Alex Jones sued by Sandy Hook Parents
courtesy and AP
Previous Post
Next Post

Sandy Hook parents sue Alex Jones for calling massacre a hoax

Can they both lose? . . .

The parents of two kids killed in the Sandy Hook massacre are suing conspiracy monger Alex Jones over his claims that the shooting was a hoax, according to new reports.

The families of 6-year-old victims Jesse Lewis and Noah Pozner — two of 26 kids and teachers slain when gunman Adam Lanza opened fire on Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 — both filed suits in Texas on Monday against Jones and his media company InfoWars, each seeking in excess of $1 million, according to the Hartford Courant.

Both suits charge that Jones defamed the parents by calling them “crisis actors” — and that his conspiracy theories over the 2012 shooting led to viewers sending them death threats, the paper reports.

Hit Blockbuster ‘A Quiet Place’ Slammed For Its ‘Regressive’ Stance On Guns

Looking for a place to spend your hard-earned entertainment dollars? See ‘A Quite Place’ and piss off a hoplophobe . . .

Leftists are very angry that the hit horror film, “A Quiet Place,” which depicts a family living in silence, evading an alien force that has consumed most of humanity, allows its characters to carry — and even use — guns.

The New Yorker called “A Quiet Place’s” politics, “regressive,” calling the picture a right-wing “fantasy of survivalism,” where both the father and mother wield firearms in order to protect their growing family. The family, the magazine moans, lacks an “authentic inner expression” but manage to “bring to the fore” the “idealistic elements of gun culture.” …

But — and hopefully this doesn’t spoil the movie — the movies true awfulness shines through in scenes where the family must defend themselves in one-on-one combat with the mysterious extra-terrestrials. Far from being a “progressive” force out to illuminate the human race, the aliens are mostly there to devour anyone who makes the slightest noise (while blind, the aliens have extra-sensitive hearing, which allows them to track their human prey).

Ultimately, the family must confront the aliens, and they do so armed with long-barrel rifles. And those rifles prove incredibly useful.

courtesy Boston Globe

Facebook paid over $8.8 million for Mark Zuckerberg’s security and travel last year

It’s easy to oppose civilian gun ownership when you can afford to buy all the armed security you need with pocket change . . .

In a proxy statement released Friday ahead of Facebook’s annual shareholder meeting next month, the company disclosed that it paid $8.8 million to cover Zuckerberg’s security and personal travel last year.

The figure rose from $5.8 million in 2016 as Zuckerberg toured across the country last year.

“Because of the high visibility of our company, our compensation & governance committee has authorized an “overall security program” for Mr. Zuckerberg to address safety concerns due to specific threats to his safety arising directly as a result of his position as our founder, Chairman, and CEO,” the company writes in its disclosure.


Pennsylvania will no longer honor VA CHPs starting May 16!

Be careful when traveling . . .

Pennsylvania will no longer honor Virginia CHPs effective May 16! They also don’t honor non-resident permits, so having a non-resident Florida or Utah permit, for example, won’t work either.

The reason listed is that Virginia’s background check is insufficient.

The Next Big Gun Controversy Is Forcing People to Lock Them Up

It’s not about guns, it’s about control . . .

Two weeks before Christmas in 2012, a 22-year-old masked man armed with a stolen assault-style rifle went on a shooting rampage in a crowded shopping mall in Happy Valley, Oregon, just outside Portland, thrusting holiday shoppers into a maelstrom. By the time the bullets stopped flying, three people, including the gunman, had been fatally shot, and a 15-year-old girl was wounded.

Now family members of the deceased victims are pushing for a ballot measure that would make Oregon one of the few states in the nation to mandate that gun owners lock up their firearms. They contend that such a law could have thwarted the afternoon massacre at the Clackamas Town Center mall.

Courtesy Seventeen and Getty Images

A Timeline of the Second Amendment and Gun Control in the U.S.

All in all, this could have been a lot worse than it is. And it’s not like kids are going learn any of this in high school . . .

By now, you’ve definitely heard about the Second Amendment. It might be a phrase you caught tossed around during AP history or on the evening news your parents insist on watching at dinner. Maybe you heard about the second amendment during the coverage of recent mass shootings or perhaps you encountered the word when you attended The March For Our Lives rally to support gun control.

Despite where you may have encountered this tricky bit of The Constitution, odds are that there are parts of it that you still don’t truly understand. You may have asked yourself: What does this amendment actually mean? Or: How has it evolved over the course of our nation’s history? Well, get ready to have all of your questions answered.

Here is a timeline all about the history of gun control in America…


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Sandy Hook is suspicious. Probably just like the “authorities” said. Maybe not though. Of course, we’ll never know because everything pertaining to the event was quickly sealed and destroyed.

  2. alex jones has the morals of the cisco kid. He’s just out for a buck and he doesn’t care how low he has to go for it.

  3. Tide Pods… Noodles from the sh**ter. HEY KIDS ever been in the attic? It is full of cotton candy waiting for you. And pols are worried about the youngsters. They do not vote like us old farts.

    • “cotton candy” – Damn, i’m glad I wasn’t drinking my coffee when I read that. Awesome 😀

  4. “..They contend that such a law could have thwarted the afternoon massacre at the Clackamas Town Center mall.”

    I thought that shooting was stopped by a good guy with a gun?

    • A good guy with a gun who foolishly suggested the bad guy stop shooting people and drop his weapon – just before the bad guy shot him, retreated to a back hallway, and then shot himself.

      Good guy survived, but his wheel-chair bound for life.

      Don’t be that guy. There is no good reason to be polite to someone who is shooting up a mall.

      • Yup. Don’t ever let him see you, let alone engage in dialog. Shoot him in the back of the head if possible.

      • Are you talking about the shooting at the Clackamas Town Center? If so, recheck your facts. The good guy with a gun did not get shot. He drew, the bad guy saw him, and the bad guy shot himself probably thinking it was over. There is a lot more to the story, but the good guy with a gun did not get shot.

      • Wrong. You’re thinking of a different incident, one which has been used to claim that armed citizens can’t stop mass shootings.

        The armed good guy (whose name is Nick Meli) in the Clackamas Mall shooting did *not* get shot. He didn’t shoot, either.

        He was moving and aiming, trying to find a position where he could take a shot without endangering innocents in the background, when the goblin became aware of opposition and offed himself.

    • Perhaps but we still have the 1st Amendment in this country and it specifically applies to such.

      There most certainly where, and are, “crisis actors” after all these MSM fest erupt. As the Hogg

    • …says the sub-room temperature IQ moron that clearly either hasn’t looked into the case, or is a shill. Probably both, as is usually the case.

      Alex Jones has more cajones in his pinky than you do in your shriveled little coin purse.

      As someone else said…the plaintiffs REALLY won’t like the discovery phase.

      Because they will have to show:

      1) That Sandy Hook, a decommissioned depot for surplus items for the district, somehow was holding classes that day.

      2) Explain WHY a decommissioned depot (which had not been an operational school since 2008 due to BLACK MOLD AND ASBESTOS) had children and teachers there.

      3) Explain why, if the above, children and teachers were allowed to hold classes in a building with MULTIPLE fire code, health code, and ADA issues.

      4) Show proof that there was in fact anyone killed, since the Social Security death index did NOT show anyone killed on December 13th.

      5) Provide crime-scene photographs with the bodies.

      6) Explain why Sandy Hook could not afford an internet connection between 2008 and 2013 (since there was NO activity on the school’s website between those years).

      7) Explain why requests for paperwork/documentation showing that the school was in operation at the time of the alleged shooting were DENIED, in violation of a lawful FOIA request.

      8) Have their financials gone through with a fine toothed comb to see if and if so, how much of the 50 million dollars in bribe money went to them. (Hint: an elementary school costs MAYBE 7 million to build. For a top-of-the-line model. $50 million is a ludicrous sum, and provides a great explanation for why these “parents” (criminals) would do what they did). Everyone involved needs to be in Gitmo.

      9) Explain why there were NO pictures or video (zero, zilch, nada) of ANY teachers or students evacuating the building during or after the shooting. Same with the lack of distraught parents flooding the shool en-masse to get their children. Look back to 1999 and Columbine to see what an actual school shooting looks like from the outside.

      10) Explain why pictures of a drill, taken in October, were promulgated as being from the alleged “shooting.”

      Start with these.

      I hope Jones countersues and leaves these evil POS with not a pot to p*ss in.

    • Like a lot of folks, he’s figured out how to make a buck on the internet and occupy space in people’s minds.

      • Fluckelburger being prime example. Without the internet he would be making crapachino at some coffee clipjoint. Instead he is able to fleece gullible “investors” of billions for useless vaporware. No product, no utility, no profit nifty stuff. Ponzi had to have real estate, the tulip guys had to move and store little ugly bulbs.

  5. No chance the official narrative of Sandy Hook is true. Recall posting same opinion days and weeks after the event and getting crucified by dupes/trolls on this site.

    • The official narrative is indeed highly suspect. They didn’t help themselves by literally burying and bulldozing all the physical evidence even before the public report was released.

      Government shenanigans after the fact, yes. Hoax from the beginning, no.

      There’s no chance that the hoax narrative is true. No way on God’s green earth that could be pulled off without good evidence of fakery emerging, if only by accident. People like PG2 believe it because they *want* to.

  6. He is going to get trucked in court. At least they are suing someone from whom they can lawfully recover.

    • Lol. The plaintiffs in this case aren’t going to like the discovery phase of this process, one bit. Should be VERY interesting. If Alex really believes what he says, we will all finally get to the bottom of what happened at Sandy Hook, once and for all. Either it happened like the govt said, or it didn’t. Discovery should be very revealing.

  7. BTW: “Into Silence” or whatever it’s called, they finally succeed with a a single Rem 870, not “long barreled rifles.” Not that MSM types would know the difference. And Daddy gets killed ’cause he doesn’t want to use it but Mommy and the kids survive because she does (though the ending is open for interpretation as to the long-term viability of that). If not to piss off progs I personally wouldn’t waste my money on this movie though.

    As a tactical analysis it seems to me hunters would have been the best solution to the monster invasion. Find a way to bait ’em and then use slugs. You’ll get a lot of dead hunters to be sure, but it’s a practicle solution. The whole “they can hear you a mile away” thing is kinda bull as there are plenty of sound-insoluted rooms and buildings around in which to shelter and harbor your hunters.

    • Better yet: find a way to NEVER see that movie. It was God awful. About 30 min. in I leaned over to my GF and said I wish the critters would just murder everyone and we could leave. It was just bad.

    • No soda bottle suppressor?

      What about archery or even pole arms? There must be enough of these around to make the aliens’ life difficult. And don’t forget classics such as pit traps and dead falls (coated in excrement for the infection factor of course).

  8. Just to be clear, we can be sued for making controversial political statements? “Defamation” means that essentially there is no first amendment, though they’ll explain it differently. First and second – gone. On to the third. This one may be tricky. Does anyone have, against his consent, any quartered soldiers?

    • The first amendment doesn’t cover slander or libel. This is well documented. No, the 1A does not give you the right to say or publish whatever you want with 0 consequence. That idea is a recent, made up, left wing ideology.

      • Close. To succeed in a slander/libel case you also have to prove you suffered damage as a result of the slander/libel AND need to convince the court that the defendant KNEW their statements were false or should have known. It’s a high bar, especially for civil action.

        • I’m aware. It’s a high bar to actually achieve. I was more trying to point out what those actually are, because in my experience, many people do not realize those things aren’t protected speech. IMO, the entire liberal media could and should be sued to death by Trump.

        • In some states, cases of libel per se do not require damages to be proved. They are assumed. FWIW, this doesn’t seem to be a per se case.

      • I am aware that slander, by definition, is not protected by the first amendment. However, I was primarily referring to overuse of the term “defamation”, as it was mentioned in the article. Almost any controversial ideological belief can be considered as implied defamation. More relevant and tenable, many non-defamatory positions can be treated as defamatory. The idea is that if any legitimately first amendment protected communication is contorted properly, it can be considered defamation, therefore not protected, and therefore the first amendment would be “essentially” gone. Maybe I should have said “effectively” in my prior post. I realize that folks may advise me that the corruption in the defamation censorship industry is not that bad, but I would disagree.

        • No, you are still wide of the mark. The First Amendment protects against government censorship or limitation of speech, construed as meaning the content of the speech, as opposed to “reasonable restrictions” on time, place or manner.

          Defamation takes a number of forms, but it is a means of protection of one’s reputation. Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and must have been made to someone other than the person defamed. Spoken defamation is called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, is called libel. Truth is a defense to a claim of defamation, but the burden is on the defamer to prove truth. Defamation “per se” is a class of defamations that are presumed injurious to reputation. A false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis) or dishonesty in business are defamations per se.
          I assume that plaintiffs will argue that by calling them “crisis actors,” Jones was implying that they are liars.

        • They still have to prove that…

          1. He knew they weren’t crisis actors. (good luck)
          2. That they suffered damages as a direct result. (good luck)

          What Jones is going to do is point out that most of the material evidence that could defend his case has been destroyed by the state and he’s going to subpoena quite a few documents the anti-gunners never want to see the light of day. (Such as the autopsy reports.)

        • I don’t think the NYT standard is going to be that hard for them to meet in this case given the sheer absurdity of his rhetoric on the subject. Like any vapid conspiracy theory, it’s not hard to disprove if the audience will listen, and juries are nothing if not captive audiences. What I don’t know is what damages they are allowed to plead, since I haven’t even looked up the applicable law. Does Connecticut allow non-economic damages in defamation cases? I should just stop being lazy and look up the actual claim.

          Anywho, he’s probably going to take this one to the face pretty hard.

        • Mark N,
          Thank you for your time replying. I don’t believe that I disagree with you as far as definitions. Maybe I didn’t make that clear in my prior post. I will make an example explaining my repulsion to careless use of the word “defamation”, an example which hopefully will be rational and not of controversy. The area of disagreement, then, could be the extent to which this is actually true.
          The Bill of Rights are protections given to citizens, implying that a state would historically have motive to impinge on the citizens’ rights for the state’s own benefit.

          The second amendment, relating to arms, is a statement acknowledging that states are known for disarming citizens for the state’s own good. Some attempts to circumvent the second amendment are made by the claim that citizens have the right to life, and therefore someone who owns arms may be disarmed because of his ability to end someone else’s life. I don’t think (hopefully) that most people take this argument seriously, but the idea is that the more the line for justification of disarmament is moved from active shooter, to a man holding a rifle, to a man open carrying, to any gun owner, the more the second amendment is made ineffective.

          The first amendment, relating to the propagation of contrary beliefs, opinions, etc., is a statement acknowledging that states are known for silencing or eliminating ideological enemies, for the state’s own good. Some attempts to circumvent the first amendment could be made by the claim that citizens have the right to an uninjured reputation, and therefore someone who criticizes a popular opinion may be prosecuted for defamation because someone’s reputation was based largely on this opinion. Obviously we can still mostly criticize various ideologies, necessarily stepping on someone’s toes, without being accused of defamation. Again however, there is a line starting with the prosecution of obviously immoral defamatory acts of lying, fraud, and intentionally ridiculing an individual only for the purpose of reputation injury. The line ends with the earlier mentioned extreme example of pure disagreement contorted into defamation.

          Specific to this article, while it’s possible that Alex was defamatory, and based on his oratory style I’d say very possible, he is also known for having unpopular views. Distribution of unpopular views certainly is protected by the first amendment, yet has absolutely been falsely relabeled as defamation in many cases. The psychological conditioning happens when the public is trained, as in this example, to associate very unpopular views with actual defamation (even if not upheld in court).

          Regarding my original comment, “‘defamation’ means that there is essentially no first amendment”, I mean that unrestricted use of “defamation” to describe any dissenting thought would mean the first amendment no longer functions. I am not saying that literally any unpopular view would be likely to be found (fraudulently) defamation in court; I am saying in exaggeration that defamation could potentially be stretched to fit almost any unpopular view.

    • You’re half-right. “They” will explain it to you accurately, and that accurate explanation will differ from your flawed understandings of both the First Amendment and tort of defamation.

      • I apologize for my excessive inference. Brevity seems to draw attention.
        Was your second statement to advise me that defamation is a tort?

  9. The issue with court, is that if Jones is actually right, it’ll have to come out in court. Basically, those people will have to provide evidence that those kids were theirs, were indeed at the school, and were shot and killed by “he who shall not be named”.

    I’m hesitant of the official story, but if Jones proves his case and wins, that’s a really bad day for .gov.

      • He has a point. Then again, we’re talking about a deep cover up vs purjury. Somehow, I doubt a court would be able to exhume the truth if it really is buried under that many lies.

    • Nope, truth is a defense, and it will be up to Jones to prove that the incident never occurred. And to that I say, “good luck.” Since the records are both sealed and in another state, his lawyers will have a hell of a time getting their hands on them.

      • That’s a good possibility Jones gets the massive shaft, but I’m sure he’s got enough liquid assets to pay the fines out tenfold. All of those “magic supplements” that have been repackaged Walmart shelf stock and jacked up the price 4x. Either way it goes, it should be entertaining.

      • All his team has to do is issue a subpoena. If the documents are not produced, that’s reversible error at the very least.

  10. Requiring guns to be stored in safes only prevents the inept or lazy from accessing them. Even safes that are over 1k in price need only minor tools and minimal time to open.

    Most are made from just thin sheet metal that could easily be cut open with a saw. The fire resistant liner? It’s usually a type of drywall. This doesn’t even touch on the weakness of many of the locks.

    • Will it keep out skilled thieves? No.
      Does it keep my kids out, oh yea!

      Which do I care more about?

      • Unless they are idiots by the time they can walk you can train them to not touch. See also the stove, fire extinguisher, electric outlets etc etc etc . Same result yet you can reach your gat when you need it.

        • yep as kids we knew we would be in for a real whaling if we touched the guns without dad there and we sometimes had to go to the cupboard they were stored in for different things like brooms

  11. just ONE of the MYRIAD of reasons why some folks think sandy hook and las vegas werent “incidents” as much as they were “operations”:

    the logic being that if the us government/military industrial complex/deep state was totally ok with fabricating out of nothing a regional war in another sovereign country that had the backing of our mortal cold war enemy the soviet union that killed over a million people including tens of thousands of our own military personnel how less likely are they to balk at the idea of killing a couple hundred or so people here as long as it furthers their agenda

    not very im afraid

      • more likely than not;
        i’v seen pretty convincing material on the “hi-jacked” aircraft being nothing more than CGI;
        of course: the buildings fell ….. but….. how?
        that has never been conclusively established;
        the ‘official explanation’ of burning kerosene melting case-hardened steel frame-works is ludicrous if not absurd and, AFAIK, has never been experimentally demonstrated…..
        as to whether or not any-one actually died… maybe…but…again…. how many is ‘up-for-grabs’;
        for gun-owners, though, 9/11 was, actually, a bonus b’cs it, pretty much, smothered all talk of gun control for almost 15-odd years … certainly, during the Bush administration;

        • There are a lot of families with dead loved ones out there who would like you to go fuck yourself, Truther.

        • How about we all just admit that 9-11 was a horrible act of terrorism that was way too successful for the explanation given to us by the media?

        • Case hardened steel? What ever gave you that idea? Look, if a fire is hot enough, and many residential fires are sufficiently hot, steel will burn. Really really. It is not just the jet fuel that is burning, but anything and everything that the fuel lights up, much of which is one form of plastic or another, such as carpeting, furniture, wall coverings, ceiling tiles, etc, and is ubiquitous. But it did not need to burn to cause the collapse, it just had to be weakened. Ever watched a steel rod being heated? At some point it droops, and loses its structural strength. Same thing here.
          Concrete doesn’t burn, but it does turn to dust and water, losing any structural strength it might have provided, becoming unsupported mass.
          Add to that the fact that the entire structural integrity of the towers was its external scaffolding–there were no interior columns, unlike the Empire State Building, for example, or the Pentagon.
          So once the floors started to pancake, the additive weight of each succeeding floor increased the rate of collapse. In other words, it was only necessary for the horizontal beams on a few floors to collapse to cause the rest of the structure to fail as the connectors at each succeeding level sheared. Last but not least, both aircraft fully penetrated the buildings, thus disrupting the external support system on two of four sides.

        • those cosy little “scenarios” have all been rebutted by various experiments over-they-years;
          its all fine-and-dandy to say: this will do this and that will do that and, then, appeal to some ‘authority’, how-ever, if you can’t reproduce such scenarios in a laboratory setting albeit on a some-what smaller scale, then, more likely than not, you are fibbing

        • There are a lot of families with dead loved ones

          is there any-thing like, say, a single, solitary Life Insurance pay-out to validate that claim [?]

        • Okay, enough of this. Mandrake, could you please point out where the logical and reasonable argument falls apart? Mark has given a valid explanation. The towers were made a long time ago, with steel that was strong, only because of its size and the amount used, using dodgy practices and poor codes. At least, that’s what I’m getting from this argument. The fact remains, it is the worst coordinated attack on American soil by a foreign entity since Pearl Harbor. It’s unlikely that our government was complicit in the act, though the various agencies should be held accountable for dropping the intelligence ball so badly.

        • You f-ing wack job conspiracy theorists are an even better argument for stricter gun control than all the gang bangers and drug gangs, school shooters and serial killers combined.

        • Jet fuel may not burn hot enough to melt steel, but what about all those chemtrail mind control chemicals onboard?! Who knows what temperature THEY burn at!!!!

        • Highest praise to Huntmaster and Swarf. The conspiracy “theorists” on this board are too crazy and pathetic (and unfortunately probably dangerous) to even acknowledge anything they say, but I guess you have to, in order to reply to them.

        • mandrake the magician

          Um… you can easily cause steel to loose it’s temper with the heat of burning kerosine. Anybody who has ever studied metallurgy could tell you that. Small words… you don’t need to MELT steel to make it more fragile.

        • @mooky, doesn’t explain 3 buildings disinterestrating and falling at free speeds into their own Fottorint. Not even in the same conversation. Why are you so desperate to believe an obvious lie?

        • @swarf, right, because murdered people don’t deserve the truth about their killers to be known. That makes sense. There were more than a few 9/11 families demanding answers and not buying the BS official narrative.

        • You f-ing wack job conspiracy theorists are an even better argument for stricter gun control than all the gang bangers and drug gangs, school shooters and serial killers combined

          spoken like a true “coincidence theory” clown!

      • @ CArmy, 2 planes took down 3 steel framed buildings, collapsing into their footprints at near free fall speeds. You really are a special kind of dupe, aren’t you?

        • an even more ludicrous if not absurd ‘scenario’ when you consider that the Towers were actually designed to with-stand such an occurrence;

          • also add in the fact that only a little while before the owners had been ordered to have all the asbestos removed from the buildings which would have cost trillions and that only a week or 2 prior they had upgraded their insurance to cover “terrorist attacks” and it did get paid out on BTW despite only having upgraded such a short time prior (try getting an insurance company to pay out on a claim like that unless you have lots of money and influential people behind you) and that all the gold that had been stored in the sub levels of the towers had been removed prior to the event and it gets rather suspicious.
            the pentagon also getting hit was suspicious because it would have been basically impossible to get a plane in the way they claimed and there was no wreckage to suggest a plane but rather more a missile and that the part that was hit contained a department were records of a very questionable set of affairs that involved money disappearing from govt that should have been accounted for (billions if not trillions but this is just from memory) under highly questionable circumstances. none of that came out with all the furor over 9/11 and it had been about to hit the press

        • indeed!
          a confluence of barely-believable “coincidences”;
          the sort of un-believable ‘scenarios’ that, usually, cause real detectives to “smell-a-rat” and start a whole new line-of-inquiry;
          motive, ‘means’, opportunity ……

  12. I’m kinda’ meh about the Alex Jones thing. I’m sure those kids died but I don’t buy the timeline(or Odumo’s tears). Jones is an azzwhole for pushing it BUT they’ve made punk boy Hogg into some kind of folk hero. Soooo my sympathy for those who would enslave is GONE. Zuck is (still) a billionaire. He should spend some on a makeover…makes Bill Gates look positively spiffy😄😎😏Guns for me and none for thee peasant.

    • you have to ‘go’ where the evidence leads;
      the evidence does not support the official Sandy Hook narrative;
      all we have is, basically, a bunch of bozos on the eedjit box boo-hoo-hoo’ing; 😢
      how-ever: you are under zero legal obligations to ‘tell-the-truth’ in front of a TV camera;
      AFAIK: not one single person involved with this ‘incident’ was, even, deposed;
      apropos: the full penalties for perjury;

      • Mandrake, people died. They were murdered. Now, exactly who did the murders is uncertain, but we know that the school was demolished in record time for unknown reasons. I’m not one to say it was a complete hoax, but something isn’t right with the known facts either.

      • Mandrake, realize this forum is littered with establishment trolls. Even the general public doesn’t fall for the dubious official 9/11 narrative to the extent the trolls here pretend they do.

        • absolutely!
          IIRC, there was a ‘poll’ some years back which claimed that @ least ⅓ of US adults did not believe the official account of 9/11;
          or, rather, did not totally believe it;
          there have been other polls going back to the 1980s/1990s which claim that over ½ of US adults do not believe the official account of the JFK assassination;
          such n°s are, quite clearly, un-sustainable for TPTB;
          ergo: the popularity of Mr Alex Jones et al

  13. Zuckerbastard khyboshed the Sandy Hook Hoax FaceFARCE pg;
    it had almost 20K ‘subscribers’ and reams and reams of info’ on the many anomalies and inconsistencies surrounding that decidedly ‘dodgy’ incident including heaps of material from Mr Wolfgang Halbig;
    i guess that tells you that TPTB are worried……
    these days, you gotta ‘back up’ yr (controvesial) social media on multiple platforms..
    like, for instance, vk(dot)com and MeWe;

  14. You watch that video of Robbie Parker laughing and then getting into character to seem all heartbroken. If you think that isn’t suspicious, then you’ll believe anything.

  15. That’s a strange looking VA CWP. Does the layout vary by county? Mine has no photo and states that it must be accompanied by a valid photo ID.

    • Ditto for my Virginia resident concealed handgun permit – no photo. And although the permits are issued by counties, I believe the format is uniform throughout the commonwealth. Virginia non-resident CHPs, on the other hand, do have photos. They are issued by the state police. Virginia has reciprocity for its CHPs with many states, but not all. When I went to Wisconsin to visit family, I learned that state would not accept a VA resident CHP because it had no photo, whereas it would accept the VA non-resident CHP because it did have a photo. Go figure.

      As to Pennsylvania cutting its reciprocity for accepting Virginia CHPs, I guess that would be a good reason not to go up there. For my purposes, that means no more antiquing in the south central part of the state, and no more trips to Gettysburg, which I really enjoy. But I can find plenty of antiques and battlefields in Virginia, too, and not have to disarm to travel through the People’s Socialist Republic of Maryland.

  16. Alex Jones being sued for something he said? Wow, nobody saw that coming. (sarcasm)
    For what it’s worth, I think people did die at Sandy Hook. However, something is also suspicious about the shooting.

  17. while i wont say people did not die in any of these incidents (cos they did) i do however defer judgment on the official story which in the case of every single mass shooting there are so many holes in the official story you could drive a battalion of tanks through them. this includes every mass shooting here in australia and in the US. the guy that “supposedly” committed port arthur is still in jail yet most here in australia are out in 5 years for multiple murders yet he has an IQ of 65 was supposed to have sent the local cops on a wild goose chase for a “drug bust” which turned out to be washing powder, there just so happened to be not one but 2 major conferences on nearby that were just finishing one being a major worldwide media conference and the other a mass casualty trauma event for doctors and nurses from around australia and only a week before they had obtained a morgue van capable of over 20 bodies which had never been needed prior to this nor since (in fact the current one has the same capacity as what they had had previously for 4 bodies and that is all that has been required since or previously). this was sold as soon as howard got his NFA that we have to live with now through.

    and these are just a small example of the inconsistencies in the port arthur case. if you would like further i will be happy to oblige.

    the fact is that govt has right through many centuries proven that they are quite willing to stoop to any measures to get what they want and the power they want. it is our duty as patriots to stand against them and call them to account no matter how minor the infraction

    • Yes, the official narrative is often wrong. Most recently exposed was the Pulse night club shooting. According to the police, the FBI, and the media, Mateen was a closet homosexual who, faced with the contradiction between his Muslim beliefs (which prohibit homosexuality) and his latent desires, he set out to kill as many gays as possible. There were reports that he was a regular at the club, that he had a homosexual lover, and so on.
      The trial of his wife revealed that the entire scenario was a lie. Mateen was not a homosexual (as far as anyone could tell) and not homophobic, either. There is NO evidence that he’d ever been at the Pulse, but instead, as was reported by security, asked where all the girls were. He was an internet convert to ISIS, and this was a lone wolf terrorist attack. His original target was Disney World, but its security was too tight. So he drove around and picked the Pulse at random because security was slim and the place was full of people.
      But a successful terrorist attack on US soil, especially by the son of an FBI informant, just did not fit the proscribed narrative. It would have made the FBI look bad–and that is probably why they went after Mrs. Mateen with such vigor. Simply stated, the Fibbies tried to railroad Mrs. Mateen as a scapegoat for their own incompetence.

      So what happened, exactly, at Sandy Hook? I think it is irrefutable that a bunch of kids were murdered, and some staff as well. Why we don’t get the full story is unknown, but it could be something as simple as that the wounds suffered–and all of the scene pictures–are simply too horrific, and revealing them would cause undue agony to the grieving parents.

      • Let’s not forget, the FBI is utterly incompetent. They failed to put away the wife on any charges. Not to mention, how they somehow missed Cruze despite over 30 calls to the police.

        • that’s not good enough;
          you need a major paradigm shift to cut-the-feet from under the gun-grabbers;
          the best strategy is to start questioning the very ‘validity’ of the incidents them-selfs;
          the fed(dot)gov and the various state governments need to be forced to hold a series of official inquiries….
          before any legislative action is even contemplated;
          beginning with a Coronial Inquest or Grand Jury hearing, followed by a trial and appeals process (if the alleged perp'[s] is/are still alive), followed by either a state and/or a federal senatorial-type inquiry to further assess all the available evidence after the legal formalities have concluded;
          taking peoples’ Constitutional rights from them on the basis of knee-jerk political reaction(s) is no longer acceptable ….
          @ the very least, there must be lengthy inquiries lasting a year or more…..

    • yes it is a page i have followed for some time. also about 6-7 years before port arthur there was a failed attempt at state level gun control by then premier Barry Unsworth after which he stated “there will be no common sense gun control in australia until there is a massacre in Tasmania”. Yes those were his exact words 6-7 years before

      • And the whole government response had been prepared by a federal government bureaucrat a few years before as well.

      • Sounds familiar…..The Patriot Act….written years before 9/11, waiting for PNACs new Pearl Harbor…..

  18. Alex is chasing the wrong shooting….Vegas is the conspiracy.

    I think he can say anything he wants.

  19. Great movie review. \sarc How’s that circulation Times?

    Jones is a blowhard but there’s definitely a coordinated attack going on. This is like the 10th lawsuit in the past few months. He’s been doing his shtick exactly the same way since the early 90’s so why now?

  20. “No such thing as bad publicity as long as they spell your name correctly”. Said someone long ago.

  21. Watched “A Quiet Place”. Excellent movie, with great technical elements. They don’t really make any statement about guns, except that yes they use them as a last resort (because the aliens are pretty much bulletproof). Also, the gun (singular, because there’s only one in the whole damn movie) is a shotgun, not a rifle. Not that it matters to the New Yorker.

  22. ** * * * APRIL 18 , 1775 …… Paul Reveres Ride On This Day In History !”
    Listen, my children, and you shall hear Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
    On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-Five: Hardly a man is now alive
    Who remembers that famous day and year.
    He said to his friend, “If the British march — By land or sea from the town to-night, — Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry-arch Of the North-Church-tower, as a signal-light,–
    One if by land, and two if by sea; — And I on the opposite shore will be,
    Ready to ride and spread the alarm….Through every Middlesex village and farm,

    …For the country-folk to be up and to arm.”

  23. I have had the misfortune (good luck?) to be on the spot at 4 news events. As in, right next to the camerman. What I saw the next day on the news bore almost NO resemblance to what I saw IN PERSON!
    Witnesses lie to the cops.
    Cops lie to the reporters.
    Reporters lie to their editors.
    Editors lie to us.
    We lie to each other.
    With no hard truths to be had, ANY STORY HAS EQUAL VALUE!
    If you only take the top level of the story, and throw out all the rest, you might at least know what you don’t know.
    I believe some kids got shot at Sandy Hook.
    I believe some kids got shot at Parkland.
    I believe JFK is dead.
    I don’t know any details on the stories above because I wasn’t there, and EVERYBODY LIES!
    They lie to make themselves look good or feel better.
    They lie because the truth doesn’t fit the narrative they want to tell.
    They lie because their boss told them what the story has to say, and they like their job.
    They lie because their mind has filled in things they didn’t actually see, to fit what they already believe, and they don’t even know they lied.
    Almost nothing you see on the news is the truth! I’m not pushing any conspiracy theories, but I know from personal experience the truth is more elusive than you can imagine.

    • that’s why we have court cases where evidence can be tested via X-examination ON OATH;
      and why “eye-witness testimony” is not given across-the-board credibility unless and until it is backed up by hard, forensic evidence;
      even then: some forensic evidence can be and is disputed requiring further investigation via independent laboratories;
      the truth is, indeed, elusive…. some-times harder to ‘nail down’ than a big lump of jello;
      hence, Pontius Pilate: what is truth?

Comments are closed.