Thank you for visiting. My thoughts & Feelings are my Own.

Here I will share my feelings about America and her Future.

Let it be known to all the World, I love all Humankind, however the poor actions of the few that take away the Freedom's of the many wear on my soul. I don't hate them I feel sad for their foolishness before God and humankind.

Those leaders who seek to 'Keep their Oaths of office' and those who seek only self glory, power, tyranny and the destruction of America as it was founded, hoping to turn it into a Dictatorship, Marxist or other state of Tyranny.

For a long while I was unsure of putting a blog together with my thoughts on this, however Truth must be shared, if not to Awake American's to their dangerous situation then to record the folly of the ways of the wicked who do exist in the leadership of our Nation, States, Counties, Towns. Sad that I must add this page.

"We often search for things in life, yet seldom do we find.

Those things in life that really matter, until we make the time." S.T.Huls

God Bless the Republic of America!

We have Got To Stand Up!!

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Oak Harbor City, Washington Mayor Scott Dudley Stands for his oath of office and 2nd Amendment

Oak Harbor City, Washington State

City councilman walks out after trying to pass a resolution to remove a Veteran who he asked if he was armed. The Vet. is CCW permit and legal carry. Resolution failed. Mayor Scott Dudley then explains and defends the oaths of office He took, and that council members take, and that their job was not to infringe upon these rights but to protect them.

This is worth watching.

Utah Governor Gary Herbert and State’s Rights - Will he stand against Non Constitutional Federal Law? maybe not?

Utah Governor Gary Herbert and State’s Rights

 Information from: Government Principles

Utah Governor Gary Herbert and State’s Rights

It’s frustrating, every day I pick up the paper or watch the news, I am confronted with some “elected” government official who labels them-self as a fairly conservative republican.  In this case, Utah’s governor Gary Herbert, who is reported on the news as obeying any “federal” law passed by Congress concerning gun laws.  I have in just the past few weeks posted an article addressing federal laws and their applicability or force within the boarder of the individual States.  For the benefit of Governor Herbert, I will post it again.  Maybe some one can direct this to him so he can be brought up to speed.  So to repeat . . . . . . .
Remember, that federal law is “territorial” and the legislative jurisdiction of the Federal Government is limited to strictly defined areas, Article I, Section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution.  “In principle, the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States (federal government) is not addressed to subject matter, but to specific geographical locations.” See U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat) 336 (1818).  Only with the consent of the States, does that jurisdiction enter in to the territory of the individual States.  To quote from clause 17 of section 8, Article I; “. . .  to exercise like Authority (exclusive legislation) over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State . . . .”
This concept of territorial jurisdiction received added clarity by a Supreme Court decision, U.S. v Lopez, (No. 93-1260) decided April 26, 1995. The decision was given by Chief Justice Rehnquist as the case centered around the abuse of Congressional authority in relationship to the Commerce Clause contained in the Constitution. The central theme conveyed by this decision was that there are limits to Congressional authority. Justice Thomas treats this concept even more in quoting from a 1992 decision (New York v United States, 505 U.S. 144) delivered by Justice O’Connor: “‘No one disputes the proposition that the Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers’ (cited quotes omitted).  It must necessarily be so, because the United States (government) has no claim to any authority but such as the States have surrendered to them.’ . . . Indeed, on this crucial point, the majority and Justice Breyer agree in principle: the Federal Government has nothing approaching a police power.” Continuing, Justice Thomas makes clear that: “. . . Congress has plenary power over the District of Columbia and the territories. The grant of comprehensive legislative power over certain areas of the Nation, when read in conjunction with the rest of the Constitution, further confirms that Congress was not ceded plenary authority over the whole Nation.”  A lot more could be said on territorial jurisdiction, but this should suffice.
“It follows from this review of the clause, that the states cannot take cognizance of any acts done in the ceded places after the cession; and, on the other hand, the inhabitants of those places cease to be inhabitants of the state, and can no longer exercise any civil or political rights under the laws of the state. But if there has been no cession by the state of the place, although it has been constantly occupied and used, under purchase, or otherwise, by the United States for a fort, arsenal, or other constitutional purpose, the state jurisdiction still remains complete and perfect.”  Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 3:§§ 1212–22; 1833  § 1222.
Within their boarders, the States are supreme authority guided by the U.S. Constitution, which is applicable to them also (Amendment X) and the laws of the Federal Government made “in pursuant” to the Constitution.  At present there is no language in the Constitution which directs the Federal Government to regulate the type of guns that individuals may own or how many bullets the gun can hold.  I would suppose that if an individual wanted to and could afford it, they could buy a tank.  Where the Constitution is silent the federal government is prohibited in entering.
In U.S. v. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 11, the Court declared:  “It cannot be denied that the power of the state to protect the lives, health and property of its citizens and to preserve good order and the public morals, the power to govern men and things within the limits of its dominion, is a power originally and always belonging to the state, not surrendered to the general [federal] Government, nor directly restrained by the Constitution of the United States, and essentially exclusive.”
“The consent requirement of Article I, section 8, clause 17 was intended by the framers of the Constitution to preserve the State’s jurisdictional integrity against federal encroachment. The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State,”
The law’s of Congress in respect to those matters (outside of Constitutionally delegated powers) do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government. (Caha v US, 152 U.S. 211) Constitutional restrictions and limitations were not applicable to the area of lands, enclaves, territories and possessions over which Congress had exclusive legislative authority. (Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244)
State jurisdiction encompasses the legislative power to regulate, control and govern individuals, enterprises. real and personal property’ within the boundaries of a given State. Federal jurisdiction, by contrast, is extremely limited and can be exercised only in areas external to the sovereign States unless, and until, a State has ceded a portion of its jurisdiction to the federal government.
The legal effect of the Declaration of Independence was to make each newly created State a separate and independent sovereign over which there was no other government, superior power or jurisdiction.”   (M’ilvaine v Coxe’s Lessee, 8 US 209)
(Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States: Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, Part II. at 46.)
The governors, State legislatures, sheriffs, etc., have every right and authority to protect the citizens.  As has been said time and time again, the Federal Government has no police powers within the States.  This principle applies to ALL federal legislation.  Mr. Obama and the Democratic Socialist Party can pass all the laws they want, but only about 95% will apply to the States.   And then only to “federal” areas ceded by the States.  So Governor Herbert, breath easy, and tell the Obama regime where to put it!  We do have and support the Constitution, which as governor, you were sworn to uphold.
Added note, some one remind the Democratic Socialist Sen. Dianne Feinstein that the Second Amendment was not just for sportsmen.  It was put there to protect Americans from the tyranny of individuals, like Senator Feinstein, who want to force communism on us.  I will be working on a post that will demonstrate what the future holds for this land if it continues on the path it now travels.

Editorial by Loral Glazier
Reposted 01/25/2013

Communists Cheer On Obama’s Gun Grab

Communists Cheer On Obama’s Gun Grab

Communists Cheer On Obama’s Gun Grab

William F. Jasper
New American
Jan 25, 2013
It should come as no surprise that the Communist Party USA is on board with President Obama’s plan to attack Americans’ right to keep and bear arms as a means to “end gun violence.” A cardinal feature of communist regimes, like all dictatorships, is the prohibition of private ownership of arms, creating a monopoly of force in the hands of the State.
In a January 18 article, People’s World, an official publication of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), declared that “the ability to live free from the fear or threat of gun violence is a fundamental democratic right — one that far supercedes any so-called personal gun rights allegedly contained in the Second Amendment.”
The article, entitled, “Fight to end gun violence is key to defending democracy,” written by People’s World labor and politics reporter Rick Nagin, claims that “the right-wing extremists opposing all efforts to curb gun violence are the same forces that rallied behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, hoping to undermine every other democratic right as well as the living standards of workers and ordinary Americans.”
“It is for that reason,” declares Nagin, “as well as the need to protect public safety, that the same coalition of labor and its allies that worked so hard and effectively to re-elect President Barack Obama must now go all-out to back his common sense proposals for gun law reform.”
The Communist Party’s “journalist” continued:
As Obama has charged, the extremists recklessly “gin up fear” that the government is coming to take away hunting rifles and personal weapons owned for legitimate self-defense. Led by the hate-mongering leadership of the National Rifle Association, they use a totally fraudulent and only very recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which they falsely claim as necessary for protecting every other freedom contained in the Bill of Rights.
However, gun rights advocates don’t need to “gin up fear” that President Obama’s “common sense” proposals will lead to even more onerous infringements than the current calls to ban or restrict so-called “assault weapons”; the gun control zealots have been quite emphatic about intending to severely restrict (and many have called for a total ban on) all privately owned firearms. A December 21 article for the Daily Kos is one of the candid admissions against interest by the Left that the real end goal is a total monopoly of gun ownership by the government. Entitled, “How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process,” the regular Daily Kos writer “Sporks” says:
The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.
The writer then outlines the piecemeal plan by which the federal government can begin with registration and end up with confiscation. The Daily Kos article also cites the need to delegitimize hunting as well. “We should also segway [sic] into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK,” it says. “By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the transition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us.”
Nagin surely must know that it is not merely groundless paranoia exploited by “extremists” inspiring fear that President Obama’s multi-part gun control plan is but the opening wedge in a new drive for ever-expanding federal restrictions and infringements of the Second Amendment. And Nagin surely is aware that his comrades ruling China, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, and other communist countries have never stopped at partial restrictions on private ownership of weapons.
As The New American reported recently, Communist China’s ruling mandarins, sounding very much like our own media commentators, have blasted the United States for our “rampant gun ownership.” A Chinese government report last year detailing alleged human rights violations in the United States declares:
The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens’ lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership.
More recently, on December 14, 2012, the Beijing regime’s Xinhua news agency editorialized:
Twenty-eight innocent people, including 20 primary students, have been slaughtered in a mass shooting at an elementary school in the U.S. state of Connecticut. Their blood and tears demand no delay for the U.S. gun control.
“Action speaks louder than words,” concluded the Xinhua editorial. “If Obama wants to take practical measures to control guns, he has to make preparation for a protracted war and considerable political cost.”
Communist China, of course, is no paragon of virtue when it comes to liberty, safety, and human rights. Its total ban on private ownership of guns under Mao Tse-tung (Zedong) guaranteed that the Communist Party would have unchallenged power. And, as Professor R. J. Rummel has pointed out in his several published studies on democide (mass murder by governments): Power kills and absolute power kills absolutely. In the case of Communist China, the mass murder by the communist government under Mao was somewhere in the neighborhood of 38 million souls!
And China remains a rigidly controlled police state to this day, notwithstanding the limited market reforms that the Party has allowed for pragmatic purposes to obtain the capital and technology it needs to modernize. Only Party officials and the police and military (who must be members of, and be vetted by, the Communist Party) are allowed to possess weapons.
Mao’s comrades in Russia, Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin, likewise disarmed the civilian population before initiating mass murder. As did Adolf Hitler and every other “successful” mass-murdering tyrant throughout history. Vladimir Gladkov, a radio propagandist on Vladimir Putin’s “Voice of Russia” program, expressed disappointment on December 20 that the Sandy Hook mass shooting probably would not generate the support President Obama needs to implement his desired gun controls. “Unfortunately, there are grounds for very serious doubt that even after this terrible massacre, a ban on selling weapons will be introduced in the US,” said Gladkov.
Again, considering that rigid, absolute, centralized power is the essence of all totalitarian regimes, those regimes must, therefore, automatically strike down all checks and balances that would limit their central authority. It is not surprising that spokesmen for these totalitarian governments would endorse policies that give the government a monopoly on deadly force.
The American Founding Fathers, on the other hand, recognized that the armed private citizen is the ultimate check and balance against the centralized monopoly of force which invariably turns tyrannical and deadly. Nagin and People’s World, not surprisingly, side with communist tyrants and deride American commitment to our natural rights enshrined in our Constitution.
“The Second Amendment is obsolete and now has been twisted to threaten the basic safety and security of all Americans,” says Nagin. Nagin, according to the profile provided on Keywiki by Trevor Loudon, has been a member of the CPUSA for several decades and a writer for the People’s World and other communist publications since 1970. He is a member of the Newspaper Guild and the Communications Workers of America as well as a political coordinator for the AFL-CIO in Ohio. In 2012 he was the Democratic Leader in Cleveland Ward 14 and served on the County Democratic Party Executive Committee.
We recognize the totalitarian ideology and objectives of Nagin and other communist propagandists when they advocate disarming of civilians and a total monopoly of force in government. Many of the other people advocating the same gun control policies may not have those totalitarian objectives in mind — but by their support of these policies they would lead us down the same deadly path nonetheless.
See more important reports at

Friday, January 25, 2013

Obama Forcing Military litmus test, will you fire on American Citizens? if you say no, then your replaced with someone who will.

‘Graffiti’ Scrawled All Over the New World Trade Center — But It’s Not What You Think

‘Graffiti’ Scrawled All Over the New World Trade Center — But It’s Not What You Think

NEW YORK (AP) — On most construction projects, workers are discouraged from signing or otherwise scrawling on the iron and concrete. At the skyscraper rising at ground zero, though, they’re being invited to leave messages for the ages.
“Freedom Forever. WTC 9/11″ is scrawled on a beam near the top of the gleaming, 104-story One World Trade Center. “Change is from within” is on a beam on the roof. Another reads: “God Bless the workers & inhabitants of this bldg.”
One of the last pieces of steel hoisted up last year sits near a precarious edge. The message on it reads: “We remember. We rebuild. We come back stronger!” It is signed by a visitor to the site last year – President Barack Obama.
The words on beams, walls and stairwells of the skyscraper that replaces the twin towers lost on Sept. 11, 2001, form the graffiti of defiance and rebirth, what ironworker supervisor Kevin Murphy calls “things from the heart.” They’re remembrances of the 2,700 people who died, and testaments to the hope that rose from a shattered morning.

WTC 'Graffiti'

  • Mark Lennihan/APIronworkers James Brady, left, and Billy Geoghan release the cables from a steel beam after connecting it on the 104th floor of 1 World Trade Center, Thursday, Aug. 2, 2012 in New York. The beam was signed by President Barack Obama with the notes: "We remember," ''We rebuild" and "We come back stronger!" during a ceremony at the construction site June 14. Since then the beam has been adorned with the autographs of workers and police officers at the site. The beam will be sealed into the structure of the tower, which is scheduled for completion in 2014.
  • Mark Lennihan/APIn this Thursday, Aug. 2, 2012 photo, ironworkers James Brady, left, and Billy Geoghan release the cables from a steel beam after connecting it on the 104th floor of 1 World Trade Center, in New York. U.S. employers added 163,000 jobs in July, a hopeful sign after three months of sluggish hiring. The Labor Department said Friday, Aug. 3, 2012, that the unemployment rate rose to 8.3 percent from 8.2 percent in June. July's hiring was the best since February. Still, the economy has added an average of 151,000 jobs a month this year, roughly the same as last year's pace. That's not enough to satisfy the 12.8 million Americans who are unemployed.
  • Mark Lennihan/APThis Jan. 15, 2013 photo shows drawing of a car on the 104th floor of One World Trade Center in New York. Construction workers finishing New York's tallest building at the World Trade Center are leaving their personal marks on the concrete and steel in the form of graffiti.
  • Mark Lennihan/APThis Jan. 15, 2013 photo shows Spanish graffiti left by a worker on a steel column on the 104th floor of One World Trade Center in New York. Construction workers finishing New York's tallest building at the World Trade Center are leaving their personal marks on the concrete and steel in the form of graffiti.
  • Mark Lennihan/APIn this Jan. 15, 2013 photo, Antony," left his graffiti on a steel column on the 102nd floor of One World Trade Center in New York. Workers finishing New York's tallest building at the World Trade Center are leaving their personal marks on the concrete and steel in the form of graffiti.
  • Mark Lennihan/APThis Jan. 15, 2013 photo shows graffiti left by Michael Chertoff, the former director of Homeland Security, on a steel column on the 104th floor of One World Trade Center in New York. Construction workers finishing New York's tallest building at the World Trade Center are leaving their personal marks on the concrete and steel in the form of graffiti.
  • Mark Lennihan/APFILE- In this Aug. 2, 2012 file photo, a construction worker signs a ceremonial steel beam at One World Trade Center in New York. The beam was signed by President Barack Obama with the notes: "We remember," ''We rebuild" and "We come back stronger!" during a ceremony at the construction site June 14. The beam, having since adorned with the autographs of workers and police officers at the site, will be sealed into the structure of the tower, which is scheduled for completion in 2014.
  • Mark Lennihan/APThis Jan. 15, 2013 photo shows graffiti left by visitors to the World Trade Center on a steel column on the 104th floor of One World Trade Center in New York. Construction workers finishing New York's tallest building at the World Trade Center are leaving their personal marks on the concrete and steel in the form of graffiti.
  • Mark Lennihan/APIn this Jan. 15, 2013 photo, autographs cover a wall on a top floor of One World Trade Center in New York. Construction workers finishing New York's tallest building at the World Trade Center are leaving their personal marks on the concrete and steel in the form of graffiti.
  • Mark Lennihan/APThis Jan. 15, 2013 photo shows graffiti left by workers on a steel column on the 104th floor of One World Trade Center in New York. Construction workers finishing New York's tallest building at the World Trade Center are leaving their personal marks on the concrete and steel in the form of graffiti.
  • Mark Lennihan/APThis Jan. 15, 2013 photo shows a tribute in graffiti to Lilian Fredricks that a construction worker left on a steel column on the 104th floor of One World Trade Center in New York. Fredericks was killed in the 2001 terror attacks. Workers finishing New York's tallest building at the World Trade Center are leaving their personal marks on the concrete and steel in the form of graffiti.
“This is not just any construction site, this is a special place for these guys,” says Murphy of the 1,000 men and some women who work in the building at any given time, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
“Everyone here wants to be here, they want to put this building up,” Murphy says. “They’re part of the redemption.”

On a frigid, windy winter day, with the 9/11 memorial fountain straight below and the Statue of Liberty in the distance, Murphy supervised a crew of men guiding the first piece of the steel spire that will top out the building at a dizzying 1,776 feet – the tallest in the Western Hemisphere.
In the rooftop iron scaffolding for the spire, 105 floors up, a beam pays homage to Lillian Frederick, a 46-year-old administrative assistant who died on the 105th floor of the south tower, pierced by a terrorist-hijacked airliner.

A popular Spanish phrase is penned next to two names on one concrete pillar: “Te Amo Tres Metros Sobre el Cielo,” meaning, “I love you three steps above heaven.”
Some beams are almost completely covered in a spaghetti-like jumble of doodled hearts and flowers, loopy cursives and blaring capitals. Many want to simply mark their presence: “Henry Wynn/Plumbers Local (hash)1/Sheepshead Bay/Never Forget!”
Families of victims invited to go up left names and comments too, as did firefighters and police officers who were first responders. “R.I.P. Fanny Espinoza, 9-11-01″ reads a typical remembrance signed by several family members of a Cantor-Fitzgerald employee.
Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff wrote: “With you in spirit – those who perished, those who fought, those who build.”
Time and daily routines have softened the communal grief as the workers carry on, trading jokes and gruff male banter. Some ends up in whimsical graffiti marking World Cup soccer matches, New York Giants Super Bowl victories and other less-weighty matters that have gone on since construction began six years ago. One crudely drawn map of the neighborhood down below shows the location of a popular strip club.

People on the ground below will never see the spontaneous private thoughts high in the Manhattan sky. The graffiti will disappear as the raw basic structure is covered with drywall, ceiling panels and paint for tenants moving into the 3 million square feet of office space by 2014.
Knowing this, workers and visitors often take photographs of special bits of graffiti, so the words will live on.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Number Of Nation's Sheriffs Refusing To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws Snowballs | CNS News

Number Of Nation's Sheriffs Refusing To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws Snowballs | CNS News

Number Of Nation's Sheriffs Refusing To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws Snowballs

January 24, 2013
From Florida to California, a growing number of the nation's sheriffs are standing up to gun control measures proposed by both the administration and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
Many law enforcement officials have written letters to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden voicing their concerns over what they believe is an effort to infringe upon the Second Amendment.
In New Mexico, 30 of the state's 33 county sheriffs have reminded state lawmakers that they are under oath to support the U.S. Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment. previously reported that 28 of the 29 sheriff's in Utah sent a letter to President Obama stating that they will not enforce any new gun laws they believe to be unconstitutional.
A host of Oregon sheriffs have said that they will not comply with any new unconstitutional gun regulations:
  • Sheriff Craig Zanni wrote, "I have and will continue to uphold my Oath of Office including supporting the Second Amendment," in a letter to Coos County citizens.
  • Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin said he would refuse to enforce any new Federal gun law he believes is unconstitutional.
  • In a letter to Vice President Joe Biden, Grant County Sheriff, Glenn Palmer writes: "I will not tolerate nor will I permit any federal incursion within the exterior boundaries of Grant County, Oregon, where any type of gun control legislation aimed at disarming law -abiding citizens is the goal or objective."
  • Sheriff Gil Gilbertson of Josephine County told Biden in a letter:  "Any rule, regulation, or executive order repugnant to the constitutional rights of the citizens of this County will be ignored by this office."
  • Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County, Oregon says his department will not participate in any overreaching and unconstitutional federal firearms restrictions.
In California, Sheriff Adam Christianson of Stanislaus County wrote to the vice president: "I refuse to take firearms from law abiding citizens and will not turn law-abiding citizens into criminals by enforcing useless gun control legislation."
letter sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein from Sheriff Jon Lopey of Siskiyou County, California states: "Our founding fathers got it right and many politicians are getting it wrong."

In Missouri, Lawrence County Sheriff Brad Delay tells the president: "I will...rise to the defense and aid of all Americans should the federal government attempt to enact any legislation, or executive order that impedes, erodes, or otherwise diminishes their constitutional right to keep and bear arms."
At a town hall meeting, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky told citizens "you are never going to pull a gun from Jackson County."
Smith County, Texas Sheriff, Larry Smith has said, "I will not enforce an unconstitutional law against any citizen in Smith County. It just won't happen."
In Florida, Martin County Sheriff, Bill Snyder said that he will not enforce federal gun laws: "Local law enforcement authorities are not empowered to enforce Federal law," Snyder said.

For a list of more sheriffs who are standing up against new gun regulations, please click here.

‘[Tyranny Is] Not a Wolf That Dies’: Our Exclusive Interview With the Air Force Vet Behind That Viral 2nd Amendment Defense |

‘[Tyranny Is] Not a Wolf That Dies’: Our Exclusive Interview With the Air Force Vet Behind That Viral 2nd Amendment Defense |

‘[Tyranny Is] Not a Wolf That Dies’: Our Exclusive Interview With the Air Force Vet Behind That Viral 2nd Amendment Defense

Veteran Kevin Tully Who Defended Second Amendment at Chicago Gun Panel Speaks to TheBlaze
(Photo: Screen Shot/Legal Insurrection)
On Monday, TheBlaze brought you the story of an unnamed veteran who stood up and gave a rousing defense of the First and Second Amendments during a Chicago-area forum on gun control.
“The problem with this country right now is, ‘it’s us and it’s f***ing them,’” he declared soon after watching a slideshow equating gun owners with Nazis.  “We need to stop this crap.”
And while he was extremely respectful in asking how the professor on the panel would react if his First Amendment rights were in the crosshairs, when the professor reiterated that the Second Amendment should be re-examined for relevancy, the vet retorted: “The threat of tyranny is no less than at the turn of the century in 1900, in 1800, or in 1700.”
Watch the entire video, first posted by Legal Insurrection, below:
The vet sat down to a standing ovation– but afterwords, the question remained: Who was he?  What made him speak out, and what does he think of the state of the country?  With help from the Winnetka-Glencoe Patch, TheBlaze was able to track him down and ask in an exclusive interview.
The veteran’s name is Kevin Tully, and he left the Air Force a staff sergeant after serving in Desert Storm, 3 tours for Operation Southern Watch, and a tour in Panama.
Tully emphasized throughout the interview that America has become too divided: a nation of Republicans vs. Democrats, pro-life vs. pro choice, us vs. them.  On a more basic level, many don’t even identify as American– they’re Italian-American, African-American, Asian-American, etc.

“I’m not a liberal, I’m not a conservative, I’m not a Republican, I’m not a Democrat.  I’m an American — I believe in the Constitution, I believe in our country,” he said.
But that doesn’t mean he’s pleased with the actions of those on the left or right.
“I’d had enough,” he said simply, describing why he stood up at the conference.
Though the majority of Second Amendment supporters there were “well-mannered,” a small group of “ignorant” individuals had grown unruly and actually booed the professor off the floor.  While the “hubris” of the various speakers was difficult to stomach (they were apparently talking to the pro-gun group like they were “five-year-olds”), Tully wanted to hear the professor out.
But after Professor Goodman simply repeated that the Second Amendment may no longer be “relevant,” Tully reacted:
“Having no concept that– tyranny doesn’t exist, or the threat of tyranny doesn’t exist, or the word doesn’t even exist– you’re living in a utopian society…He had no grasp of the concept of why the Second Amendment is in the Constitution at all.  It’s not to go hunting, it’s not to own a firearm, it’s to give the people the power to keep tyranny at bay.
[Tyranny is] not a wolf that dies.  It’s a wolf that breeds, and it may not always be in your backyard, but it’s always looming on the horizon.  It’s always looming on the horizon, and that’s why the Founding Fathers wrote it the way they did.  And the guy had no grasp that without the Second Amendment, they would soon come after his First Amendment rights.”
When asked where he sees the latest push for gun control going, Tully freely admits that he’s not a “history professor,” but he’s taken it upon himself to study history.
“Throughout history, any king or emperor that wanted to oppress the people– with whatever their views were, their new laws or taxes– the very first thing they did was they went around and rounded up everybody’s weapons,” he cautioned.  “It didn’t matter if it was clubs or all the way up to firearms…That’s where it goes.”
That doesn’t mean that tyranny is knocking on the front door, but that it’s a dangerous game to assume it will never re-emerge as a threat.
When asked why he thinks many Americans no longer feel the need to arm themselves against any threat foreign or domestic, Tully speculated that it might be because we haven’t faced an existential threat since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
“I remember feeling like, wow, we don’t have any enemies now,” he recalled.  And if you or a loved one hasn’t served in combat, your perception of today’s threats is likely to be completely sheltered.
Not only that, he added, but think about how much your life revolves around food and television.  “Our school systems don’t teach history anymore,” he noted, and then many people go on to spend spend years if not decades absorbed far more in television and entertainment than reality.
“Bread and circuses,” he said, repeating the line of the ancient Roman poet Juvenal in describing how the Roman Empire slowly collapsed.
But Tully continued, that obviously needn’t be the case.  What surprised him most about the viral video from the gun panel– which has been watched roughly 60,000 times since being uploaded on Jan. 22– was how many people lauded him for standing up and speaking out.
“I think for myself– I look different things up and formulate an opinion after I’ve gathered some facts, and everybody in this country has the ability to do that,” he said.  “And those that aren’t doing it now– they’re just taking sides of being a liberal or a conservative– they need to stop that.  We’re Americans.”
He concluded with a declaration as moving as that in Chicago:
“You’re an American, there’s no reason to hold your voice.  We need to stand up, be proud to be Americans, be proud of our heritage, be proud of our flag, proud of our Constitution, and proud of the accomplishments of our country and [individuals].  Speak up, because nobody else is going to.  If we’re a nation with a single voice, the world hears us.”

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Rep. John Mathis, R-Vernal, Utah bill HB76,would do away with need for concealed-gun permit

(Scott Sommerdorf | Tribune file photo) 
 Rep. John Mathis, R-Vernal, is sponsoring a bill that would do away with the need for a concealed-weapons permit and allow any Utahn 21 or older without a criminal record to carry a gun, concealed or openly.
Utah bill would do away with need for concealed-gun permit
Gun rights » 21? Clean record? Good enough to carry a concealed weapon; proposal would mirror Vermont’s law. 
First Published Jan 22 2013 05:55 pm • Last Updated Jan 23 2013 10:06 am
Any Utah resident would be able to carry a firearm without obtaining a concealed weapons permit provided the person is over 21 and isn’t prohibited from doing so due to criminal convictions, according to a new bill proposed by a Republican lawmaker.

Rep. John Mathis, R-Vernal, released the bill Monday that would essentially make Utah a constitutional-carry state by recognizing the sovereignty of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Currently, there are about a half-dozen states that operate as constitutional-carry gun states.

Esther Cheslea-McCarty, the legislative associate general counsel who drafted HB76, said it mirrored Vermont’s gun law.
"It’s a situation where you can carry a weapon without a permit, and it can be concealed or not concealed," she said.
The state issued 77,062 concealed weapons permits in 2012, according to Utah Department of Public Safety Firearms Supervisor Jason Chapman.
Chapman said close to 30 percent of those permits are for Utah residents — the remainder were issued to out-of-state applicants. Utah’s concealed-weapons permit is recognized in 33 states and is considered one of the most popular ones to obtain.
It runs $46 for Utah residents and $51 for out-of-state applicants.
Clark Aposhian, chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council, said his group is supportive of the proposal and said it was a "minor" change to state law.
"It doesn’t have anything to do with [Newtown,] Connecticut, Columbine or Aurora," Aposhian said. "You still have to be lawfully in possession of the firearm. You can’t be a felon. You’re still subject to brandishing laws and not being under the influence of drugs and alcohol. And you can’t go onto a school campus."
Utah is one of two states — Kansas being the other — where concealed weapons permit holders can lawfully carry on school campuses. The Mathis proposal wouldn’t change that — you’d still have to have a concealed-carry permit to be in possession of a firearm on a school campus.

House Minority Leader Jennifer Seelig, D-Salt Lake City, said her Democratic caucus hadn’t had a chance to discuss the measure.
Mathis, a veterinarian in Vernal, did not return calls for comment.
But Seelig said her own initial concerns centered around legislation that was "fear-based" instead of looking to balance rights. She said guns would likely be the subject of a "robust" discussion when the session begins.
"Part of this discussion needs to involve the balancing of rights," she said. "Community rights, the rights of the individual to be safe — and the right to bear arms is situationally contextual related to the forming of a militia."
The gun debate has heated up nationally in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting that left 20 first-graders dead. President Barack Obama has asked Congress to institute an assault-weapons ban, reduce the size of magazines on firearms and tighten background checks.
On Saturday, about 1,500 people gathered at the Utah Capitol to rally on Gun Appreciation Day and Brian Greene, a newly elected Republican House member from Pleasant Grove, said he would carry a bill to allow local sheriffs to arrest federal agents attempting to seize guns from Utah residents.
Also, a strongly worded letter signed by the Utah Sheriffs’ Association to the president said the elected county law enforcement officials were "prepared to trade our lives" in defense of the Second Amendment.
Salt Lake County Sheriff Jim Winder, the only sheriff in the state not a member of association, said he hadn’t seen Mathis’ bill and hadn’t taken a position on it.
But he said the concealed-weapons permit process allows for people to learn if they’re eligible to carry a firearm or not. He said people could be putting themselves at odds with the law by purchasing and carrying a gun without even knowing that they weren’t eligible to do so. He also said it’s helpful to officers who make a stop to know if a person is carrying a concealed weapon.
"It helps us to know that information so we don’t have a misunderstanding or have any problems arise," Winder said.

Twitter: @davemontero

Sandy Hook Shooting -TheBlaze Point by point conspiracy theory debunk.

 Here is more information about the Sandy Hook Shootings, I respect TheBlaze and their research so here goes the other end of the topic after their investigation about it.

(You Can visit the link and see the multiple videos available during their debunk and reasoning as well.)Theblazes-point-by-point-sandy-hook-conspiracy-theory-debunk/ 


This Is TheBlaze’s Point-by-Point Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theory Debunk

Was Adam Lanza really the only shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary School? Why are there supposed inconsistencies surrounding the weapons that were used during the attack? And are some of the parents really “crisis actors” brought in to make the situation that much more believable?
Those are only a few of the questions that have been posed by conspiracy theorists who have used the Internet to virally spread their doubt about the horrific massacre that unfolded in Connecticut on Dec. 14.
The main crux of the arguments presented in documentary-style videos is that the Sandy Hook massacre is either a government-planned hoax intended to lead the nation to overwhelmingly embrace increased gun control measures. Or, at the least, those who have put the videos out believe that essential information is being withheld from the American public surrounding multiple shooters and other game-changing elements. The motivations of those who have created these theories are difficult to pin down, as most are spouting their views anonymously.
A video documenting purported inconsistencies surrounding the tragedy that killed 20 children and six adults inside the school has gone viral, gaining more than 11 million views in just two weeks. And a follow-up “documentary” has also been released, adding further “evidence” to the claim that the event either didn’t unfold at all or that it happened contrary to the media narrative that has been advanced.
To most people, the idea that any of it is true is repulsive. So we decided to visit the most popular of the theories and break them down in a point-by-point debunk.
In addition to questioning the official account of weapons used and whether or not crisis actors were employed by the government, theorists have taken aim at parental reaction to the shootings and have claimed that memorial pages for the victims were published before the shooting took place. And these notions only scratch the surface that is the bizarre world of Sandy Hook Trutherism.
The shadowy individual behind the first video, entitled, “The Sandy Hook Shooting – Fully Exposed” (30 minutes in length), weaves together sparse details and attempts to poke holes in the overall story. As for the first video,, a web site known for debunking untruthful information, dismissed it as “a mixture of misinformation, innuendo, and subjective interpretation.” You can see the clip here:
The second part of the Truther initiative, titled, “Sandy Hook Fully Exposed” (19 minutes in length) tackles similar themes, builds upon the first video and attempts to defend those individuals who are questioning the details associated with the event. In addition to asking a variety of questions about family members who lost children, the videos even devote time to questioning whether “crisis actors” were brought in to speak with media in the wake of the attack. See Part II, below:
“Isn’t something like Sandy Hook just what the government needs to start disarming the public so they don’t have to worry about people being a threat to them anymore?,’ text embedded in the video reads.
TheBlaze has decided to go through both videos to provide you with a recap of the major points that Truthers are raising. In addition to presenting the arguments that those perpetuating an alleged hoax are positing, you’ll see reasonable explanations that essentially debunk their claims and questions. In any crime scene – especially one as traumatic and dramatic as what unfolded at Sandy Hook – information flows quickly and it isn’t uncommon for incorrect details to make their way into media. This, as you will see, is the case when it comes to numerous elements surrounding this tragic shooting.

Sandy Hook Truthers have spent a great deal of time and energy reporting about a man who was allegedly chased in the woods nearby the school; the individual was subsequently apprehended and the entire spectacle is captured on video — footage that is now being used to advance the idea that there was another shooter. The first “expose” shows media interviews with witnesses who claim to have seen this individual in handcuffs following the incident. If it is true that there was more than one shooter, this would obviously turn on its head everything that has been said about a lone murderer (i.e. Lanza).
The man in the woods, though, isn’t the only theory about additional shooters floating around. Additionally, others claim that there were two men who fled the scene in a van. Initial media reports did say that there may have been more than one shooter involved, but as the details came in and the events were clarified, Lanza was the only gunman named and the evidence cleared every other initial suspect.
While conspiracy theorists continue to question where these additional suspects are and why the media has allegedly failed to report about them, there are some pretty convincing counter arguments and debunks surrounding this matter.
These Are the Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theories & TheBlazes Debunk of Each | Truther
Heavily armed Connecticut State troopers are on the scene at the Sandy Hook School following a shooting at the school, Friday, Dec. 14, 2012 in Newtown, Conn. A man opened fire inside the Connecticut elementary school where his mother worked Friday, killing 26 people, including 18 children, and forcing students to cower in classrooms and then flee with the help of teachers and police. (AP Photo/The Journal News, Frank Becerra Jr.) MANDATORY CREDIT, NYC OUT, NO SALES, TV OUT, NEWSDAY OUT; MAGS OUT Photo: Frank Becerra Jr., AP
The Newtown Bee, a local outlet, reported that a law enforcement official told them that the man seen in the woods had a gun and was nearby the school. He was apparently an off-duty tactical squad police officer from a nearby area. Also, Chris Manfredonia, the father of a 6-year-old student at the school, was handcuffed briefly by police after he ran around the school in an effort to find his daughter. And another unidentified man was briefly detained, but later released when he was found to be an innocent bystander, claims.
Those being interviewed by media likely saw one of these individuals, leading Truthers to suspect something sinister. Lt. Paul Vance, a media relations representative with the State of Connecticut, dismissed the notion that there were other shooters, while also highlighting and confirming the fact that authorities did end up detaining and quickly releasing other individuals.
“Were there other people detained?,” Vance rhetorically asked. “The answer is yes. In the height of the battle, until you’ve determined who, what, when, where and why of everyone in existence…that’s not unusual.”

Another point of contention that Truthers seem to be focusing upon is the weapons that Lanza used in committing his crime. In the first video, the narrator claims that, according to media, three guns were found at the scene (two handguns and one assault rifle). Four handguns were also allegedly found inside the school. The inconsistency here comes from the Dr. H. Wayne Carver II, the chief medical examiner, who said following the incident that the assault rifle appeared to be responsible for the children’s deaths.
Here’s why Truthers are jumping all over the claims surrounding the assault rifle. The first video alleging a hoax claims that this particular weapon was later recovered from the trunk of the car that Lanza was driving. If this is the case, then critics are questioning how Carver’s claims could be possible. The shooter clearly couldn’t have used the assault rifle to commit his crimes if the weapon was in the trunk of the car the entire time.
These Are the Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theories & TheBlazes Debunk of Each | Truther
In this photo illustration a Rock River Arms AR-15 rifle is seen on December 18, 2012 in Miami, Florida. Credit: Getty Images
But there’s an understandable answer here as well. A few days after the attack, clarity surrounding the guns finally emerged. Lanza left a shotgun in the car, but he had three other weapons that were brought into the school – a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm (the latter two are handguns). The fourth weapon – the shotgun – was left in the vehicle’s trunk. Carver was correct in making his claim that it was the AR-15 that was responsible for the children’s deaths – a firearm that was not in the trunk as the first video indicates (CNN actually has a great primer on the weapons that expounds upon this in detail).
While we’re on the subject of Carver, it’s important to dispel another rumor – that the parents never saw their children’s bodies. While they did not identify the bodies in their entirety, pictures of the kids’ faces were provided to the families. This wasn’t done to be sinister or to hide details; quite the contrary, the doctor was trying to spare the families the pain of seeing the horrific injuries the children sustained, so photos of their faces were used instead.

Andrea McCarren, a reporter for WUSA, reported in the wake of the killings about a conversation she had with Sally Cox, the Sandy Hook school nurse. Cox, who McCarren described as “fairly traumatized,” apparently told the reporter that she knew the killer’s mother, a kindergarten teacher at the school. Initially, media reported that Lanza may have been the son of a teacher, but this was soon dispelled.
Truthers are questioning this story, though, obviously wondering how McCarren was given information about the killer and his mother that ended up being entirely untrue (they argue that the school nurse should have had the information correct and that her mention of a teacher at Sandy Hook is curious, especially considering the details we now know).
During McCarren’s report, the journalist also said that the nurse expounded, claiming that Cox said that the kindergarten teacher was kind and exactly the person one would want his or her children to spend time with. Snopes notes that the USA Today also “mistakenly reported…that Nancy Lanza” was a teacher at the school. Perhaps this report and McCarren’s were based on the same misinformation.
These Are the Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theories & TheBlazes Debunk of Each | Truther
Sally Cox’s credentials in the State of Connecticut (Photo Credit:
Some have also claimed that Cox is also not a registered nurse, but her real name is Sarah and a search of that name does, indeed, yield results that show that the woman is a registered nurse in the state’s registration system. Since “Sally” isn’t her birth name, it’s obvious that a license attacked to that name isn’t available in the Connecticut database (see above).

Emilie Parker, one of the 20 children killed at Sandy Hook, is a central character in Truthers’ questioning, as they throw a number of theories about her very person and her family’s reaction to her death into the mix. In addition to claiming that the young girl was Photoshopped into at least one family image, those questioning official accounts claim that her father, Robbie Parker, can be seen getting “into character” before a press conference — something they dismiss as proof that he may, indeed, be acting or playing the role of a grieving father.
This latter accusation relies upon footage of Robbie purportedly laughing before a press conference. In the clip, he can be seen smiling, taking a moment to compose himself and then allowing emotion to overtake him. “How many parents are laughing and joking a day after their first child has been shot,” a text message reads across the screen in the first hoax video. Later, the words, “I smell B.S.,” are added to describe the father’s reaction.
The video also claims that Parker wasn’t in her class photos and that she appears in images with President Barack Obama following the shooting (something that obviously wouldn’t be possible had she been killed during the incident). But the below video explains that the little girl shown in the image is one of Emilie’s sisters, not the young girl who perished just days before:
At least one other parent was targeted for the same reason – for appearing too chipper in the wake of losing a daughter in the horrific incident. Footage of Lynn McDonnell, mother of a child named Grace, came under scrutiny after the parent spoke with CNN’s Anderson Cooper about her immense loss. While remembering her young child, she expressed facial expressions of joy. However, considering the content of her commentary (she was remembering her young child) it seemed entirely appropriate (in fact, TheBlaze covered the inspirational interview when it aired in December).

Those embracing the notion that Sandy Hook was a hoax also question an event that was put on by the Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (this department falls under the state’s Division of Emergency Services and Public Protection). This particular event was purportedly planned before the shooting and aimed at helping explore strategies for protecting kids in the result of emergency situations like what happened that same day at Sandy Hook.
These Are the Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theories & TheBlazes Debunk of Each | Truther
A list of classes that occurred before the training that has come under scrutiny (Photo Credit:
This event did occur, but it isn’t as surprising as some might assume. On the surface, it may seem odd that the FEMA class, called “Planning for the Needs of Children in Disasters,” was offered on the same day that Sandy Hook unfolded. But this course was also offered six additional times in the state of Connecticut during November and December. It wasn’t a rare occurrence only planned on the day of the shooting; it was an event that had been repeatedly held within the state’s boundaries during recent days and weeks.

The Truthers are particularly fired up about various memorial pages and social media initiatives that they claim were created days before Lanza’s crimes at the elementary school. In addition to teacher Victoria Soto’s Facebook memorial page, which they claim was created on Dec. 10, four days before the shooting, the individuals behind the video and movement also point to a GoFundMe initiative, among others, as also having timestamps that precede the event.
Inquisitr explained how the Internet, despite being quite advanced, still has its hiccups. Here’s a brief recap that explains some of the reasons behind date stamps seeming incorrect on various posts and web sites:
To understand the Sandy Hook websites that seem to have been published early, you must first understand the way the internet reconciles dates as well as how Google crawls them. If a page is repurposed to host other information than it originally displayed, it may show up as having been “published” earlier.
Further, servers and sites often have incorrect dates. Having used a number of WordPress panels in my career, it is a job to keep track of where dates and times are set in order to avoid publishing in the past when scheduling a post, something that could be at play and an easily explainable factor not often acknowledged by Sandy Hook truthers.
And given the fact material can run afoul on an individual computer, a site’s panel and then a search engine, sites like the United Way’s Sandy Hook page could easily register as a prior date on Google.
When it comes to Google results – another target the Truthers point to – the Internet giant isn’t always correct. Sometimes, search results have the incorrect dates associated with them, clearly a factor that is overlooked in the conspiracy theory videos. As for the web sites that seem to have an earlier date stamp, another theory is that certain donation and Facebook pages that were created for other reasons were edited and amended to assist with Sandy Hook efforts following the shooting. While they retained their earlier creation date, their intended purposes changed.
TheBlaze spoke with Justin Basch, CEO of Basch Solutions, a web site production company. The tech expert dismissed conspiracy theorists’ claims, calling them “nonsense.” He explained the many ways that dates can be manipulated in WordPress (the platform running at least one of the web sites at the center of the debate).
“It’s very, very easy to manipulate a date that content was published — whether it’s through text, whether it’s through date manipulation, etc.,” Basch explained.

Then there’s Gene Rosen, the neighbor who lives nearby Sandy Hook. He began appearing in media immediately following the shooting, telling of his involvement in housing six children who had escaped the school that fateful morning. Rosen has been interviewed numerous times by the mainstream media and he has explained how he entertained the children inside of his home after they fled the school in terror.
The Truthers, though, claim that Rosen’s story has some troubling inconsistencies. Among them, they charge that he is a member of the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG), a professional union of acting professionals (thus, advancing the theory that he might be a crisis actor). They also claim that Rosen’s story about discovering the children in his driveway changed and evolved during various appearances. While in some interviews he described the six kids sitting with a female bus driver, in at least one other account, he described a male adult talking harshly to the children, the video proclaims.
Additionally, Rosen, a retired psychologist, told reporters that the children told him their teacher, Ms. Soto, was dead. Initially, some media reported that only one child escaped the classroom where the majority of the kids perished, but this ended up not being the case (others seemingly escaped as well). Rosen also said in one interview that he saw the list of victims not long after the shooting, but conspiracy theorists claim this isn’t possible, as it wasn’t released until after the time he claims to have seen it.
A list of casualties, though, was released the day after the shooting and, as Snopes documents, the Gene Rosen who is a member of SAG is a different individual – one who has never lived in Connecticut. The retired psychologist at the center of this particular case has always lived in the state (while both are in their 60s, the actor is 62 and the Newtown resident is 69).

In the second video, which spent some time defending Truthers against attacks, an bizarre claim is made about the vehicle that Lanza drove to Sandy Hook on Dec. 14. While it has been widely reported that the car belonged to his mother, whom he also shot dead before heading to the school that morning, hoax theorists believe that the car is registered to a man named Chris Rodia.
While it may be tempting for those looking for holes in the story to wonder if Rodia was complicit in helping Lanza with the attack, debunks this, claiming that Rodia was pulled over at a traffic stop and, thus, ended up being named on a police scanner. Salon recaps how this particular element of the story was debunked:
This one was debunked by the theorists themselves just a few days after the shooting. Blogger Joe Quinn obtained the police audio, which definitively debunking the myth. (Rodia appeared on the scanner because he was getting pulled over in a traffic stop miles away, but his license plate doesn’t match Lanza’s car). “This was a huge blow, because lots of people were making big leaps on this … but we now have to look elsewhere,” another amateur investigator said on YouTube.
To clarify: Rodia is not a suspect and he did not own the car that Lanza drove to the school, as the video seems to allege. Rodia was also not at the school at the time of the shooting. Snopes claims that “he was driving a different vehicle in another town at the time.”

Truthers’ have gone out of their way (there’s even a disclaimer at the start of the first video) to claim that they are not trying to dismiss the event as though it never happened. Instead, they say that they are merely asking pertinent questions and, in a sense, exercising their civic duty as caring and in-tune Americans (a tactic likely being used to separate themselves from the criticism being thrown their way). Among those curiosities, a consistent theme emerges: The idea that crisis actors were used.
We already covered Rosen and the theory that he is one of these individuals. But there are others who are being dubbed potential crisis actors. One couple in particularly has come under scrutiny. CNN interviewed Nick and Laura Phelps, parents of two children at Sandy Hook Elementary School. In the exchange, Nick becomes emotional while describing the principal at the school as “a very special person.” It’s clear that the family was impacted by what unfolded.
But Truthers question the motivations, sincerity and identity of Nick and Laura, claiming that they may actually be Richard and Jennifer Sexton, two actors from Florida. This bizarre claim — that the couple was brought in to merely depict parents who have children at Sandy Hook Elementary, is one of the more curious ones being floated. The evidence being posited?
The hoax video shows images from an alleged Picasa account belonging to Richard and Jennifer (the actors). Those who believe that something isn’t quite right about Sandy Hook claim that the photo album was deleted after it gained attention. In addition, Truthers are using a clip showing Laura (or Jennifer) giving what appears to be an audition or performance.
But Snopes claims that the husband and wife duos merely resemble one another and that they are not, in fact, the same individuals. While the videos seem to indicate that there may be a connection between the Crisis Actors company – a group that provides actors to simulate traumatic and disastrous events, there is no connection between the actors provided by the group and the individuals shown in media interviews. Plus, a simple web search shows that the family does, indeed, live near the school.
Crisis Actors (the company) also makes it clear that its performers do not engage in real-life events. While the video alleges connections between the Sandy Hook families and these individuals, no such connections exist. In fact, the company has gone out of its way to dispel such rumors.
See Anderson Cooper address some of these controversies:

While the conspiracy-laden clips have intrigued some, others find themselves completely horrified, sickened and offended by their contents — especially considering the pain that the families of Sandy Hook victims have already endured. Following the publication of the first video, reaction and media coverage was swift. As noted, the creator of the videos made it a point to vehemently defend himself against critics.
“This video was made to clear up confusion and shed light on new information. Apologies to anyone offended by the past videos,” a caveat at the beginning of the second clip reads. “[W]e hope this one is easier to digest. Would you rather be hurt temporarily by the truth, or comforted forever by lies?”
Later, the anonymous individual behind the clips claims that it is unfair for critics to label him and others supporting his ideas as “Truthers” – or even “conspiracy theorists.” Such labels, text embedded in the video reads, implies that those questioning the event are “over the top, crazy, and against everyone else.”
“These are millions of everyday people that deserve answers to their questions,” the text continues. “And it seems by labeling them like that, it’s easier to dismiss them and not have to look at the facts.”
These Are the Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theories & TheBlazes Debunk of Each | Truther
Mourners embrace following funeral services for Connecticut elementary shooting victim Emilie Parker, Saturday, Dec. 22, 2012, at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in Ogden, Utah. Emilie, 6, whose family has Ogden roots, was one of 20 children and six adult victims killed in a Dec. 14 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. Credit: AP
However, those looking to debunk the Sandy Hook debunkers would dismiss these views as fringe. Even the person who created, “The Sandy Hook Shooting – Fully Exposed” and its companion video was surprised by its viral nature. In an interview with Gawker before the video released, he seemed surprised by its viral nature, telling the outlet that he would have “spent more time on it” if he knew it would be so popular. TheBlaze reached out to him to get further comment, but we did not receive a response.
“[I]t all started when me and my friends used to research 9/11 in high school,” said the source, who refused to identify himself to Gawker. “That’s what really got me started when it came to researching government cover ups…Once I learned about all the false flag attacks in history that have been proven to be true, I knew it was only a matter of time before another came a long.”
Apparently, in the mind of the individual behind the videos (which were published on a YouTube channel under the account ThinkOutsideTheTV), Sandy Hook was next in this purported line of government cover-ups. The individual went on to tell the outlet that he felt as though the event was “too perfect” and that the people and the town involved had an “artificial vibe about them.”

Since Sandy Hook unfolded, other conspiracy theories have emerged, although the aforementioned YouTube clips have become the most pervasive and widespread. TheBlaze already told you about James Tracy, a communications professor at Florida Atlantic University (FAU), and his controversial comments about the Sandy Hook massacre.
Tracy, too, appeared on radio interviews, where he advanced the crisis actor angle, claiming that the Obama administration might have deployed these individuals to stage the attack in an effort to further crack down on guns. On his personal blog, he cited as well. Later, he clarified his comments, claiming that while “one is left with the impression that a real tragedy took place,” images and information have been withheld from the public.
The entire ordeal, which captured national attention and was covered by TheBlaze earlier this month, led FAU to separate itself from Tracy’s comments. Lisa Metcalf, director of media relations, said, “James Tracy does not speak for the university.”
In the same Blaze report, Jason Howerton covered Dr. James H. Fetzer, a professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD). In an op-ed published in an Iranian (state-owned, of course) outlet, he charged that, perhaps, the Mossad (Israeli security forces) were responsible for the attack.
“The killing of children is a signature of terror ops conducted by agents of Israel,” he wrote. “[W]ho better to slaughter American children than Israelis, who deliberately murder Palestinian children?”
These Are the Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theories & TheBlazes Debunk of Each | Truther
Parents leave a staging area after being reunited with their children following a shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., about 60 miles (96 kilometers) northeast of New York City, Friday, Dec. 14, 2012. An official with knowledge of Friday’s shooting said 27 people were dead, including 18 children. It was the worst school shooting in the country’s history. (AP Photo/Jessica Hill)
These, of course, of just two of the numerous alternative conspiracy theories being floated. There are plenty of other ideas that have circulated since Dec. 14. However, the growth in popularity of the latest videos creates some serious questions that deserve to be answered in order to properly educate readership.
At least one father of a first-grader at Sandy Hook took the issue to heart, showcasing his frustration in an on-air phone call that was placed to radio host Glenn Beck. The father, named “Pete,” expressed his dismay at the conspiracy theories, calling Trutherism an “unimaginable way to even look at a tragedy or horrific event.”
“I was there. I’ve been to the funerals,” he told Beck. “I know the families very closely. I know a lot of those children. It happened. It really happened.”
But if thats not convincing enough, consider BuzzFeed’s logic: ”The evidence on which these budding theories are based is, even by the standards of fringe conspiracy theory, remarkably thin, and demand massive collusion between hundreds of private citizens, the federal government, local authorities, and the news media.”
While the viral nature of the videos has begun to simmer, the mainstream media has not provided a level of coverage that would disseminate the truth fervently enough to dispel the rumors. Setting the record straight and showcasing the truth, though, is essential.