Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘shooting’

Canadian PressI saw this hit piece in the January 15, 2013 edition of my local online newspaper, which I have previously documented is a corporate feudalist newspaper, and the article was originally published by the Canadian Press. The title is “Latest American conspiracy theory claims Newtown mass shooting a hoax.

For non-Canadians, it can’t be underestimated the power that labeling something as uniquely American has on the average Canadian psyche.

I see this hit piece as a victory for critical thinking, and for the authentic alternative media, as it took five years for the 9/11 Truth movement to start gaining traction, whereas a far smaller incident took only a month for the pressure to build to have the corporate feudalist media go public in a desperate attempt to suppress critical thinking, with the smear of critical thinking as “conspiracy theory.”

They predictably invoke 9/11 Truth and those who doubt the constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama in a kitchen sink approach of throwing anything they can at readers in order to find something that will resonate with them in order to turn them off of critical thinking.

The author has the audacity to assert that:

Their theories on the Dec. 14 shooting in Sandy Hook appear to lack any basis in fact, reality or common sense.

It’s not a theory that there is evidence pointing to multiple shooters, for instance, as indicated by police radio, helicopter video, and the testimony of at least two witnesses, including a young child at the school, who would have no reason to lie — all of which has been documented by Charles Giuliani and Joel Skousen, as I have previously written about.

That evidence, of course, is conveniently and predictably omitted from the article.

Yes, fellow Canadians, it’s an “American conspiracy theory.” It’s just as crazy as the American gun culture, the electoral college, and the election year “silly season.” Pay no attention to the evidence of multiple shooters behind the curtain.

I have to hand it to the author of this hit piece, and her corporate feudalist employer. The difference between this story and 9/11 is that, this time, many critical thinkers have been raising questions since day one, and are alert to the patterns of disinfo they have seen with the 9/11 coverup, the London 7/7 bombings coverup, and others.

Read Full Post »

I called into the January 16, 2013 episode of Truth Hertz with Charles Giuliani about the guest’s mention of 9/11 researcher, Jeff Prager, and his highly suspect claims about the Sandy Hook shootings, starting at 1:37:14.

In summary, I pointed out that Prager was one of the seven authors of the highly suspect October 29, 2012 Veterans Today article, Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle, as discussed in my article, Why the inflammatory unscientific rhetoric in this 9/11 Truth article?

Prager essentially claimed in a January 9, 2013 interview with Kevin Barrett that Adam Lanza was a lone gunman and that any anomalies were possible later additions as a form of psy-ops. This claim flies in the face of much evidence of multiple shooters, as documented so well by Charles Giuliani in his past shows, and by Joel Skousen in his World Affairs Brief.

Read Full Post »

Colored Bullseye

As the investigation into the July 20, 2012 Colorado movie theatre shooting progresses, there remains a missing piece, and that is the discussion of private property rights.

While the political debate has been framed as more gun control versus less gun control, I see the real debate as private property rights versus no private property rights.

While more government-mandated gun control is palatable to many, an overt limitation of private property rights is less palatable, in the absence of fear-mongering.

The mass media –our self-appointed opinion leaders — frame the debate as more gun control versus the fear of another mass shooting, but for me, the debate is over private property rights versus no private property rights.

It should be evident that more gun control laws can’t stop all mass shootings. The solution, to me, is to protect the private property rights of business owners, and let them be responsible for their own security, and let their patrons assume full personal responsibility for their decision to patronize the business, barring negligence and malice.

If the business is negligent, there is the civil remedy of suing it for negligence, and if there is malice, there is also a possible criminal remedy.

Nearly everyone claims that they don’t want to be enslaved, but government security goons at movie theatres, and government laws barring all guns in private businesses, would serve that purpose.

Instead of enacting laws that grab guns from mostly law-abiding citizens, why not allow private property owners to provide for their own security, as they best see fit?

In a mass market like the United States, and especially in big cities, there would be the opportunity for some cinemas to offer more security, including full pat-downs, which are completely constitutional. I have no problem with private businesses choosing to mandate full pat-downs, since it’s up to individuals whether they choose to patronize that business.

For me, I’d prefer to take the risk, which is comparable to winning a lottery jackpot, of being a potential victim of a mass shooting, and not patronize a movie theatre with full pat-downs, but for others, they may not want to take that minuscule risk. If there was truly enough of a demand for such security, individuals would choose their theatre and other venues appropriately, despite what some cynical power-hungry freedom-grabbers in government may claim they want.

Read Full Post »

hatrickpenry

AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA

Recovering Austrians

Supporting recovering Austrian Economics addicts and their families

Real Currencies

Supporting People and the Commonwealth and resisting the Money Power by defeating Usury