Forget Orwell’s “Two Minutes Hate.” NBA legend Charles Barkley unleashed ‘One Minute Truth’ on NCAA-Final-Four-watchers last night, telling viewers that:
“I truly believe in my heart most white people and black people are awesome people, but we’re so stupid following our politicians, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats.”
Barkley was responding to a feature that detailed how on April 4, 1968, Robert F. Kennedy broke the news about the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. to a crowd in Indianapolis, urging people to seek compassion and justice rather than anger and revenge, saying the vast majority of Americans, both black and white, want to live in peace with each other.
As a reminder, Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated two months later.
Did President Donald Trump leave this note for President-Select Joe Biden? It’s been circulated on numerous social media platforms and websites. A pithy and peppery note like this is surely something Trump would pen, and indeed seems a fitting gesture alongside his refusal to attend Biden’s inauguration.
Biden will not show the letter Trump left for him to the press. If his administration did so, could the proof be deemed authentic? After all, at least half of the US public doesn’t believe he truly won the presidency. And if his administration releases a concocted version Trump has the original to call them on it.
Fr. Robert Altier Sensus Fidelium September 10, 2020
Minneapolis-based Catholic priest Father Robert Altier provides a riveting, theologically based analysis addressing the social and political features of the COVID19 phenomenon in a September 2020 homily.
On September 17, I posted my column, “Evidence is no longer a Western value.” I used as an example the blame that has been put on Russia for the shot down Malaysian airliner. No evidence whatsoever exists for the accusation, and massive evidence has been presented that the airliner was shot down by the neonazis that seized power as a result of the Washington-organized coup in Ukraine.
Blame was fixed on Russia not by any evidence but by continuous evidence-free accusations that began the moment the airliner was shot down. Anyone who asked for evidence was treated as a “Putin apologist.” This took evidence out of the picture.
Wherever we look in these times, we see evidence-free accusations established as absolute facts: Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction,” “Iranian nukes,” “Russian invasion of Ukraine,” the Trump/Putin conspiracy that stole the 2016 US presidential election, Syrian use of poison gas. Not a scrap of evidence exists for any of these accusations, but the truth of the accusations is established in many minds worldwide.
How a Talk Show Host Can Help Defeat the First Amendment
By James F. Tracy
Beginning in April the parents of children said to have perished in the December 2012 Sandy Hook School massacre have filed defamation lawsuits against Alex Jones (e.g. here, here and here) and others claiming the radio talk show host defamed them by repeatedly stating to his audience that the incident was staged. The plaintiffs are requesting an unspecified monetary sum from the defendant, claiming he caused them to be harassed and threatened by parties who share Jones belief that the event was a hoax.
In the event these actions are tried they will in all probability not function as a venue where the veracity of the Sandy Hook event itself can be verified or disproven. Nor will the plaintiffs likely have to provide much if any evidence of harassment or pain and suffering.
The parents’ attorneys assert in one suit that “overwhelming–and indisputable–evidence exists showing what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012.” This claim is unanimously (though erroneously) supported by Connecticut State authorities and national news media, and has been accepted as settled fact by a federal judge in Lucyv.Richards.
An open question remains whether the suing parties would need to suppress any countervailing evidence. This is largely because over five years after the Sandy Hook massacre event Jones still routinely exhibits uncertainty on whether or not the shooting was real. It is with this suggestion of “actual malice” that he is setting himself up for an untenable position before a jury.
Sullivanv.NewYorkTimes defined actual malice as a primary requisite for a plaintiff to prevail in bringing a defamation suit. In that famous episode the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an advertisement with factual inaccuracies produced by 1960s civil rights advocates and carried in the Times had not been published with actual malice. The court ruled that under the given circumstances the newspaper’s staff did not run the ad either 1) knowing it was false, or 2) with reckless disregard for the truth.
In the cases at hand Jones’ would-be confusion about Sandy Hook began just hours after the alleged shooting itself, when Jones, perhaps anticipating the mixed orientation of his audience toward the incident, expressed confusion over exactly what took place in Newtown. At the same time, and without any real evidence, he used anonymous callers’ observations to label the event a probable “false flag.” This ambiguity would continue for more than five years.
In the months and years thereafter substantial evidence emerged suggesting the “massacre” was probably a FEMA drill overseen by the Obama administration and presented as an actual attack to lay the groundwork for strengthening gun control legislation. Some of this data was compiled in the book edited by Professor Jim Fetzer, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
Instead of inviting Fetzer on to his radio program following the book’s publication and subsequent censorship by Amazon.com in late 2015, Jones ran in the other direction, actually deleting a story by Infowars writer Adan Salazar from his website and thus in effect joining forces with Amazon to suppress that title’s revelations.
Jones conflicted stance toward Sandy Hook is now even mirrored in his attorney Marc Randazza’s public remarks. “We are going to be mounting a strong First Amendment defense and look forward to this being resolved in a civil and collegial manner,” Jones’ counsel Randazza explained to the New York Times, where he continues to note “that Mr. Jones has ‘a great deal of compassion for these parents.'”
Such a statement suggests how the Sandy Hook official narrative as defined by the media (and in the minds of any potential jury member) is shared by the defendant himself and his own legal team.
University of Texas law professor David Anderson contends that Jones’ repeated waffling on Sandy Hook makes him especially vulnerable.
What I understand is that he’ll say these things at one point, and then later on, he’ll say, “Of course I know that wasn’t true.” If he says things, and then says he knows it wasn’t true, he’s in trouble. If he consistently says, “I never claimed that to be true,” then he’s probably on more solid ground.
Because Jones’ confusing array of broadcast utterances on Sandy Hook are all a matter of public record it will not be difficult for the “prosecution” to demonstrate Jones’ confusion amounts to a “reckless disregard for truth.”
Further, since Jones’ public persona precedes him and given the fact that jurors are often impressionable and will surely not be avid “Infowarriors,” plaintiffs’ counsel will likely find it easy to depict Jones as a devious and malicious actor. Unfortunately, these are all a jury needs to be fed to affirm the parents’ claims.
Jones’ uncertainty on the Sandy Hook massacre is especially unusual for a figure who is the self-proclaimed “founding father of the 9/11 truth movement,” and who for over two decades been the country’s most prominent “conspiracy theorist.”
Moreover, Jones strongly-voiced political opinions in many areas is what his fans find most appealing. In light of this the broadcaster has waffled so much on Sandy Hook that it’s difficult not to believe that he isn’t a pre-designated foil in a broader play to defeat what’s left of speech freedoms in the United States. It’s at least for certain that Jones is not any truth movement’s most desirable ally.
Everyone should contemplate this very disturbing fact: There are certainly hundreds, and possibly thousands, of highly “educated” professors at colleges and universities all over this country. Most hold the “highest” degree, Ph.D. in diverse fields like mathematics, physics, chemistry, forensic sciences, criminal justice, law, and even art or political science or engineering or biology or biochemistry or genetics or geology or philosophy or earth sciences or journalism or investigative journalism or medicine or anthropology, and so on.
Are these the “experts” who are the examples of use of logic and the scientific method to discover and learn from analysis and observations of events and the world around us to discover “truth”? If so, why are they so silent about the official lies about the events at Sandy Hook School on Dec. 14, 2012, or the attacks on 9/11/01, and many others? How many of them have contacted professor Jim Fetzer, Ph.D regarding his startling discoveries about Sandy Hook or the Boston Bombing, or the many other false flag attacks to promote gun control? How many of these great “teachers” and “searchers for truth” have contacted him about his startling discoveries on who and why and what attacked the U.S. on 9/11/01?
The answer is almost zero! Essentially none, zero of these “courageous” experts even call or question the official narrative of these events. The silence is deafening.
Much of the money for their research support comes from the U.S. Government. Obviously they fear uttering a peep using their true names, although they have lifetime tenured jobs, because they might lose some of that good easy government money, or become persona non grata with the powers that be so their own ox’s might be gored.
What about truth? What about knowledge, truth and understanding? What about being an inspiration to kids to ask rude questions of the powers that be? Are not these thousands of Ph.D.’s little more than gutless cowards who likely would not call 911 if they observed a woman being raped on the sidewalk? What good are these worthless shameful parasites on the public dole?
Let’s end the easy money supply to these worthless cowards of America who set exactly the wrong example to our young who will be the new cowards on the block if something is not done soon to reverse this trend.
In fact, has not America already been destroyed by a bunch of brainwashed fools who can’t distinguish up from down or truth from fiction when Israelis own all the major media and continue a big propaganda lie every day 24/7? Let’s abolish these worthless parasites and the institutions who support them. Never donate one dollar to these useless hypocritical institutions that are destroying America from within by brainwashing its young college-age students and teaching them cowardice instead of instilling in them traits of courage, questioning and honor and truth.
Evidently our colleges are producing graduates who can’t discern truth from fiction. Let’s end these hollow institutions of lower learning and indoctrination today and stop their easy government funding. Put these cowardly professors on the street where they belong.
The Mid-April SPRING! Issue PENN MAGAZINE – 161 pages
Penn Magazine is named in honor of Penn Jones Jr., one of the first honest researchers into the John Kennedy murder by the U.S. deep state, which was the opening big event, leading to the murders of Martin King and Robert Kennedy, Oklahoma City, 9/11, Sandy Hook, Boston, San Bernardino, Orlando, Las Vegas, Parkland, etc.
