America's Downfall: the Sandy Hook Hoax Has Lasted Ten Years This Week

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

Ten years ago on December 14, 2012, the FBI, or some other part of the US government played a trick on the American people. They put out a story that 20 children were shot by 20-year-old Adam Lanza. No kid actually got shot, so that is a happy fact, but it's not a happy fact that folks can be so easily misled.

Recently we have learned that the US government, over many years, regularly tricked the American people in regard to wars and issues of health. Some honest Americans have recorded the details of these deceitful projects, yet the general public seems unwilling to respond to the exposes. In fact the exposers are considered to be bad people!

In this article I'll refer to some of the evidence that the Sandy Hook massacre is fictional. But what we need more than proving that, is a study of what has happened to the human mind. Maybe it is some combination of the following:

1. Emotionally, one finds it so hard to accept that one's nation does bad things, that this truth has to be kept out of consciousness.

2. The media has such control of culture that anything they print is taken to be "reality" and nothing can overcome that.

3. The CIA's invention of the pejorative term "conspiracy theorist" has worked wonders. As soon as a truth-teller comes forward, he can be called by that term, and this lets others think of him as having mental problems. "He's peculiar. Ignore him."

4. Everybody is super-busy these days, and it's burdensome to have to take in the remarks being made by the truth-tellers. It's easier to accept the lies.

5. People are afraid of being punished if they side with the truth-tellers. The've heard many stories of dissidents getting bumped off or losing their wealth. "Best to keep my head down."

6. The intellectual capacity of the average American is much lower than it used to be. People are not stressed by conflicting reports of events. It all seems fine, "no problem."

The Downfall

The title of this article claims that now that 10 years have passed without folks waking up and protesting the lies about Sandy Hook, we may as well declare that America has fallen.

I would judge America's international reputation to be very bad (it was once superb), and local patriotic pride to be at a low ebb.

The love of truth, as an end in itself, is never spoken of anymore. It used to be a main ideal both in religious/moral terms and as a social trait. People talked about being willing to die for truth. Nowadays it would be embarrassing to say that.

Science will have to shut down. Science's accurate, truthful observation of phenomena is what made it succeed. Why not say the temperature at which water freezes is 41 instead of 32. Who cares?

We also won't be able to teach school children how to reason, how to make logical deductions, or how to examine a problem without catering to one's emotions. Emotions will rule the roost.

The ideal of impartiality in a courtroom will have to disappear. The new style is to say whatever you feel like saying, and perjuring won't even garner a reprimand. Even within a formal statement you can make conflicting remarks and that won't cause the statement to be ruled out.

Without a firm social value of truth, you can't place reliance on a business contract or even a personal relationship, as promises need to be remembered and kept. Promises can be abandoned if it's now acceptable to lie -- you can rewrite history.

Presumably if you tell your 8-year-old daughter today that George Washington said "Father, I cannot tell a lie -- I chopped down the cherry tree," she may ask if you've gone off your meds.

People who do insist on truth are now punishable, openly as well as secretly. Their writings, deemed mis-informational or anti-social, can be wiped from the record and the writer can be found guilty of sedition, terrorism, or practically anything.

Sandy Hook Must Take the Blame

Of course it's going too far for me to say that ten years' worth of a Sandy Hook hoax are tantamount to the downfall of America. Many things have brought about our downfall. But I wouldn't have thought a visibly false story could be supported, or at least tolerated by the inhabitants of a city in contemporary America, for a full decade.

Not that there aren't some Sandy Hook truthtellers. I'll mention three. One who got killed. One who got fired. One who has been under (I'm guessing) a sort of personal house arrest.

The one who got killed is William Brandon Shanley. He sued the media, and Rupert Murdoch, for spreading the lie about a massacre. Not only was he angry, he was a resident of Connecticut.

The one who got fired is James Tracy a professor of media studies in Florida. The case against him, which was First Amendment defensible, was twisted to reflect some other behavior. (Like smoking in the campus' no-smoking zone, or whatever.)

Both of those cases left the public with the impression that you can't mount a legal case based on truth.

The third case is that of a local. I will leave her name out. Initials: MC. She has stated in writing that when she realized the massacre was a hoax she went to speak to the bishop. That seems like a very reasonable and proper thing for a Catholic to do, but he called the police on her!

The number of truthtellers is not as small as three, but when there are millions supporting the lie, even 50 truthtellers would have a hard time speaking. Folks instinctively go with the flow.

Some Absurdities Claimed in the Sandy Hook Hoax

I have written a 212-page book entitled "Unreality: Sandy Hook Messes Minds." I won't attempt to summarize it here. Instead, I will pick out 6 absurdities in the story, as my way of asking "How could listeners not develop a skeptical feeling when they heard these items?"

1. The gunman, for whom there is no photographic or audio evidence, is said to have killed his mom in her bed, on the morning of the school massacre. No enmity between son and mother had ever been noticed by anyone. This killing is ridiculous -- you should majorly doubt it.

2. Although it's never admitted that Homeland Security was running a drill at Sandy Hook on December 14, 2012, the town bosses think it's no problem that an electronic sign, visible at the scene of the crime, says "Everyone must sign in." That sign is proof of Homeland Security involvement, isn't it?

3. There is a photo of kids in the parking lot (age maybe 8), forming a conga line. They are required to keep eyes closed so they won't see anything, when there is nothing to see in the parking lot anyway. Amazingly, there are no adults panicking in that photo -- on such a day!

4. There is an affidavit signed by policewoman Rachael van Ness, that her job that day included preventing parents from grabbing their children as they escaped from the school. Can you imagine anything as absurd as that? Officer van Ness must have been ordered to tell that lie.

5. Some families got their GoFundMe page up and running on the very day of their tragic loss. Come on, we know a bereaved parent would never do that, or condone someone else doing it.

6. In the official story, the parents never viewed the body of their deceased 6-year-old. Identification was done by photograph (whatever that means). We know that even a maternal monkey clings to her infant's body after it dies. No one should have accepted this absurd lie.

Giveaways in the Court Cases

No one has yet been sued or prosecuted directly for the crime of purveying the Sandy Hook hoax as a real event. But various actions have occurred in courtrooms, where blatant deviation from the judicial norm is quite telling. I'll give 6 examples.

1. James Tracy, as mentioned, was prevented from using the standard defense against his firing, namely, that he has a right to free speech. (Clearly he was fired because he blogged critically about Sandy Hook. And why is it wrong to raise criticism? If the massacre was real there would be no need to discipline Prof Tracy.)

2. A few of the parents successfully sued the homeowners' insurance company of Mom Lanza's house, in regard to it being the storage space for Adam's guns. Why did not all 20 families join?

3. A woman hospitalized for mental illness in Florida, Lucy Richards, was convicted of harassing the family of deceased child Noah Pozner. She was sent to jail for 6 months. Did she really haunt the Pozners? Does a mentally ill person really read a conspiracy theory and feel so righteous that she must punish the liars? Didn't the federal judge have doubts?

4. Despite being maliciously arrested in Florida, truthteller Wolfgang Halbig has been unable to get fulfillment of the many Freedom of Information requests he has sent to the government of Connecticut, which he could use to defend himself. He cannot pry out of them an answer to such a neutral question as: Had the Sandy Hook school building been condemned for asbestos?

5. Truthteller Jim Fetzer, a retired professor of philosophy no less, was sued by Leonard Pozner in a defamation case, for having, in effect, called Dad Pozner a liar by saying the death certificate he presented for Son Noah is inauthentic. If the defaming remark you make is true, the plaintiff cannot win. So Prof Fetzer must be given a chance to show that his "insult" to Dad is in fact true -- the death certificate is inauthentic. Two forensic experts agreed in affidavits. The Wisconsin judge, however, did not allow Discovery and made a summary judgement: Fetzer to pay $650,000 for defaming Pozner. The state appeals court then declined to rule.

6. When Virginia Soto and eight others sued Bushmaster Gun, manufactured by Remington Arms, Remington went into bankruptcy before even trying to get the case thrown out. Instead, it could easily have argued that Adam Lanza carried four guns that day, why blame Bushmaster? Their lawyer also kowtowed to the state's declaring the children's school records confidential.

The End of Our Judicial System

These six instances of funny business in court show that there's a huge problem. I believe each of the judges knew that he or she was supposed to follow the party line. Trying to make justice happen was not even a consideration. They all had to "get around it" somehow.

So why have courts? The old USSR had show trials like this, so the Soviet public could be educated as to what will happen to them if they cause trouble. I believe if you submitted my six sample cases to a panel of law-trained Americans who weren't under any pressure to come up with the "desired" result, they would have ruled as follows:

1. Tracy is owed back pay and reinstatement, as the firing was a breach of First Amendment rights.

2. The parents of all 20 children could be invited to join the suit against homeowners insurance. (By the way, 6 adults were also allegedly killed at the massacre; their families were equally entitled to any damages.)

3. It is unlikely that Lucy Richards did not commit the crime of harassing the Pozner family at all. The judge should have required good proof. (Note: the story of her arrest may itself be a hoax.)

4. Halbig should be provided with the means of obtaining information in accordance with the FOI Act of Connecticut. (The criminal case against him was dropped however, so "Discovery" is not available now.)

5. There is no question that the district judge should have let Fetzer defend himself, and the Wisconsin appeals court should have listened to Fetzer's plea. (He also tried the US Supreme Court, unavailingly. How's that for a shock? And you won't see it in the media.)

6. The agreement by Defendant Remington/Bushmaster, to let the children's birth, death, and school records be sealed, is a perfect giveaway of collusion between the Parties. Remington had no stake in closing those records -- rather the opposite.

What This Downfall Portends

I ask you to face the gravity of the situation. There is no justice system in America now. The persons who hold judicial-related jobs are acting in malfeasance, if not in plain old crime.

Unless you do something about this Sandy Hook matter -- which is very simple and indeed contains the happy news that no gunman entered that school -- you are lost.

We could call a grand jury to investigate each of the judges referred to above. And maybe that Catholic bishop, too. Judges and bishops hold a special sacred role in society and if we find them doing wrong, we'd be crazy to accept it as part of "corruption."

It is not part of corruption or personal selfishness of the judge or bishop. It is a whole different ball game, in which such persons get their appointment on the basis of having passed a test. The test is: will you obey instructions coming from the bad guys or will you be influenced by truth? If the latter, he/she won't get the job.

We really need to stop propping up such a wicked system. Take a few minutes out of your super-busy day to notice that if you prop up such a system, by your nodding to, say, a hoax about a school massacre, it will boomerang on you.

The entire apparatus of government will become wicked and you will be powerless to act. Poor you!

Fight it now, People. Pluck up your courage to say "A hoax is a hoax and it's not OK to hoax us."