The Conspiracy Theorist: What Happened to James Tracy Could Happen to You

Preview of New Documentary on TracyvFAU Federal Civil Rights Case Now on Appeal

Independent Media Solidarity proudly presents the first preview of our new feature-length film, The Conspiracy Theorist: What Happened to James Tracy Could Happen to You. From the makers of We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook, this forthcoming documentary goes behind the scenes of the most important First Amendment legal battle of our time: Professor James Tracy’s firing for his controversial online speech.

In 2015 Florida Atlantic University abruptly terminated Professor Tracy under a false pretext. When Tracy filed a federal civil rights lawsuit his attorneys discovered how university officials repeatedly schemed to defeat Tracy’s First Amendment rights without violating the US Constitution.

After a corrupt federal court threw out most of Tracy’s claims it then prevented the jury from viewing crucial evidence. News outlets continued to denigrate Tracy while publicly misreporting the case. The Conspiracy Theorist sets the record straight through extensive interview footage of Tracy, his legal team, and university witnesses and defendants.

Today social media play a gigantic role in our everyday lives. Will something you or your loved ones say online one day make you the target of harassment and defamation, perhaps even resulting in the loss of your livelihood? What happened to James Tracy could happen to you.

Via Real.Video
https://www.real.video/embed/5848434125001

Via YouTube

Other video formats available here.

See Related Articles:

TracyvFAU: A Very Dangerous Precedent(Interview of Louis Leo IV By James Fetzer)

Federal Appeal Filed Challenging Florida Atlantic University’s Unconstitutional “Outside Activities Policy”

The Death of Academic Freedom

Florida Governor Rick Scott Visits FAU on Same Day University Moved to Fire Professor James Tracy

Sandy Hook Promise Rolls Out Nationwide School Surveillance Program

Multimillion Dollar Charity Aligned with US Secret Service

By James F. Tracy

Sandy Hook Promise, the multi-million dollar 501(c)3 predicated on the Sandy Hook Massacre event, is actively partnering with school districts throughout the United States to institute a nationwide, extralegal intelligence-gathering system targeting students at taxpayer-funded public schools.

The trade-marked “‘Know the Signs’ prevention programs” feature the “Say Something Anonymous Reporting System,” which encourages minor students and school staff whose institutions have partnered with Sandy Hook Promise (SHP) to divulge observational information directly to an SHP-operated “crisis center” on peers they suspect of being future “active shooters,” or who may otherwise be perceived as “at-risk of hurting themselves and others.”

SHP’s other trade-marked “violence prevention programs” include “Say Something,” “Start With Hello,” “Signs of Suicide,” and “Safety Assessment & Intervention.”

The Broward County School Board in South Florida, led by the former chief administrative officer of Chicago Public Schools Robert W. Runcie, has already signed a three year contract with SHP to implement the Say Something Reporting System across one of the largest school districts in the state.

Read the rest of this entry

Matt Mullenweg’s Ministry of Truth

WordPress.com’s Lip Service to “Democratized Publishing” Belied By Censorship & New Executive Hires

“Sandy Hook Deniers” Censored

By James F. Tracy

The individual who oversaw an across-the-board, content-specific evisceration of WordPress.com-hosted websites is none other than Matt Mullenweg, the 34-year old chief executive of Automattic Inc. and creator of WordPress.com. A supporter of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and purported advocate of “Free Speech” and “Open Source” technology, Mr. Mullenweg caved to a New York Times story highlighting the alleged plight of individuals related to the dubious Sandy Hook mass shooting event.

WordPress.com and former Automattic CEO Matt Mullenweg, who on August 14 abruptly pulled the plug on numerous WordPress.com client websites. Image Credit: Wikipedia

Mullenweg promotes himself and his companies as alternatives to the “tech giants” and “big platforms” such as Google and Amazon. Yet if the world’s super-wealthy blog czar ever did have the personal integrity and zeal to defend the right of expression and open source philosophy via his enterprises, his recent management appointments and the flagrant censorship of his WordPress clients below indicate that these have clearly been forgotten.

What do we know if Mr. Mullenweg’s political inclinations? He is a left-progressive and supporter of the Democratic Party and former President Barack Obama, whose administration oversaw and appears to have coordinated the Sandy Hook massacre event in order to further its own radical gun control agenda.

Mullenweg and New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker at the 2013 presidential inauguration of Barack Obama. Image Credit: https://ma.tt/

In 2016 Mullenweg endorsed the campaign of far-left presidential hopeful and Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig. In 2017 Lessig, a leftwing academic ideologue and outspoken opponent of Donald Trump’s presidency, proposed a scenario by which Hillary Clinton might seize the White House in a bloodless coup.

Censored Bloggers Did Not Violate WordPress.com’s Terms of Service, or Did They?

A careful reading of WordPress.com’s Terms of Service reveals that the websites known to us to have been “suspended” or “archived” at this time have been censored for no apparent reason, other than Mullenweg caving to pressure from the Times and Sandy Hook gun control activists.

With the above in mind, it would appear that Mullenweg and Automattic have eliminated the following blogs without cause, which is their right under the company’s Terms of Service, and that their shared themes make Automattic’s action content-specific. These blogs include, FellowshipoftheMinds, FundamentalOption, CinderellaBroom, AmericanEveryman, JaysAnalysis, and ChemTrailsPlanet. All of these blogs have contributed to furthering the public’s understanding of governmental and corporate corruption through their detailed analyses of mass casualty events and pedophilia.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/16/new-wordpress-policy-allows-it-to-shut-down-blogs-of-sandy-hook-deniers/

According to TechCrunch, WordPress.com actually edited its own Terms of Service to accommodate the complaints of an individual who asserts he is “Sandy Hook parent Leonard Pozner,“and  who routinely files copyright infringement complaints to stifle independent research on the Sandy Hook event.

[Wordpress.com] told The NYT that language was a part of a predefined statement it used, and was sorry that it did so in this particular situation.

However, it also admitted that the posts in question weren’t in violation of any current WordPress user guidelines or copyright law.

We understand the company has since phoned Mr. Ponzer to apologize directly. It then created a new policy to address the problem.

Its new policy reads:

WordPress.com Impervious to Censoring Its Own Clients?

What makes censorship of the above sites even more glaring is the fact that heretofore WordPress has more or less been impervious to content-related challenges to his clients’ blogging, as Mullenweg reveals in a 2015 interview:

Question: Do you get a lot of subpoenas?

Mullenweg: Oh, yeah. It’s like everyone who publishes - it’s like if Bill Gates got takedown notices for people using Microsoft Word. We just get people contacting us for everything.

Question: Every type of disagreeable content that’s published on WordPress results in some type of letter.

Mullenweg: Yep.

Question: That sounds like fun.

Mullenweg: The more clueless the attorney, the more likely they are to contact us.

WordPress.com’s reach, ambition, and aspirational language are impressive. For example, Mullenweg and company are devoted to “making the web a better place” and “democratiz[ing] publishing so that anyone with a story can tell it …” And as noted, they “believe in Open Source.” The reality of this past week’s purge of bloggers for merely asserting argument that have been found controversial by corporate media strongly suggest otherwise.

We might also interrogate WordPress.com’s newfound penchant for censorship by considering the personnel Mullenweg has recently recruited to steer the enterprise. Announcements of these managerial changes are available on the WordPress.com founder’s blog.

For example, the new managers include former National Public Radio and New York Times executive Kinsey Wilson, who was hired by Mullenweg to oversee WordPress.com in early 2018. WordPress.com remains our flagship product,” Wilson noted upon his appointment. “And the goal is to position it as a platform that provides both simplicity and ease of use as well as tremendous power.” (Emphasis added.)

Image Credit: Poynter.org

One might pass Matt Mullenweg off as yet another youthful, easygoing, mop-topped coder and multi-millionaire. Even if this is caricature is partly accurate it hasn’t stopped the tech entrepreneur from tapping top brass from the military industrial complex to steer the WordPress.com ship. In fact, earlier this summer Mullenweg brought on US Army General Ann Dunwoody to Automattic’s Board of Directors.

Gen. Ann Dunwoody (PRNewsfoto/Automattic)

Four-star General Dunwoody has “managed and operationalized the Army’s global supply chain for numerous engagements, including support of Iraq and Afghanistan operations, contingency operations in Haiti, Pakistan, and Japan, and the Base Realignment and Closing move of Command Headquarters from Fort Belvoir, Va., to Huntsville, Ala,” notes one 2013 press release. (Emphasis added.) General Dunwoody also serves on the board of directors of LMI, a major government consulting firm.

WordPress’ Matt Mullenweg and US General Dunwoody. Image Credit: https://ma.tt/

“We’re very lucky to have Gen. Dunwoody’s expertise and experience around the table as we navigate our second decade as a company and realize the huge opportunities ahead of us,” Mullenweg effuses. “With WordPress now powering more than 30% of all sites on the web, we’re excited to work together to shape the future of the open web. Gen. Dunwoody will help us continue to blaze a trail for open source and distributed companies all over the world.”

To make the circle complete Mullenweg has also tapped one James Grierson, former chief executive of BlueHost, to manage WordPress.com’s JetPack product. Under Grierson BlueHost’s legal department enforced a strict, “censor first, ask questions later” policy on any potential copyright infringement claim, however frivolous, as MHB experienced firsthand before BlueHost booted us entirely for alleged “Terms of Service” violations stemming from a complaint by the Sandy Hook-linked scammers.

WordPress.com Clients Routinely Violate TOS

A cursory search of “WordPress.com’s Reader” area for the blogs WordPress/Automattic continues to host after silencing those it has identified as violating its “Terms of Service” include several that are in demonstrable violation of the company’s TOS.  (“Publish material or engage in activity that is illegal under applicable law.”)

Let us take, for example, the Antifa movement, a far left vigilante organization advocating intimidation and physical violence against virtually anyone its leadership perceives as averse to its political dogma.

 

Since these organizations are almost without question involved in illegal activity and in TOS violation one might conclude that they should be similarly banished, just as those posting conspiracy-oriented material. Yet perhaps Mullenweg’s political lens renders these sites and their calls to violence invisible, and hence they remain as accessible as before the purge.

To be sure, there are also many WordPress.com clients who’ve survived the purge that espouse unabashed conservative and far-right political views that would be deemed “hateful” and even “violence inciting” in many quarters.

WhiteLocust, a WordPress.com blog. https://whitelocust.wordpress.com

Numerous WordPress.com clients found on the company’s “Blog Reader” are ideologically opposed to radical left-wing organizations such as Antifa.

With the above in mind the abrupt deletion of the blogs exposing deep government malfeasance simply make all of Mullenweg’s extravagant lip service to “democratizatation” and “open source” environments ring hollow. WordPress.com is as anti-free speech as the “big platforms” its leader decries. In today’s political environment where misleading and even demonstrably false news and opinion masquerades as “the newspaper or record” should we really be surprised.

And so within the bowels of Matt Mullenweg’s Ministry of Truth that now includes New York Times and even US military confidantes there must have been a conclusion reached (if but tacitly) that FellowshipoftheMinds, Chemtrailsplanet, JaysAnalysis, and others are so for some unknown reason so dangerous and repugnant they cannot see the light of day.

Federal Appeal Filed Challenging Florida Atlantic University’s Unconstitutional “Outside Activities” Policy

Miami, Florida – Attorneys for James Tracy filed an appeal to the 11th Circuit U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the summary judgment rulings granted by the District Court in favor of Florida Atlantic University (“FAU”) and various public university officials. Tracy’s lawyers also argue that the jury verdict should be reversed and the Court should grant judgment in Tracy’s favor as a matter of law.

James Tracy was a distinguished tenured faculty member in FAU’s School of Communications who taught journalism history, communication theory, and courses on the media’s coverage of conspiracy theories. Tracy received awards for his work, regularly earned excellent reviews, and was a former president of the FAU faculty union.

Despite Tracy’s outstanding academic record, FAU fired Tracy in retaliation for controversial posts he made on his personal blog questioning the legitimacy of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. In January 2016, FAU terminated Tracy’s tenured professorship, falsely claiming he had been “insubordinate” for failing to disclose his blogging activity under its conflict of interest outside activity Policy.

On appeal, it is argued that summary judgment should have been granted in Tracy’s favor by the District Court, since the Policy FAU used to terminate his professorship is unconstitutionally vague “because blogging is not mentioned as a potential conflict of interest, key terms used within the Policy are undefined, and FAU does not have a policy on blogging.

Over twenty professors have blogs or other online speech activities, and Tracy is the only one to have ever been required to report, much less disciplined, for failing to report under the Policy. This is all the more compelling given that Tracy’s blog was publically available and well known to FAU, and his speech was widely reported and highly controversial.”

The record demonstrates FAU’s Policy violates the First Amendment “because it fails to provide employees with a reasonable opportunity to understand what blogging it prohibits and authorizes” and the Policy “did not provide sufficient guidance as to what blogging had to be reported, it could not be enforced without reference to the content of an employee’s speech, thereby facilitating viewpoint discrimination targeting disfavored speech. Indeed, FAU found Tracy’s posting violated the Policy despite having no policy at all on blogging while it fully protected expression that it favored.”

Additionally, Tracy’s lawyers argue that the jury verdict (that Tracy’s speech was not a motivating factor in his termination) is contrary to overwhelming evidence, and no reasonable jury could have determined that Tracy’s speech was not a motivating factor in his termination because:

  • Tracy’s blogging was obviously not a conflict of interest;
  • FAU’s reason for firing Tracy was legally insufficient;
  • FAU’s history of disciplining and monitoring Tracy’s blog;
  • FAU’s selective enforcement of a vague Policy;
  • Evidence of complaints and negative publicity;
  • FAU’s termination letter citing the blog; and
  • FAU emails celebrating Tracy’s termination.

Moreover, the District Court wrongfully excluded evidence that directly impacted Tracy’s ability to enforce his rights at trial.

The full brief is available here.

 

Strange Allies in the Fight to End Free Speech

“Performance Artists” versus The First Amendment

By James F. Tracy

Inflammatory radio host Alex Jones is besieged with lawsuits brought by Sandy Hook parents who claim to be “defamed” by the content of his broadcasts. America’s loudest rant monger appears to be fulfilling a central role in a broader play that could seriously undermine the First Amendment.

Most recently Jones, who maintains via his counsel that the Newtown massacre itself was genuine, has agreed to defray the plaintiffs’ court costs for bringing suit in Texas should the judge find it frivolous. Concurrently media platforms including YouTube, Facebook and Spotify are now censoring “Infowars” for purported “hateful” content.

Jones’ ex-wife and conflict-of-interest show boater Kelly Jones is allying with parents of the children who are reported to have died in the 2012 school shooting by picketing an August 1st Texas court hearing with a sign reading, “Texans For Sandy Hook Justice,” NBC News reports.

Image Credit: Eric Gay/AP

Ms. Jones won a vicious child custody battle with the radio personality in July 2018. Jones asserts that she was present during the creation of InfoWars, “and I’m trying to make that right.”

These people not only lost their children in the most horrible way that you can imagine – I mean, unspeakable – but they’ve been harassed by his audience. They’ve had to move houses. They had people come up to them and say that their children didn’t even exist.

As this storyline goes, while the Sandy Hook parents lost their children in December 2012 Kelly Jones saved hers from America’s most prominent career “conspiracy theorist.”

A deeper dimension to this unfolding scenario is the fact that both Kelly Jones, Jones’ children, and the parent-plaintiffs squaring off against Alex in Texas are Jewish.

This aspect of the saga would not be worth noting at least in passing if not for the fact that certain Jewish-led “civil right groups,” including as the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center, have long-sought to topple the American ideal of free speech ensconced in the First Amendment.

These interests and the powerful forces they represent would much rather have the United States temper free speech rights by taking away the rights of those expressing “hate speech,” which in reality translates to any political speech the deep-pocketed sponsors of such groups deem undesirable.

One way to seriously cripple if not eliminate free speech is via a “Trojan horse” like Alex Jones. Despite the swaggering Texan’s professed expertise in conspiracy investigation Jones cannot seem to make heads nor tails of the Sandy Hook massacre.

But that’s not all. Jones has been caught censoring actual research addressing the event, and through this ham-fisted performance has set himself up to take the fall that will likewise bring down US free speech rights.

As we’ve recently stated,

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.

There is a well-known theory that 1980s comedian Bill Hicks faked his unusual death from pancreatic cancer at the age of 32 (pseudocide) and has ever since been playing the character Alex Jones since the mid-1990s. Although the idea seems far-fetched, the fact is that celebrities with substantial means have “faked their deaths” for many years to assume a new life and identity.

“Some people fake their death to avoid jail or get away with a crime” according to Psychology Today. “[O]thers want to escape debt, a stalker, or a burdensome relationship.”

“’If you want to disappear and do it right,’” writes author Elizabeth Greenwood,

“the planning is not for the faint of heart, or the careless.” She proves this throughout her book. The question for those who want to reinvent themselves is whether they can ever completely leave their lives behind. Many think they can do it for a period of time, but expect to pick it back up at some point. To really be successful at pseudocide, though, it seems one must be able to walk away—and stay away—from everything. This includes family, medical records, bank accounts, social media, cars, and your reputation as an honest person.

Even Vice News calls pseudocide “a timeworn tradition” among the laity. Is this also the case with the victims of mass casualty events … and perhaps the successful radio persona whose attorney admits is “a performance artist playing a character”? If by chance Alex Jones is Hicks’ invention he could not have pulled this stunt off for two decades without certain lettered agencies’ complicity. And for this he is indebted to them.

If one is going to file a civil claim that someone’s speech is actionable then it is tremendously helpful to have a “friendly” defendant. Just ask German-born  journalist Richard Gutjahr, who is closely allied with the Sandy Hook parents bringing suit against Alex Jones in Texas. Gutjahr says he was encouraged by “Sandy Hook parent” Lenny Pozner and supports the lawsuit against Jones. Gutjahr is of the litigious sort, of which more below.

As some may recall, Richard Gutjahr is so anxious for a scoop that he was present to document both the July 14, 2016 “Nice truck attack” and  the July 22, 2016 “Munich shooting.”

Richard Gutjahr “accidentally” deleted the photos and tweets about Munich.

Gutjahr’s wife, Israeli-born Einat Wilf, is an outspoken Harvard and Cambridge-educated foreign policy advisor to former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres. Wilf’s additional credentials include serving as a lieutenant in the Israeli Defense Forces’ intelligence division and fulfilling a partial term in the Knesset.

Thus it is perhaps ironic that both Gutjahr and Pozner have wives capable of potentially operating under intelligence cover and likely even diplomatic immunity if necessary. We have been apprised, for example, by parties with considerable investigative capacity that it is close to impossible to ascertain the actual background of one “Veronique De La Rosa.”

Along these lines, more than a few individuals have preferred the compelling and plausible notion that Jones is in fact an imposter, and thus a double agent of sorts.

Thin-skinned writer Richard Gutjahr borrows an image from television program “Better Call Saul” Image Credit: YouTube

In the 2017 presentation below Gutjahr’ (at 13:19) discusses his would-be persecution at the hands of “hoaxers”and a strategy of waging legal battles in order to stifle anyone who might question the “on-air talent” in dubious public events.

Lenny [Pozner] and I, we talked many, many times online, and he told me about the so-called “truthers,” the so called “hoaxers.” People who get a kick out of it, to have that power over other people. And who actually also get paid for their ‘work’ by YouTube.

Now Lenny told me, “Look, Richard, you can either continue whining, or you start to get back on your feet and start fighting [sic]. It’s gonna be hard, it’s gonna be long, it’s gonna be painful, but you can actually do something against them. And so I did. [Applause.]

Not on-only I took one lawyer, I took two lawyers [sic], and from that day on they took care of Facebook and of Google. We keep on, like, telling them, “This is wrong, this is wrong. We have this court order, this court order. So we’re really a pain in the neck. And you know what? It feels really good to have somebody speaking up for you-finally.

Despite the fact that Gutjahr is “lawyered up,” he can’t seem to prevail in court. Earlier this year the ubiquitous journalist suffered a stinging defeat after suing independent German investigative journalist Gerhard Wisnewski in the district court of Cologne. The reason? Wisnewski pondered whether Guthahr’s presence at both the Nice truck attack and Munich shooting was coincidental, or may have involved some type of foreknowledge.

Gutjahr’s extravagant complaint suggested that Wisnewski’s reporting on possible prior knowledge involved omission, thus defaming Gutjahr’s by generating suspicion that his motives were for professional advancement. As the defendant explains,

In the eyes of Gutjahr and his lawyer, [I] suspected him of a crime under § 138 penal code (Strafgesetzbuch; “non-disclosure of planned crime”). “A far-fetched assertion. This was never the subject of my reporting, It was all about the abstract possibility of prior knowledge, so only about a cognitive process and the question of how the reporter could have been in two alleged terror locations or in the immediate vicinity within a week.”

A verdict favoring Gutjahr’s in Cologne was thrown out on appeal, with the higher court reminding Gutjahr that he must “accept critical illumination of his activities by his peers.” In Wisnewski’s view, “the case developed toward a judicial disaster for Gutjahr.”

While their approaches differ, Gutjahr’s case and the defamation actions of the numerous Sandy Hook parents share the same target, namely the free speech that prompts the public to question the sometimes unlikely narratives of government and its corporate media allies. If a verdict against America’s biggest carnival barker can be secured everything beyond the pale of government and corporate news pronouncements becomes fair game.

Who benefits? Is it those who have something to hide? Who would rather cry, “Hate speech!” and thereby attack the messenger instead of having a fair debate where such speech, if it is truly without foundation might be confronted and dismantled once and for all?

In the case of Sandy Hook especially the petitioners employ an entirely different method, imploring the general public to viscerally identify with their persecution and suffering–with, as Kelly Jones puts it, those who “lost their children in the most horrible way,” and who must thereafter be “harassed by [Alex Jones’] audience.”

This dramatic plea combined with Jones’ over-the-top “performance art” distracts everyday spectators from considering the events in question and, moreover, the “hoaxers” and “conspiracy theorists” who’ve raised the very questions that most salaried journalists have either long abandoned or must consciously dismiss for fear of losing their own livelihoods.

One thing is certain: Richard Gutjahr might have won his court case, if only the defendant was as eager to forfeit his free speech rights as Alex Jones appears to be.

Alex Jones’ Actual Malice

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.

https://www.guns.com/2018/07/05/alex-jones-faces-new-defamation-lawsuit-hires-attorney/

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.

Zionism: Deconstructing the Power Paradigm

Via Uprooted Palestinian’s Blog

Moderator: Kevin Barrett

Kevin Barrett – Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Judeophobia: Let’s Define Our Terms – 1:30

Philip Giraldi – How Jewish Power Sustains the Israel Narrative – 25:45

Gilad Atzmon – Truth, Truthfulness, and Palestine – 40:35

Alan Sabrosky – The Impact of Zionist Influence in the U.S.- 1:07:05

Jeremy Rothe-Kushel – Talpiot and Unit 8200: The Global Cyber Agenda for Kill-Switch Domination–2:03:15

Q & A from our online audience by email — 2:54:01

For resources referenced by the Deep Truth speakers, go to http://www.DeepTruth.info/resources. For information about the Deep Truth conference, go to http://www.DeepTruth.info/about

Annapolis Capital Gazette Mass Shooting

City of Annapolis First Responders Drilled For Event June 22

National news media today are proving wall-to-wall coverage of an apparent mass shooting event at the offices of the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis Maryland.

NBC’s Washington DC affiliate station reports:

Five people have died and several others are “gravely injured” after a shooting Thursday at the Capital Gazette newspaper building in Annapolis, Maryland, local and federal officials say.

The names of the dead were not released immediately.

The suspected shooter is 38-year-old Jarrod Ramos, three senior law enforcement officials briefed on the matter told NBC News. Anne Arundel County police declined to provide the suspect’s name.

The suspect threatened the community newspaper on social media, police department spokesman Lt. Ryan Frashure said in a briefing Thursay night.

“This individual had some type of vendetta against the Capital newspaper, and they were specifically targeted,” he said.

The suspect is in custody, and authorities are interrogating him, officials said.

The suspect obscured his fingerprints, making it difficult to identify him, two senior law enforcement officials told NBC News. But officials were able to identify him using facial recognition software, multiple officials said. County police declined to comment on any use of those methods.

Mainstream news media employees are blaming President Trump’s criticism of “fake news media” for the event, according to the Washington Examiner,

https://twitter.com/laurenduca/status/1012429565111791616

Along these lines there are attempts to link the event to recent remarks made by political provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos.

Of course, these same corporate media outlets and personnel will keep from their readers the fact that, perhaps coincidentally, an active shooter drill took place in at St. Mary’s High School in Annapolis less than one week ago, as the Capital Gazette itself reported on its website June 22.

As MHB has repeatedly observed, in the fake news era the everyday spectator watching such a drill unfold on national television would be hard pressed to be able to distinguish between such a readiness exercise and a “real” event.

(Click to enlarge image)

In a video posted with the above report, for example, Annapolis fireman Ken White narrates the active shooter drill that took place just last week on St. Mary’s campus.

“With the increase of active shooter incidents we’re seeing we–the city has determined that it is important for us to hold this training,” White explains, “so that in the event that something may happen we’ll be well-prepared.”

Annapolis firefighters Ken White briefs Capital Gazette readers on the active shooter drill held June 22, 2018.

The City of Annapolis Police and Fire Departments held an active shooter drill June 22, 2018 at St. Mary’s High School.

A drill being held by local law enforcement and emergency response agencies has been a repeated occurrence at Annapolis and numerous mass shooting events over the past several years, indeed ever since the number of such incidents exploded under the Obama administration.

H/t Tony Mead

The CIA and the Media: Historical Fact #56

Editor’s Note: In August 2015 MHB published, “The CIA and the Media: 50 Historical Facts The World Needs to Know.” The present series seeks to augment this initial article with several dozen additional facts and observations on the relationship between the US intelligence community, the mass media, and public opinion.


Irwin Knoll, Image Credit: Wisconsin Historical Society

Washington Post editorial page editor Bob Estabrook claims that one-time Post publisher Philip Graham “was in daily touch with people in the intelligence community and that he knew more about the Bay of Pigs, for example, than he would tell his own reporters,” writes Katharine Graham biographer Carol Felsenthal. Veteran journalist and former Progressive magazine editor Erwin Knoll recalls how Post editor Al Friendly “’had some CIA involvement. I know there was a pipeline to the CIA that provided occasional guidance on stories.’”

Knoll recollects the controversy that erupted in 1960 when a United States U-2 reconnaissance plane was shot down by the Soviets in 1960. “’I found myself riding in the elevator with Bob Estabrook, and I said to him, ‘That’s a hell of a story out of the Soviet Union today, isn’t it?’ And he said, ‘Oh yeah, we’ve known about those flights for several years, but we were asked not to say anything.’ Now that just astonished me, that the paper knew about things it was asked not to report on, and it complied with those wishes.’” Shortly thereafter, when a US pilot in the employ of Indonesian rebels was grounded, “the Post’s foreign editor warned Knoll to be careful about reporting on the pilot, who, he said, was CIA. Knoll thinks the Post ‘was definitely on the team as far as fighting to cold war was concerned.’”

Carol Felsenthal, Power, Privilege and The Post: The Katharine Graham Story, New York: Putnam, 1993, 372, 373.

The CIA and the Media: Historical Fact #55

Editor’s Note: In August 2015 MHB published, “The CIA and the Media: 50 Historical Facts The World Needs to Know.” The present series seeks to augment this initial article with several dozen additional facts and observations on the relationship between the US intelligence community, the mass media, and public opinion. One historical fact will be released each day over the next month and beyond.


From its formation in 1947 the CIA sought to influence not only the pedestrian informational landscape via news, but also academe’s intellectual topography. Through propaganda programs the Agency cultivated fierce anti-communist sentiment on a transnational basis to help propel the Cold War and its attendant military industrial complex. This involved, for example, a “campaign against ‘neutralism’” according to communications historian Christopher Simpson. “Beginning in 1950,” Simpson notes,

the CIA sponsored and financed the Congress for Cultural Freedom and a series of politically liberal, strongly anticommunist publications including Encounter (England), Der Monat (Germany), Forum (Austria), Preuves (France), and Cuadernos (Latin America) as a means of combating the perceived neutrality of intellectuals in the face of purported communist expansion. Sidney Hook, Melvin Lasky, Edward Shils, Daniel Bell, and Daniel Lerner, among others, emerged as prominent public spokesmen for this campaign, though they have insisted in later years that they were unaware of the CIA’s sponsorship for their work.

Christopher Simpson, Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare 1945-1960, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994, 100-101.

%d bloggers like this: