Nancy Lanza’s guns the Times throws in a gun control subject to emphasize that the important business is firearms trafficking, not what actually happened.  What lies ahead that will wash this all out of our minds?  In the meantime, why should an investigation take more than a couple of weeks to prove it was Adam Lanza?  Is it not true that the tough part will be to prove that anyone was killed–that is, without changing the law and the facts.

Search warrants were used to get detail of Adam’s possessions and records enabling the Times to publicize important details to make it look like Adam was the “type” who would do such a thing, with a firearms collection that would suit a small gang.  Certificates with “National Rifle Association” on them had Adam’s name on one, his mother’s on a second, with nothing on them to show their significance.  A booklet on target shooting put out by the NRA was found among his papers, but the report admitted that the NRA had no record of membership of either Adam or his mother.

Gun control.  The “gun lobby” is attacked as if it were selfish and evil, but whichever side one may choose, I would submit that the “evil” is the person in power who knows he is lying and doesn’t care who may be hurt so long as his objective is met.  This is the point that connects all the subjects in this report.  The denigrated “gun lobby” has the history of a respected principle on its side, centuries of it, in how a government survives.  In 1513 Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince wrote

Between an armed and an unarmed man no proportion holds, and it is contrary to reason to expect that the armed man should voluntarily submit to him who is unarmed, or that the unarmed man should stand secure among armed retainers.  For with contempt on one side, and distrust on the other, it is impossible that men should work well together.

This appears in connection with the point Machiavelli makes that the Prince must be ready for war, willing to go to war, always preparing for war in a serious way, the desired result being peace.  Going to war may be necessary, the need minimized if one is prepared.  If citizens back down now, they will back down again, the direction a gun-less populace, as per the current United Nations proposal for the world.  The name “Machiavelli” has a negative connotation that it does not deserve.  His reputation through the centuries is positive because he does not claim to treat right or wrong, but the result of specific behavior, and his analysis has been a correct and valuable caution throughout the years.

In 1776 those honored men who founded the United States of America listed possession of firearms the second highest principle added to their constitution after its assurance of freedom of religion, speech, and the press; peaceable assembly; and petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.  When Article II added “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” it referred to the states’ militia, not one of the federal government, which to them was suspect (as it is now, and must be, because of politically powerful interests).  The article speaks of arms for war, which today would include assault rifles.  Machiavelli said one has to be prepared to go to war.  If a state decides to organize a well-regulated militia, it must have people armed and ready with equipment, knowledge and skills as of today, needed or not.  Without this backing, Machiavelli adds “For among other causes of misfortune which your not being armed brings upon you, it makes you despised…”  That is to say, it makes you unable to count upon the virtues of Article I, which is what an American is supposed to look like.

I would emphasize Machiavelli’s concept that the ultimate objective is not war, just as the ultimate objective of gun ownership is not shooting people.  It is the practical base of confidence that allows rational behavior in support of freedom.  View this in the light of our experience shown by a recent report from Reuters that “Gun-related homicides and other crimes involving guns have fallen sharply over the past two decades in the United States,” although most Americans polled think firearms crime is higher than it was 20 years ago.  (The Columbus Dispatch May 9, 2013.)  The number for gun-related homicides was down 39 percent from the 1993 peak, according to the Justice department.  In the same period, nonfatal firearms crimes declined 69 percent.

The aspect of the Sandy Hook phenomenon that is truly appalling is that there is no emergency for the cures offered, but rather the opposite, with the gunless citizen to be “despised.”  The sonic volume of this issue tells me that this argument is far from finished.  If this much can be accomplished without simply waiting for an actual event, another fraud can be worked, and over time, another.  As noted earlier, this is like a small 9/11, which created a false “terrorist” menace to dissolve citizen resistance by use of induced fear and hatred to ultimately allow the illegal slaughter of millions of innocent world citizens (including millions of children who starved or lacked medical care), still underway.

Managers.  The Times has been running a profusion of articles and editorials in recent weeks to describe how crooked New York City and Albany have become.  Newtown is essentially a suburb of New York City, some of its residents commuting in the very railroad cars which stop at Bridgeport a few miles beyond the recent train wreck scene.

The “Sandy Hook massacre” was obviously not a local show, but one with high-level cooperators, who have shown themselves as being at least three in number.  Mayor Michael Bloomberg represents the most visible financial support.  He appeared at Yankee Stadium, as a Yankee fan.  The major leagues were asked to have their players wear a medallion with a black ribbon memorializing the 20 children.  Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama have been urging new gun control laws more loudly than anyone, with Connecticut recently passing “the most far-reaching gun-legislation package in the country.”  Recalling the “players” in Hurricane Sandy, President Obama hustling out to meet with Bloomberg and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie just before the election, and of course Obama’s use of his State of the Union message on February 12 as the platform for an emotional expression about mass shootings and gun control, I couldn’t think of a more likely team, with Obama as federal coordinator and prominent voice.

Add Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., publisher of The New York Times, which has taken the lead among mainline media to get gun control done promptly before everyone forgets, as urged almost frantically by Bloomberg and Obama.  On April 9^th, the day after I wrote this insult implicating Mr. Sulzberger, there appeared an article by regular columnist Michael Powell entitled “Bloomberg, Holding Nose, Opened Wallet,” validating Bloomberg’s role among the “managers,” with no reference to Sandy Hook.  Confirming to Bloomberg’s system of protecting public officials’ standard of living, Powell states:  “Here, I suppose Mr. Bloomberg talks from empirical observation in his 12 years in office.  In that time, few have done more to feed slop to the worst actors in this system than our mogul mayor.  In 2009, when he decided that his professional love of term limits was silliness, and that he would like the Republican Party nomination, he spread cash the way a farmer spreads manure in spring.”  He quotes the mayor: “The system is broken,” then asks: “Really, who could disagree with him?”

On the same page is an article about Governor Andrew Cuomo which leaves him in the same barnyard as Bloomberg, underlain by a lead editorial on April 9 on “What Reform Will Require.”  I quote: “The latest scandals from Albany have generated a slew of proposals to clear out New York’s political swamp.”  Cuomo is urged to get changes made to provide for wider and better choices at election time, instead of fostering the stagnation caused by his approval of the redistricting maps last year that clinched it for incumbents.  Fix it so that prosecution is not the only way to get rid of corruption–currently, it’s done indictment by indictment.  The U.S. Attorney in Manhattan and other authorities “have unearthed seemingly inexhaustible acts of illegal behavior by state and local politicians.

The Times is obviously doing its best to clear out New York’s political swamp, at a time most useful to correct people such as I who consider its inability to face the truth of Sandy Hook an admission that it is just another swamp creature.  This has not been easy for me.  I want to respect The Times, and its opinion writers like Paul Krugman, but now I’m wondering at what point Krugman will consider The Times an embarrassment.

The reason I am carping about The Times is that we have plenty of information sources that cannot be trusted, and instead of standing tall, I see The Times suddenly a midget.  If The Times finally says “Gee, we just didn’t know” I’m not buying it.  It is so obvious that I have to laugh.  Then I think I’ll cry.  I’ll watch Krugman.  If he’s leaving, so am I.

In Chief Medical Examiner Carver’s interview on December 15 he said how proud he was of the people working for him and for the people of Newtown, adding “I hope the people of Newtown don’t have it crash on their head later.”  No one asked him what that meant.  He seemed unconsciously unsure of where to draw the line as he talked, at times in a humorous manner as if everyone knew he was forced into doing a skit.  He does not seem to be part of the project so much as a necessary addition, one which he found painful.

The Carver press conference is on www.memoryholeblog.com, December archive, the website of Dr. James F. Tracy, associate professor at Florida Atlantic University, who in my mind stands as the courageous and level-headed guardian of sanity on this issue, probably still unsure of his employment as tenured professor.  FAU takes The Times position, that it’s Tracy’s opinion, not attributable to the University.  He carries on.

To those wondering what happened to the children who were “killed,” the answer is that if any were in fact done away with, it must be classed as murder–and not by Adam Lanza.  It still is an irresponsible parent who must explain this falsehood to his or her other children, along with coaching the six-year-old child about keeping the secret, in that his discovery even years from now could cause major problems for his or her parents and others complicit in the secret organization.  Most convenient would be the death of these children by other means, which is something that should be watched for.  Of course, intimidating or ridding the world of conspiracy theorists would be considered preferable by Newtown perpetrators.  The Times’ more conventional solution could be institutionalization as we turn back to building insane asylums as our police state develops.

One must consider that with careful planning and financial backup, a child, or a teacher, could harmlessly “disappear.”  The manager needed to find 20 pair of parents willing to cooperate, perhaps for a substantial sum of money, could be Mayor Bloomberg, who put up $12 million of his own money for the nationwide showing of TV ads of the outdoorsman with his rifle.  He has also indicated his intention to invest whatever is necessary for lobbying this year.  Obama’s full-fledged involvement offers the possibility of black budget money to allow a temporary or even permanent long-term residence for parents and children at some distance, perhaps a foreign country, transportation furnished by non-commercial air, boarded at night.  One might have an aunt somewhere, or a grandmother.  Their child having been placed in safe hands elsewhere, they could move to another place where they could change their names, with the credible reason that they couldn’t stand it in Newtown any longer, as one parent was quoted.  Adam Lanza and his mother could at this moment be living in the state of Washington where she was quoted as saying she thought Adam would have a better chance for normalization.  There are people in Newtown who might choose Israel as a temporary or permanent residence, where their identity would be secure from U.S. inquiry and their persons from return to the U.S.  The Hockleys, parents of Danyl, had moved to Newtown from England not long before, so could choose to go back.  Danyl is autistic and could be placed for a period in a special school at some convenient distance.  The simplest way to move away and still stay home would be to move to New York City, where it is easy to get lost, even easier with high-level contacts.

If one needed material for cross-examination there is a growing body of statements for one to pursue.   An April 15 People Magazine lying in a waiting room caught my eye—16 pages of portrait photographs and text quoting parents of nine of the “dead” children.  One couple moved to Massachusetts for the husband’s new job, in their new house furnishing a room as a memorial for their deceased daughter and her belongings.  An aspect of all this is the seeming willingness of the “parents” to make coy comments about their experience, which may be as defense that they told the truth, if charged as part of this crime—for if it is a crime, it’s one that the Times won’t get charged for.

With 91 sets of parents of first graders, finding 20 sets who would function cooperatively is realistic.  This didn’t happen overnight.  It simply required good planning, money, and a belief by the parents that the managers were powerful enough to protect them if there were some rough spots.  It has the characteristics of an organization with enough loyal adherents to make it work.  Loyal, that is, to include those with respect for its ability to make life difficult for its critics.

Scott Pelley, narrator, addressing Nicole Hockley, mother of Dylan, on the April 7^th 60 Minutes show, noting that it was about 10 o’clock on December 14 when an “automated emergency call” lit up the cell phones of the parents directing them to Sandy Hook Firehouse, asked her what she had seen and heard.  This call would have to have come less than half an hour after the alleged attack, highly unlikely to have specified identities.  The medical examiner whose staff made the identifications would not have arrived yet, by his testimony.

Nicole: “There were just people everywhere.  There were several rooms and there were just parents everywhere because these are small rooms and they’re not meant to hold that many people.  And you really had to push to get through and we were all just jostling trying to find our kids.  Someone said to me, ‘I’ve seen Jake (her other child), he’s in one of the other rooms.’  And that was a relief, you know, a moment of ’He’s okay and that’s okay if he’s okay.’ And a woman asked me ‘What classroom was your other child in?’ I said ‘Mrs. Soto.’  And she said ‘I heard she got shot.’  And I really got angry at her, and I remember very clearly saying, ‘Don’t you dare say that to me if you don’t know it’s true’ and I just pushed by her.  (It was “true.”)  But I couldn’t find Dylan’s class or anyone from his class anywhere.”

At this point, it seems that Nicole and all other mothers who heard the automated phone call had been told that some children and teachers had been killed, and were supposed to be under emotional shock as they considered the possibility that their child might have been killed.  How did these other mothers learn this?  Did the telephone call say that some children at the school were killed, come and find out?  That is what this sounds like.

Narrator Pelley broke the continuity here to talk to Jimmy and Nelda Green.   Jimmie: “I ran to the firehouse and frantically was just looking around and I saw my son’s teacher in like a living room area of the firehouse, and all of the kids in her class were seated on the floor.  I ran in the room and Isaiah popped up and I swang (ibid) and grabbed him and held him and he was crying.  ‘Daddy, you know, there were so many gun shots,’ and you know ‘I saw this and I saw that,’ so I just took my son in my arms, he’s a big kid and I took him like he was two years old again, and held him on my shoulder and was just running from room to room trying to locate Anna’s class.”

Nelda:  “And then I got a text from Jimmy: “I have Isaiah, but I don’t have Anna yet.”  So I was driving with my friend back to Sandy Hook and I just kept texting Jimmy every ten or fifteen seconds.  Anna—question mark, then, Anna—exclamation point, because we had Isaiah and I didn’t understand why we didn’t have Anna.”

Nicole:  “And I just kept looking, thinking ‘When am I going to see Dylan, when am I going to see Ms. Soto, or when am I going to see any of the kids from his classroom?’  And everyone was just going home.  (Long pause)  You just don’t know what you’re supposed to do, who to talk to because no one had all the information.  And then, it just started to get fewer and fewer parents and kids in the room, and then they asked everyone who was left to come into one of the back rooms.”

Pelley breaks to Francine Wheeler:  “…and I remember saying, ‘I don’t want to go to that back room.  I don’t want to go in that back room’ because I know what the back room meant.  And my heart as a mother knew what the back room meant.”

Nicole:  “And then we waited through what seemed like hours and eventually they announced that there had been a shooting and they told us that people had died and the room just erupted with anguish.  But even then you still think, ‘Dylan’s okay, he’s got to be okay because this wouldn’t happen to Dylan.  And then it was several hours later that, I believe it was Governor Malloy, who had the duty to stand in front of the room and tell us that if we were in that room, then our child or adult wasn’t coming back to us.”

Try to picture that as legitimate.  Those are the exact words.  This half of the 60 Minutes program is on the CBS web site.  They stayed at the firehouse through the noon hour to hear Governor Malloy’s consoling remarks to the parents and relatives of the dead, which followed an earlier address by him to the general public elsewhere.  Nicole seems unsure of his presence or his purpose.  “The big deal” that morning, which one can read in code, is that those involved did not have dead children in mind, but the difficulty they were now faced on this day that they had expected, without knowing the exact day, some of the reactions resulting from realization of imminent separation from friends, the complexity of getting a child out of sight and in the right place, responsibility for her part in the community deception (Carver’s comment that it might “come down on their head”).

Ms. Hockley has appeared most often on television, including a hug with President Obama at the White House and inclusion in a photo at top of the front page of the April 18 Times, her sad face showing clearly behind parent Mark Barton.  Joe Biden holds his hand theatrically over his face with shame.  Behind him is parent David Wheeler standing on a higher step which makes him seem huge and looking like a Secret Service guard.  Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is next to President Obama (“his face set with rage”—Times) declaring April 17 to be a “shameful day” because the Senate rejected the seven gun-control amendments that were up that day.

What these people said, and CBS selected, is factual detail for your consideration.  For me, it fits a program that these “relatives of the victims” knew about for some time, not for them a sudden emergency.

“The Sandy Hook Massacre: Unanswered Questions and Missing Information” at James F. Tracy’s www.memoryholeblog.com, December archive, has a video of Dr. Carver’s December 15 press conference which deserves repeated viewings.  Victor Thorn, of American Free Press, in a 32-page booklet entitled “Sandy Hook” offers a very clear explanation www.wingtv.net, sisyphus1285 @ cs.com. His editor’s comment:  “Sandy Hook may very well be the most important event since 9/11 and it may have been the event that has most clearly delineated the lines between the forces working for police-state/media control and those working for real freedom.”

A Times reporter noted that Obama’s appearance showed how delicate the situation had become—speaking extemporaneously without teleprompters, “expressing irritation in a way that he generally does not,” an example being “Shame on us if we’ve forgotten.  I haven’t forgotten those kids.  Shame on us if we’ve forgotten.”  Good point.  Nor have I forgotten, because I see these children and their siblings as victims of child abuse, which is a crime in Connecticut as in all other states.  What have their parents told them about the rules of the new world they will be living in?  What have they told their brothers and sisters about playing the game in which the six-year-olds will be growing to adulthood?  If even one feels the need to speak out against the mental cramp resulting from his parental explanation and instruction, it could cause problems simply because the lie has grown so large.  This has been a radical experiment for everyone involved, now placed on the shoulders of innocent children for its viability.

Must be awfully important.

*James Hanson is a native of Nebraska and graduate of Oberlin College. His first job was as reporter for the Defiance, Ohio Crescent-News.  Drafted, he was with the Korea Military Advisory Group (KMAG) 1952-1953.  His law degree is from the University of Michigan, where he learned the importance of well-drafted legislation.

For the Ohio Water Commission, born of the 1959 flood, Hanson assisted in creating an intelligent framework for water management.  He was legal advisor to the Director of Natural Resources, then legislative counsel for the Ohio Legislative Service Commission.

In private practice Hanson’s long-term representations were for environmental organizations such as the volunteer Water Management Association of Ohio and the Ohio Water Development Authority, bond-issuing agency for municipal sewer and water facilities.  The Wildlife Legislative Fund and the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America became his major clients, which he created under the direction of James H. Glass as the defenders of sportsmen’s interests in Ohio and wherever wildlife laws came under attack.  Their present successor is the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance.

Retired, Hanson was writing histories of immigration into Nebraska when he suddenly found himself duty-bound to concentrate on the flood of government falsehoods spilling over especially since 2001.