Professor's Questions About Sandy Hook Shooting Recall Columbine Massacre

Editor's Note:

“While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place—at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation’s news media have described.”
Anderson Cooper jumps on this portion of the sentence:

“While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place—"
 
 before the following qualifying prep:

"at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation’s news media have described.”

This is intended to milk a reaction of outrage from his audience. 

Mr. Cooper doesn't quite know who he's messing with.  Personally, I would not want to go toe-to-toe with Professor James Tracy.  I've read his past work and he is one of the sharper knives in the drawer.  Anderson had to use a deceptive excerpt out of context in order for people to buy his fake righteous indignation.


The Daily Bell

Believe it or not, there are actually people out there who are convinced that last month's horrific shooting in Newtown, Connecticut was staged. Anderson Cooper opened his show tonight taking on these conspiracy theorists. He said that ordinarily, he wouldn't give much thought to insane conspiracies, but one of the people pushing them is a Florida professor who raises doubts as to whether the shooting "ever took place" in the way that the media described, and the whole thing was just a huge conspiracy to get the country behind gun control. And as if that wasn't unbelievable enough, he also suspects that some of the parents of the children were really actors. – Mediaite.com

Dominant Social Theme: Sandy Hook conspiracy theories are appalling and outrageous.

Free-Market Analysis: A recent CNN/Anderson Cooper "Keeping Them Honest" segment focused on a media professor, James Tracy, who has publicly claimed that the Sandy Hook shootings "may not have happened at all, at least ... the way they have been described."
An article by the Sun Sentinel describes the Tracy controversy as follows:

FAU prof stirs controversy by disputing Newtown massacre ... A communication professor known for conspiracy theories has stirred controversy at Florida Atlantic University with claims that last month's Newtown, Conn., school shootings did not happen as reported — or may not have happened at all.

Moreover, James Tracy asserts in radio interviews and on his memoryholeblog.com, that trained "crisis actors" may have been employed by the Obama administration in an effort to shape public opinion in favor of the event's true purpose: gun control.

... In one of his blog posts, "The Sandy Hook School Massacre: Unanswered Questions and Missing Information," Tracy cites several sources for his skepticism, including lack of surveillance video or still images from the scene, the halting performance of the medical examiner at a news conference, timeline confusion, and how the accused shooter was able to fire so many shots in just minutes ...

Tracy said also has doubts about the official version of the Kennedy assassination, the Oklahoma City bombing, the 9-11 terror attacks and the Aurora, Colo., theater murders.
"I describe myself as a scholar and public intellectual," he said, "interested in going more deeply into controversial public events. Although some may see [my theories] as beyond the pale, I am doing what we should be doing as academics."

Cooper is at his silky best in this segment, blasting away at the professor's theories and even implying that he ought to be fired for voicing such an opinion.

Iowa vote fraud official

The Examiner
Jeffrey Phelps

Ron Paul has been snuffed out
of an Iowa win by the
establishment and it's media,
for the second time

It’s official, or is it? Once again the establishment is showing it’s cards in an obvious attempt to defraud Ron Paul of the nomination, as Iowa GOP ‘officials’ purposely disrupt and permanently invalidate the 2012 Iowa Caucus.

The official Caucus website, in conjunction with the Des Moines Register, had to come forward Thursday to claim the official results can “never be certified” after, at least, 8 different precincts turn up invalid results due to “missing votes” and changing stories.

For the first time in history, the Iowa GOP decided to change the final vote count to a “Secret location” for what was claimed to be “security concerns.” The unprecedented change in venue came as a shock to most Iowans who are used to seeing the final results tallied at State Party Headquarters in Des Moines, in full view of the public.

This time, however, instead of business as usual, all of the final results were to be counted at an undisclosed location, completely hidden from public scrutiny, the seemingly ‘new’ business as usual.
What played out as a result was a mockery of democracy as Iowa election officials permanently skewed the results of the caucus, illegally miscounting and completely dismissing votes for Ron Paul, many of which were ironically from precincts that Romney lost in ’08.

Other missing or “uncounted” votes were expected to be heavy Ron Paul supporting, major populated areas and college town precincts, now leaving the true winner forever in question.

Originally, the results had Romney winning by 8 votes over Santorum with 30,015 votes. Now the establishment’s media claims new ‘official’ results show Santorum winning by 34 votes over Romney with 29,839 votes, but oddly 168 votes fewer than the ‘official’ total he was previously given, 30,007.
Additionally, Iowa’s establishment politicians now say 121,503 people voted overall, strangely down from the 122,255 it had originally reported. This could be due to new official results not including the 8 precincts that showed skewed results in the new final totals, but the truth may never be fully understood.

As if that’s not odd enough, hidden within all the commotion, even though many votes were missing, uncounted, and changed, including the official result totals for both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, no mention at all has been given to the new total Ron Paul should now have and if his votes were also miscounted or left out like the two ‘front-runners” votes were reported to have been. Especially considering how close Ron Paul came to winning, one would think his totals would be just as important to review as well.

The Ron Paul camp, as usual, has downplayed the situation for fear of being an easy target and giving the establishment an excuse to label him and his supporters conspiracy "theorists," a very common tactic used by the establishment and it's media throughout Paul’s career. Instead, he’s tried to remain humble and look at the bright side in saying, "a strong third is still pretty good and still sends a message to the establishment and the American people."

However, as was pointed out on CNN Thursday, even if the new results are legitimate, “It’s hard to take back that initial surge given to Romney. It’s hard to overcome the amount of hype and exposure he received as the evening progressed.” It was treated as a monumental moment as he was declared the winner, while his party and constituents celebrated in great joy…All while questionable results trickled in.

If the actual winner was to have been Ron Paul, should the votes have been counted fairly, the results would have likely been unprecedented momentum for the Ron Paul campaign, which would have likely been impossible for the other candidates to overcome, especially considering Ron Paul’s overall success, despite the constant barrage of negative and totally unfair coverage, if and when he gets coverage at all.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the circumstances, when it’s all said and done, is the repeating pattern of open censorship and total demonization toward Ron Paul’s campaign by the media. He’s always referred to as “unelectable, racist, or dangerous,” or any number of attacks, while generally making a mockery of his ideals and supporters, even though his anti-war, pro-civil liberty, limited-constitutional government, and sound economic policies are all very popular in general with the American people.

What people are most impressed with, when it comes to Ron Paul, when people are actually given the chance to find who he really is and what he really stands for, are things like realizing he’s held those exact same ideals and shows a perfectly aligned voting record to go along with those ideals since he started in government over 40 years ago. Something the other candidates couldn’t even fathom with all the criminal activity and flip-flopping on the issues, many of them have done routinely, throughout their careers.

The Media's Blackout Of The National Defense Authorization Act Is Shameful

Business Insider
David Seaman

The broadcast media's ignorance and unwillingness to cover the National Defense Authorization Act, a radical piece of legislation which outrageously redefines the US homeland as a "battlefield" and makes US citizens subject to military apprehension and detainment for life without access to a trial or attorney, is unacceptable.

Guys, this is far more important than Penn State's Disgusting Creep of the Decade, or even Conrad Murray's sentencing.

Call it what you will: a military junta, a secret invalidation of Americans' civil rights, a Congress gone mad. Whatever it is, it needs to be covered by the press, and quickly.

Anderson Cooper, Brian Williams, Rachel Maddow, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto and the other handful of household names that mainstream America relies on for news should be talking about this non-stop.

I emailed producers and on-air talent at the three major cable news networks yesterday: not one of them was willing to step up to the plate and report on this appalling legislation, which would give Americans roughly the same protections as citizens in China or Saudi Arabia.
Bloggers and the ACLU's analysis have already made the work easy for you guys. Even an ADD segment producer can do the math:

• Pay special attention to Section 1031 of the bill.
  
  
• This bill violates the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385), as it will allow federal military personnel to engage in domestic law enforcement. This is profoundly unconstitutional and scary.
  
  
• Also read Sen. Lindsey Graham's chilling defense of the offending provision in this bill, calling to make the homeland a "battlefield." Has anyone told these guys that Osama bin Laden and his deputies are dead? Those still alive are running from drone strikes on a daily basis. So who exactly are we fighting against? Are you protecting us from a handful of (almost entirely peaceful) college kids at the Occupy protests? If so, martial law and throwing out 200+ years of basic civil rights seems rather excessive.
  
  
• Finally, as the ACLU points out, you won't have any trouble booking an expert talking head who will tell you how dangerous and counterproductive the National Defense Authorization Act is: "The Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI and the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA are harmful and counterproductive." Book one of them on your program, and do it quickly. The Senate has already rejected an amendment which would have banned the indefinite detention provisions from the bill.
  

Please, do your jobs. This is the kind of story that wins journalism awards and makes careers. It's the kind of story that makes viewers trust you.

UPDATE: To the mainstream media's credit, Keith Olbermann of Current TV has now mentioned the NDAA's harmful provision, and I've been told that Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC is drawing attention to it as well. A good start, but not nearly enough.

I don't write articles every day, but when I do, they are on subjects you should know about. You can follow me on Google+ to see my newest posts and keep in touch.

Video from the author summarizing why the National Defense Authorization Act (FY 2012) in its current form is so harmful, and must be stopped: