Infowars Assailed by ‘Sandy Hook Parent’

bbc_poznerBy James F. Tracy

Lenny Pozner’s HONR organization has filed a copyright claim against Alex Jones’ Infowars that jeopardizes the alternative news outlet’s YouTube access.

Pozner allegedly lost his son Noah Pozner in the December 14, 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown Connecticut.

In early January 2015 Infowars–among the most popular alternative news sites in the world–displayed a BBC article on one of its main YouTube channels during one of its reports. The story included exact photos of the same Noah Pozner being displayed in the aftermath of the December 16, 2014 school shooting in Peshawar Pakistan. BBC later admitted the photo in its Peshawar massacre coverage was of Pozner yet refused to investigate the incongruity.

In December 2014 Pozner’s HONR group filed numerous copyright claims with YouTube in an effort to censor the We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook documentary produced by Peter Klein and Independent Media Solidarity. Despite Pozner’s efforts Mr. Klein estimates that We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook has been viewed more than three million times as other YouTube channels carried the documentary in defiance of Pozner’s bogus claims of copyright infringement.

On his February 12 broadcast Jones vowed to fight Pozner’s claims, asserting that such efforts are not legally sound and constitute an attack against everyone’s free speech.

Alex Jones Show Excerpt 2/12/15

127 thoughts on “Infowars Assailed by ‘Sandy Hook Parent’”

  1. Just watched the first 5 minutes of the imbedded Alex Jones video. Here’s what concerns me: what happens when lawsuits are filed against Posner and the HONR Network and we LOSE? Won’t that create case-law?

    Taking these issues to court can be a real double-edged sword. I don’t see it being the solution many seem to think it is.

    However much I dislike Jones (a lot, actually), I’m glad he’s hollering about it…our freedom is certainly worth the te and effort

      1. “Won’t that create case-law?”

        Even in the highly unlikely event of a loss (there’s a massive amount of case law holding that the “use” of a photo in this manner falls within the Fair Use provision of the copyright statute, 17 U.S.C. sec. 107)), it’s only a loss at the district court level. There a bazillion cases at the appellate levels (regional federal courts of appeal as well as the Supreme Court) that doom Pozner’s absurd claim for copyright infringement.

        Pozner’s bigger problem in taking on a well-heeled defendant, and one who’s asserting fakery at that, is standing.

        To sustain his infringement case, Pozner has to show that he was injured, requiring him to prove–among other things–that he owns the photo. Unless AJ’s lawyers are total morons, the first thing they do is ask to see originals of the photos as well as any and all metadata with them.

        If AJ’s fakery assertion is right, this would be a DISASTER for Pozner. Not only does his case get dismissed with prejudice, but he gets exposed as a fraud in the bargain.

        Pozner is all bark and no bite. Then again, so is AJ.

        No way does this “case” see the light of day in federal court.

        1. Case Law is a funny little Toy they play with. If it falls in the jurisdiction of where the current case is taking place it’s technically the “New” law.

          In which I think is absurd because the Law is the Law.

          BUT, here’s the sickening part. They DON’T have to use it if they don’t want to? Weird.

          But if there is a new Case Law Precedent in another Jurisdiction, County or even State that suits their little desires they can Site that Judges Ruling(Case Law).

          My Father Dealt with this crap and I went to Law Libraries to Study Case Law for different cases and I think the LAW should be the LAW and CASE Law is a Judge effectively changing the law.

          I’ve watched Attorneys and Judges argue case law from 40 years ago to last week and the Judge claims the high ground on his interpretation and trumps.

          I’ve argued this with Attorneys and they disagree with me but I think the Law should be the Law until it is changed on the Books in writing.

          This is how in my humble opinion they change the a law without due process.

          This is one reporters opinion now Sally has the weather forecast. Take it Sally..

          Sally: Today we will have a stream of heavy Chem-trails thru-out the morning moving into the afternoon. They have laced them with your Favorite RDA of vitamins, so breath deep and enjoy…it’s FREE.

        2. I’m glad it’s late and no one has commented on my take on Case Law.

          First, I know it’s a very simplistic view I’m making here but I’m sure as an Attorney you can understand where I’m coming from for most people don’t even know what case law is or how it works.

          Case law makes the written law fluid.

          I see they are trying to do the same with the Constitution which is solid law. I’ve heard many a time Pelosi and the left call the Constitution a “Living, Breathing Document” which is CODE for it can be manipulated from written law via Case Law.

          They have been stating this for many years to Brainwash the Public.

          So if Obama defies the Constitution and gets away with it as Bush has also done, “Case Law” could set a new Precedence which therefore effectively changes the Constitution without 2/3rds of the Congress much less the States required participation

          Again, a very simplistic interpretation but one everyone can understand

          That’s all I’m saying

        3. Ric, I never heard Sally say that. She (or the other guy, the artificially tanned one) always refer to heavy chemtrailing as a low cloud cover. Who is Sally?

          There was a time when some of us on a now defunct chemtrail forum would email the guys up on Mt. Wilson asking why they referred to strange formations in the sky as cloud this and that, when in reality we were looking at chemtrails. In the beginning they would have snappy answers, but eventually stopped responding altogether. Probably were ordered by their boss to stop corresponding with the lunatic fringe.

        4. Ric, this has been going on almost since the beginning of the Constitution phase of American history: in 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court asserted that the Constitution means whatever he and the other black robes on the Court say it means. Jefferson, who was president at the time, did not respond with the words “Like HELL you say!” He let the bastard get away with it, in essence agreeing that the Court indeed has the final say as to the Constitutionality of Congress’ lawmaking. Disaster. It’s all been downhill ever since.

          One president (Jackson), one time, told the Court to go piss up a rope. He said, “if that’s his opinion, let him enforce it.” None since then has has such gumption.

        5. On the other hand sometimes Case Law is only way forward in Civil cases but I’m out my league here, people can argue this one ’till the cows come home.

        6. Look, any judge can find any way he wants. He can use another judge’s reasoning if he wants. And those guys might both be right. But it should not be considered law.

          In a free society, guilty people get away–which is a VERY good thing. Only in a totalitarian state is the whole environment like an inescapable trap. But for freedom to flourish, the legislature must vigorously defend its position. Which means that when judges contradict the intended meaning of legislation, even if bad guys benefitted by that and were free as a bird because of it, the legislators should write new law clarifying the matter, so it does not happen again. If the reason the judge got it wrong was corruption, impeachment and removal from the bench (and jail, if the offense was serious enough) should be routine. Should be.

          Our system was set up with the ostensible assumption that the thee branches would in perpetuity be jealous of their power, and constantly push back when one of the other branches invaded its space. That is not what happened.

          This is the true reason 90+% of law in this country is written, enforced, and judged by one branch: the executive. The legislative simply hands these powers overt the executive and washes its hands of the political repercussions of what the bureaucrats do. That is, going to Congress is almost responsibility-free. Because it’s all about keeping the sheep happy.

          Likewise, the executive has washed its hands of it, by setting it up as if the administrative agencies are a 4th branch of government it has no authority over. Part of this involved civil service rules making it all but impossible to fire them. Think: Lois Lerner.

          Congress? Sure, it could eliminate the EPA or the IRS or any other monstrosity it created, but then it would have to take responsibility for those tasks, and the voters would hold them to account. Can’t have that.

        7. By the way Anne,

          Your comment: “Ric, I never heard Sally say that. She (or the other guy, the artificially tanned one) always refer to heavy chemtrailing as a low cloud cover. Who is Sally?”

          Had me falling off my chair..HaHa

          “the artificially tanned one” HaHa you gotta live here to get this one.

          Also I made up Sally, so you can substitute her with “Bubble Headed Bleach Blond”.

    1. It’s theater. ‘They’ need ‘legal’ precedent on the books in order to shut you down, close your mouth more than it already has been closed. Joe Blow becomes his own jailer; it’s a lot less messy and cheaper that way.

    2. Being that you didn’t listen to the entire 18 min clip, I can understand why you might be concerned if “we” lose. NOT THIS TIME! Whatever you may or may not think of Jones, he is right on the money, and there is no way in hell will he lose if it goes to court. Now if you want to know who REALLY made truthers look like gd idiots it was Shanley and his sidekick Fetzer trying to sue and effin things up!!!!!

      1. Fetzer was not part of Shanley’s lawsuit. Jim is really not that superficial, not at all. Shanley acted peculiarly and my theory is that this man appeared subito and wiggled into the company of some pretty influential and powerful figures rapidly. Wielding a trillion dollar lawsuit takes huge personal acumen and superficial drivel won’t cut the mustard. I had a tete a tete with Shanley and parted company rapidly carrying a strange feeling about him. Johnny come Lately always struck me as “placed”. I never followed up regarding his legal case from the local police and his stint in the hoosegow, has anybody looked into this episode?
        I absolutely believe that the Shanley incident left no stains on anybody save Shanley or if even Shanley was damaged from it. Americans are oblivious to these things, they have other fish to fry. The vast majority never heard about Shanley and he would occupy their consciousness for about .004 seconds if they knew about him. The “truther” movement suffered naught from the incident whatsoever. It’s like “Shanley who”? The truth movement does not occupy center stage and few people know what is up in the world and who we are and what we are trying to do. Americans don’t care…..

      2. Just my observation that Fetzer and other members of the coterie accepted Shanley too fast, too completely. I had my own tete a tete with Shanley prior, the guy was quite intolerable of differing opinions. I no longer harbored any urges to try and get closer to him, especially seeing that he lived not so far from where I do in the Nutmeg state.
        Shanley struck me as rigidified into accomplishing a sort of transformation whereby he would get closer to the aformentioneds and start to influence them. This DUI and other niceties struck me differently, I felt this was a set-up of sorts, I felt Shanley was/is in cahoots with some other elements that would complicate matters. The trillion dollar lawsuit pro se thingie was bizarro, if Fetzer were a close associate of his, would he let or tolerate this about to be botched mess be actualized? No way, if you want to do something so boggling, only a fathead would think he could get away with it. Besides, do you think Lt. Vance’s son would allow such a lawsuit? Vance Jr. is in the position of determining who gets to sue the state on various matters, by the way. Where is Shanley now? Anybody kept up? Is it even possible to get information on this case or is that blocked shut like the vast informational constipation we’ve seen only too often with the pablum puke we get from the state propagandists? Once rotten, always rotten. Tidbits like the lawsuit against Bushmaster are meant to perpetuate the lollygagging mess that was thrust at us on Dec. 14, 2012. It’s meant to convey this fetid atmosphere of legitimacy to a very illegitimate stage production. Only the corruptocrats in varied state and federal departments are preventing the truth to be obtained.

    3. We should do to the liars what they do to the truthers. IGNORE THEM, or challenge them to a public, televised debate. Eventhough Richard Gage and all his experts have challenged any credentialed expert in the appropriate fields to debate them, their chair remains empty. That empty chair speaks volumns. The liars don’t have an argument to stand on.

      1. According to a youtube video (mainly audio) of Gordon Duff, Gage’s group refuses to talk about tactical nukes at WTC on 9-11. Duff seems to think the nanothermite/thermate reasoning is incorrect. In fact, he thinks it’s purposeful disinfo and he states in this audio that he knows of one person (who he doesn’t name) who was directly involved in the planning of 9-11.

        This is a rambling audio which doesn’t really say much of anything concrete other than the fact that Duff is accusing an unnamed person in Gage’s group of being an insider in the planning of 9-11.


        I don’t trust Duff either since he’s ‘ex’ military. Have to take everything with a boulder of salt.

        1. I have been around since the beginning, and really personally began my 9-11 truth search on 9-11-01. Steven Jones in late 2005 and Richard Gage joining him almost one year later have always to me to be disinformation. Not only Dr. Jones’ background in the government, but also his false claim to be doing “hard science.” The U S Geological Survey of the dust of the World Trade Center was out and and available to all before Dr. Jones self-published his “hard science” studies. That USGS survey not only showed thermite but several other pathway elements that indicate nuclear involvement.

          Granted BOTH USGS and Steven Jones and company may be deceiving us, but there is no way Dr. Jones can claim to have been putting out real science when he did not mention at all the presence of those nuclear pathway elements in another dust study that was a scientific study. Dr. James Fetzer always says that the elements of true scientific inquiry always involve

          puzzlement, speculation, adaptation, and explanation. Dr/ Jones and his claims to being “hard science” appear to totally fumble the ball on at least two of those criteria which makes Dr. Jones’ “theories” not hard science at all.

          Something else that has always puzzled me, aside from the many points of well-founded suspicion I have about the Jones /Gage efforts is that Dr. Jones is a Mormon and that religion always is joined at the hip to support of Israel, Zionism and Judaism. (That also is what makes Christopher Bollyn’s strong support of thermite theory as well as strong support of Zionist perpetration of 9-11 so very puzzling.)

          I do not specifically support any theory but I have ruled out quite a few.

          “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.” John 1:5

        2. Exercise caution with Duff’s stuff. He says he is a self hating Jew, George Soros is a good guy and 40% of what he writes is disinfo.

        3. Duff befuddles me. He’s all sorts of things, seller of military hardware, he “teaches” foreign nations about defense issues, he’s a diplomat, he works as head honcho for Adamus, a company dealing with “defense” issues. As far as saying why he tells 40% fibs to stay alive, I say that’s complete bunko. This guy is some sort of construct, would not trust him as far as I could throw him.

  2. Can the Internet be subject to Copyright and Trademark Laws? What another great way to regulate Society !!
    Think of all the legislation and regulatory Laws that would have to be passed. Sandy Hook was as much about the 1st Amendment as it was about the 2nd Amendment.
    As these issues are brought to the surface, there will be lines drawn establishing when content is considered to be ‘exercising one’s free speech’ and ‘libelous content’. The question arises as to WHO will be allowed to make that determination.
    If it becomes the Federal Government and their agents, you can bet that the entire purpose of the 1st Amendment will be compromised.
    In this video, it becomes apparent that the Mainstream Media can, and does influence that which it considers to be Truth, for if Victoria Soto is a mere player in DHS Capstone Drill, why should her family have any rights at all ?

    1. So “Lenny” is trying to expand his business? “Fringe Truthers”, “Hoaxers”? Wow.

      So, if you put your face out there on the internet it remains your property? They are getting creative.

    2. They (the anchorman and “legal expert” in the video) seem to be conflating the people TALKING ABOUT Soto and people claiming to BE Soto. Are they being careless or disingenuous presenting the issue in this way? Lenny Posner/HONR Network is doing the same thing, and getting away with it.

      This conflation has been a strategy of theirs since the beginning. Labeling everyone who doesn’t buy the narrative hook, line, and sinker…from those of us here who have unanswered questions, talking amongst ourselves, to those allegedly issuing death threats (have we seen any evidence of this really happening?), to those actually contacting players in this story…as “Truthers” really does us a terrible disservice.

      1. Yeah, soon it will be “Truthers” = “Dangerous Extremists” = “Terrorists”.

        All part of the psyop.

  3. It is interesting that Alex Jones refers to “they” as being Google/YouTube and also as the same entity that is trying to “take down the Internet.”

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out and if the “they” turns out to be the same “they” that has perhaps supported and protected and allowed Alex Jones / Infowars, Incorporated to reach the level of success it now has.

    1. Doxie, that’s his primary problem. All one has to do is hint at tribal involvement and he goes bonkers. That’s why he talks about “patriots” and “government this and that”. He has to stay away from the actual cause of anything.

      Years ago I posted a comment on his site that had the most tactful (read watered down) reference to The Tribe and I was instantly banned. I tried to get an explanation, nothing doing.

      Now, for such a champion of “free speech” to be that edgy begs at least a few questions, no? He has a nice little operation going there. Slick sets, competent announcers, he’s hawking snake oil and magic bracelets, etc.., why isn’t everybody so successful?

      On the other hand, he’s magnitudes better than the Huffpost and the like. It would require heavier drugs than A.J. is hawking to get people to listen to that garbage. Amy Goodman is but a notch above (or below, you decide), of A.C. or Pretty Boy Williams.

      Very few blogs or news sites are not mere platforms for the proclivities of their owners. Some of them take on almost “evangelistic” overtones. The owners become “celebrities”. My suspicion is that this is what caused them to set them up in the first place.

      Even the bad ones have interesting information from time to time. If one doesn’t pay attention to the drama, and they are not a follower, they can get useful information. Personally, the thought of being locked in a room with A.J. wears me out. THIS is the Master Bloviator. it is a good thing his ego is so big or he’d be wearing that bullhorn like an inverted dunce cap.

      1. Lophatt,

        I don’t have fantastic words to say or am I defending Alex Jones or ANY of them in the alternative media but I think the only thing AJ is guilty of is his Bloated Ego, exaggerations and the spectacles he makes of himself for ratings.

        Now that being said, it takes a certain type of person to do what he does or be to an Actor, Actress, News Anchor, Rock Star ect.

        It’s Ego.

        I think you can expect a certain amount of eccentricity from them.

        Most people are too scared to speak in public or start their own business much less be in the lime light in front of hundreds if not millions of people. It takes a certain type of Person.

        That That also being said, I don’t think AJ is trying to Deceive anybody or has a dark secret agenda.

        I don’t think Everything’s fake and staged, We do win some here and there.

        We can all stand together or hang separately.

        I’m not singling you out you either nor am I naive about this subject.

        I feel if anyone is trying to convey an idea or thinks they got it all figured out (as we’ve had here many a time) and we have an opposing opinion, we we should just respectively Disagree.

        As I am respectively stating mine to to respectively.

        I freakin’ sound like that Progressive Insurance Commercial…haha

        1. Ric, can I insure my goat? Oh, I don’t have a goat. Ha!

          Hey, I can’t argue with what you said. I agree, he has an EGO. But, so does Miles Mathis. Of course Miles doesn’t have a bullhorn (that I know of).

          I don’t have anything against him, honest. I don’t like how he refuses to discuss the obvious. I don’t personally believe its because he isn’t aware of it.

          There is a difference between a “performance” and a “spectacle”. I am a pretty quiet guy by nature. I’m also a musician and have been on stage many, many times. It doesn’t bother me in the least to speak in public.

          I can’t recall, however, showing up on the capitol steps with witches on broomsticks and a bullhorn. I admit, it was fun to watch. On the other hand, if you’re trying to be taken seriously, it may need a rethink.

          I’m a proponent of humor. We need a lot more of it. Alex does that pretty well. If he makes a monkey out of them (instead of himself), I’m all for it. He fills a niche. I don’t think he’s a disinfo agent either.

          On the other hand, he is not going to be leading anyone to the promised land. To fix a problem one has to understand what’s broke. If he understands it, he ain’t sayin’.

          So, my friend, I don’t take any offense to your comments at all. I enjoy what I can about him and leave the rest. There’s a lot to be said for diminished expectations.

        2. Cool Lophatt,

          Well said and humorous. Miles dosen’t have a bullhorn..HaHa..YET

          He kinda moves down the middle but you gotta at least laugh with me on this one.

          Jones and Crew Fly to Sandy Hook. Cost $4,786.28

          Jones and his Bullhorn rolling through
          the streets of Sandy Hook. $ PRICELESS

          And NO we don’t insure no gosh darn of ’em Goats ‘er, sorry fella

      2. I just got through listening to Alex Jones’ Friday broadcast. I’m on the fence about him as well as David Icke. Pretty much the same messages, but different delivery. For anyone interested, Joyce Riley will be on Alex Jones’ Monday broadcast. She calls a spade a spade.

        From the society front, who’s who in NYC on Wednesday gathered to proclaim “not one more”. Mark and Gabby were in attendance, so was Hugh Jackman. Lise Evans, one of the organizers, is married to former Goldman Sachs bigwig Michael Evans, now big wigging elsewhere. It is difficult to imagine some of these people traveling without armed body guards.

        1. “The evening marked the unveiling of the Everytown X Urban Zen NOT ONE MORE bracelet, a collaboration between Lise Evans and Urban Zen’s Haiti Artisan Project. The goal is for the bracelet to become a rallying cry for the gun safety movement in America.”
          It is refreshing to see that people are giving Hugh Jackman a very hard time on Facebook for posting a picture of himself wearing the Everytown X Urban Zen NOT ONE MORE bracelet.

      3. In reply to Lophatt.

        The legal team in Austin, TX, that may be advising Alex Jones is the same law firm, Elizabeth Schurig, [Schurig Jetel Beckett Tackett] that is used by and connected to the Billionaire Bronfman (Seagrams) family.

        “HOLLY BRONFMAN LEV IS Edgar Bronfman Jr’s sister. As founder of the Bet Lev Foundation and 100% owner of Lev Group Ltd, Holly Bronfman’s legal affairs are conducted by the high-powered lawyer, Elizabeth Schurig, who also happens to handle the legal affairs of Alex Jones.”


        If Schurig firm is currently AJ’s only legal help on this current matter with Google/Youtube, and we take Alex Jones’ recent rhetoric at face value and that he is sincere, Jones will be surprised to come to the conclusion that not only will he not receive any real help from Schurig and Associates, he may find that the perpetrators of this recent “attack on him, are on the very same team with the Schurig law firm lawyers.

        1. Doxie, interesting. My sense is that A.J. is quite aware of the connections. He is married to a tribeswoman. This has the glitter of PR all over it.

          Why would you go after Google, who like it or not, is allowed to make their own rules. Depending on how they approach this, Lenny seems like the likely target. Of course you could throw in Google and U-Tube for good measure for interference with his business and such.

          Lenny (allegedly) is claiming a copyright infringement. Google, and/or U-Tube is responding to the allegation as if it is proven. If I were the quarterback on this one, and he is serious (I have my doubts), I’d go after Lenny first. Google can afford to field quite a team. Why force yourself to have to address more than one issue?

          Like you say, I smell a rat with the law firm. Whether he’s “surprised” or not remains to be seen.

        2. Thanks for helping us reason this out as best we can. Your doubts about AJ’s sincerity in this matter impresses me and I beginning to drift in that direction.

          The link that Anne B. sent us shows that Elizabeth Morgan Schurig is no longer with the law firm where Bronfman relative was her client also. This attorney is now in a new venture that appears to only help wealthy people protect their assets and helping them expatriate if necessary. She is now using her maiden name Morgan again, and I do not know if Bronfman and Jones are still her clients.

          If the last two days are any indication, Jones seems to be backing down and will settle for his videos on YouTube being allowed to run only about 3 minutes. Don’t know if that only applies to recent submissions of his or if is retroactive on huge volume of his YT videos.

          I still do not quite understand how Jones could sue Posner, since the infringement complaint is only a complaint to YouTube and YT can handle the complaint any way it wants to. Rules be damned.

          Don’t see how YT could be interfering with Infowars’ “business”.
          Jones is a broadcaster and I do not know what further classification applies to him – entertainment broadcaster? etc. If he has a specific classification that would probably rule out the “business interference” angle. Also, Jones’ many advertisements that play with runs of his material on his own or other web venues are runs on YT
          that have the advertisements cut out.,

          Also do not see how AJ’s “business” could ever be remotely regarded as being similar to a utility service. His business is very much about selling tangible products and service companies’ products under the guise of being the “tip of the spear” in the Infowar that will preserve “freedom” for the republic etc.

          And sell a lot of products he does! Maybe that is why he uses the services of an attorney who can help him preserve his monetary empire and help him take the money and run, out of the country, if need be. (Alex Jones’ father is a multi-millionaire so never think AJ was a “success” all on his own in the true patriotic American fashion.)

        3. “Also do not see how AJ’s “business” could ever be remotely regarded as being similar to a utility service.”

          Evidently, you misunderstood me, dachsie. I was suggesting that YouTube has perhaps approximated, by now, the status of a utility, and that it might be a reasonable argument–although I also said he’d probably run out of money before proving his point. My argument had to do with what Alex is facing. The machine he’s confronting. Sorry if my intent was not evident to you. Hate to be misconstrued.

        4. In reply to PatrickChatsAmiably…

          “Evidently, you misunderstood me, dachsie. I was suggesting that YouTube has perhaps approximated, by now, the status of a utility, and that it might be a reasonable argument–although I also said he’d probably run out of money before proving his point.”

          I stand corrected.

          However, utility companies act just like YouTube these days.

        5. Doxie, my reasoning ran; Jones uses Google and U-Tube as advertising. He wants to draw viewers to his show, and hence, his products. He hawks all sorts of items for sale in his broadcasts as well as on his website.

          If either of them take down his links they are damaging his business. I think he could sue Possner because he is making false allegations about Jones using “his” copyrighted material. If he can prove that he owns the copyright, fine. I doubt that he does.

          While Possner has not “apparently” sued Jones in court the standards of proof do not apply to Google or U-Tube. However, their actions MIGHT be the basis of a suit. His best bet is Possner.

          If I stalk someone and interfere with their livelihood, I could be sued. It isn’t about who is the most pitiable. In this case Possner is “using” Google and U-Tube as a de facto “court” to act on his copyright claims.

          Has he sued A.J. for the income lost by his use of “his” material? Suing Google and U-Tube would be difficult and expensive. I think there’s a case there that their practices are insufficient to safeguard against abuse, but you would probably get buried in legal costs.

        6. I had thought that this Posner – YouTube – Alex Jones matter was a huge “line in the sand” turning point for the Internet and the First Amendment, but it is really fizzling out as best I can see. Still the legal possibilities as far as getting at one “Lenny Posner / Pozner” are very interesting and if Posner keeps this up his YouTube complaints, it seems somewhere down the line some entity will have to legally deal with Posner.

          “Jones uses Google and U-Tube as advertising. He wants to draw viewers to his show, and hence, his products. He hawks all sorts of items for sale in his broadcasts as well as on his website.”

          I understand you to be saying that when AJ brags about how many views something of his on YouTube gets, he is thereby using YT as advertising. If that is what you mean, you are certainly right. I guess the “number of views” idea applies to Google searches and hits as well, though I am not sure about that. I know that he has had his viewers “bomb” Google with a specific search term to show Google his “power.”

          So the contact AG’s viewers have with his advertising of products must come through the viewer being on an Infowars site and listening/viewing the broadcast there, not from the viewers’ contact via YouTube.

          “If either of them take down his links they are damaging his business.”

          Yes, the damage is real in the sense that I described above, but I cannot see that as the kind of “damage” that would translate to a claim in a law suit.

          “I think he could sue Possner because he is making false allegations about Jones using “his” copyrighted material.”

          Yes, that sounds right to me, but I wonder what the exact legal term for the charge would be. I do not believe I have ever heard of a “false allegations” charge. Also, in order for AJ to know exactly WHO is making the “false allegations”, would he not have to depend on YouTube to get the full identifying and contact information about Posner? Or just how would AJ determine the identity of Posner in order to be able to file a law suit?

          It certainly would be great to get “Posner” into court and to prove that he owns the copyright. Considering current legal environment, Alex Jones would be opening himself up for a big loss, and that would mean loss of award monetary damages as well as loss of credibility and sales on the Infowars operation.

          I guess I erroneously thought that Posner would have had to have made the “false allegation” directly to Alex Jones / Infowars, and not only as a YT “user” (not sure of correct term here) complaint against another YT user.

          “If I stalk someone and interfere with their livelihood, I could be sued.”

          Yes, but I think we have established that it would not interfere with Alex Jones’ personal livelihood. I am not finding proof at the moment that Infowars is a corporation or several corporations, but I guess it is possible to interfere with a corporation’s livelihood. I guess any classification name for a “business” would mean it could legally be interfered with. Not sure at all on all of this.

          “I think there’s a case there that their practices are insufficient to safeguard against abuse, but you would probably get buried in legal costs.”

          I would mention that on today’s Infowars show, Alex Jones said he was very busy on a big project that will greatly expand Infowars’ listener and viewer audience. He said he is currently involved in negotiating contracts with television networks or shows (can’t remember term he used) who want to air his broadcasts. To me this indicates, he is going to let the Posner matter lie and die and is going to do what I earlier had suggested and just go out and find other venues for his shows and special broadcasts and to lessen his dependence on YouTube.

  4. The past being an indicator; I don’t think Jones is the savior everyone thinks he is. No one with a white hat is riding into town at high noon to have it out with the bad guys and no one gets to be that famous/powerful in the ‘alternative’ media unless they are ‘on board’.

    As part of the revelation of the method, Gloria Steinem admitted years ago the CIA funded “Ms. Magazine” and kept it afloat. Why would the establishment fund a radical magazine?

    Frances Stonor Saunders wrote ‘The Cultural Cold War, the CIA and the World of Arts and Letters’. That book should help one understand that radical, revolutionary change comes from the top, not from the grass roots. It’s meant to bring in the next part of the (new) age.

    It is well known that ‘patriot’ radio was government funded as have been the ‘militia’ and patriot groups been infiltrated and/or run by government agents. Why would the establishment fund the very groups which they purport to be against?

    1. It’s called “controlled opposition”. It makes perfect sense to anticipate opposition if there is a market for it. Instead of allowing the market to fill the spot, the powers that be fill it, so they can then control it.

  5. Jones isn’t exploring the truth – that no one died at Sandy Hook – he is exploring a mundane topic, with little importance or consequence, that anyone searching google images can find and exploit. Alex Jones is a first-class garbage man.

    1. Your comment speaks of high ignorance in my opinion. Jones may not always be factual or honest, but no one is. Jones does purport to be pro-freedom and liberty, and has reported hundreds if not thousands of stories to back up that claim. You need to bring better examples along with a more thorough explanation if you want to be taken seriously with that point.

      1. A disinformation agent will speak over 90% truth. It’s the rest you must beware.

        Identify the one subject he does not/will not address (Elephant in the room, as well) and you know who he is protecting and doing their bidding.

        1. As Patrick said, “they” wanted this photo of a Sandy Hook victim being displayed and represented as a victim of a false event in Palestine to be widely known. He said ours is but to reason WHY they wanted this huge anomaly to become a big item in the alternative media world.

          In my mind, we have reached some kind of big culmination, or big step, toward the one world death and slavery system as evidenced by 9-11, Sandy Hook, and Boston false events to name only three of several other false events during that time period.

          The vaccine myth / measles story is really about total disconnect between the average person and their medical care and the interface they each experience not only with vaccines but with medical treatment of many ailments. We are now faced with the Big Lie of the entire “medical model.” How major is that in our awakening?

          The breakdown of “the rule of law” and just trials and honest judges and attorneys is another major area that has become a glaringly reality in our minds these days.

          The bankruptcy of our U.S. foreign policy and our involvement in unjust military involvements and unjust wars all over the world for the last century is another huge hit on our belief system.

          The ever-obvious evil plan to greatly decrease world population in a myriad of ways that go under various false cover motivations. “It’s for the children” etc.

          I have only named a few. To me, I have enjoyed and benefited from many of the analyses done by Alex Jones and his reporters. But the major flaw in his basic meme is the whole thing about “patriotism” and “our Consitutional republic” and our unalienable rights, and a false kind of individualism and independence. There is a basic Christ-denying kind of set of tenets upon which our USA republic was founded, not the least of which is the capitalist / “free enterprise” system.

          The exact same thing that just happened to Infowars YouTube channel by YouTube/Google that happened to Independent Media Solidarity [IMS] / Peter Klein and “We Need to talk About Sandy Hook” blockbuster independent video. Yet with this supposed hit on Infowars, Inc., we now have an incident that threatens to “take down the Internet” and “take down the First Amendment.” The Posner entity apparently decided with this latest action to hit on a big fish, Infowars, rather than the IMS entity.

          IMS did not have the money to put up a big fight such as Alex says he plans to launch. But I do remember that Mr. Klein said there were serious questions about the identity of one Lenny Posner and that Google appeared to be ignoring their own rules when they allow someone to submit a copyright complaint who may not even be a real person, not to mention several other apparent departures from other parts of the YouTube rules.

          I cannot even see what kind of law suit Jones could pursue as at this point Google is the entity that needs to be dealt with regarding their rules and their own apparent ignoring of their own rules.

          I think the right thing to do for every alternative media web entity is to pursue their own path and withdraw from Google / YouTube as much as is possible. Also I have always believed that “the action is in the reaction” and we should not spend our resources reacting to actions by Lenny Posner in apparent strong association with Googly/YouTube. They continually bait us and then use our reactions to further their agenda.

          “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.” John 1:5

        2. “I cannot even see what kind of law suit Jones could pursue as at this point Google is the entity that needs to be dealt with regarding their rules and their own apparent ignoring of their own rules.”

          I am not a lawyer, so my thinking on this may not match the real world. But it strikes me that Alex’s business could be destroyed by the feckless YouTube refusing to honestly honor its own policies, which sounds like malice to me. That strikes me as actionable. Furthermore, they require you to enter into a contract with them. If they hold you to your end of the contract but feel themselves free to breach THEIR end, that is actionable, too.

          I’d also entertain the possibility that YouTube has become a de facto public utility, just as ATT once was; a private company the entire society had come to depend upon no less than those that deliver the electricity and the natural gas. They might be private companies, but the state has always considered such entities in some sense also public, and thus less permitted to act capriciously.

          Of course, such an action could take so long to come to a conclusion that Alex will long since run out of money, and the internet landscape could be completely different by then, much like it was when Microsoft was dragged through Hell because of Netscape, which hardly anyone remembered by then.

          That is, using the courts for these remedies can be in practice impossible, if not in theory.

          In the ATT and Microsoft examples, the companies were sufficiently large monopolies, whose flow of income was essentially infinite–and they were being sued by the government, so they were equally matched, and had no choice but spend whatever it takes. ATT lost, and was broken up, but all the pieces survived and got stronger, and eventually merged back together again. Microsoft won, and life went on (the lawyers all enjoyed the ride while it lasted). In Alex’s case, this would be a civil matter, David attacking Goliath. I would not count on a stone in a slingshot doing the job, however much he might pray for a miracle.

          If the fix is in on this one, it’s the end of the internet as we know it. It might be a one-two punch with “net neutrality.” Certainly, this Noah thing was planned. Someone chose to put his picture in Pakistan, and parade it around. Someone noticed it–I’m guessing an inside job, a shill. Someone decided that the BBC would publicize it to the whole world. And Lenny attacked Alex about it because Alex could be counted on to make as much noise about it as anyone out there (whether he’s being used, or is part of it, is not the point).

          I don’t think Alex is in on this; this could easily destroy everything he’s built, if he’s banned from YouTube, and if he fights a bankrupting pushback.

          YouTube/Google were created and nurtured by the Intelligence world, so this is not a level playing field. We shall learn a very great deal about our near-term future, depending on how this plays out.

        3. If Alex is so dependent on a YouTube-like webs presence for the survival of his business, perhaps he should start his own YouTube-like site for only material he generates, and make it free. Alex’s lawyers are now coaching him and Alex’s every on-air word and his every step is now being in a sense scripted on this issue. I only hope those lawyers are truly on his side. That would seem much cheaper than initiating a fight with Goliath. Of course that solution would do nothing for all the others like Independent Media Solidarity who would continue to be at Google/YouTube’s mercy. Of course, I do not think even Alex, no matter what he said, wants to be the person who tries to “save the Internet” for all. It seems very unwise for one person to take on that role.

          “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.” John 1:5

        4. Dachseilady, I’m really trying to understand your point about AJs flaw (the patriot meme) but I don’t see what you’re getting at there. However, I do feel the AJ could successfully promote the top Google and YouTube alternatives (not recalling them at the moment but there are good ones that are privacy-friendly) and that could really hurt the system.

        5. Yes, AJ may be a good one to promote alternative video venues. We know that does not include Vimeo at this point.

          As for the “patriot meme”, believe me I’ve been there, done that meme as I have gone through my evolution. I think there is much to be said for sovereign nation states and being loyal and “patriotic” to one’s country of origin and where one’s family is from too.

          Here is a brief sketch of my current thinking about “the patriot meme.”

          But I am coming to realize that the USA was not founded on Christian principles. It was founded on Enlightenment / Judeo-Masonic principles. Capitalism, whatever it started as in this country, has evolved in state-sponsored usury and crony corporatism-capitalism.

          AJ goes on and on about becoming “successful” and being of such personal character that one can succeed and be a fine upstanding member of this great country of opportunity, and not living in some dismal “two bedroom apartment.” That is the Napoleon Hill “Think and Grow Rich” meme and a kind of American exceptionalism. We see how that has worked out for about 95 percent of the U S population.

          The Constitution has been ignored in our “just-us” system for well over a century.

          Any person with a shred of a conscience left feels utterly ashamed of this USA that is mass murdering innocents all around the world.

          “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.” John 1:5

        6. All, while I’m not a big fan of A.J. and his “style”, he does reach an audience that may explore further into subjects they might not otherwise be exposed to.

          In the case of the suit, it strikes me that Lenny Possner would be the likely respondent. Following Patrick’s reasoning, A.J. relies on Google and U-Tube to sell his products. It seems to me that all would be culpable. Possner for claiming copyright infringement, which he would have to prove, and the others for acting on Possner’s allegation without proof.

          As far as “why did they do this in the first place?”, I suspect this is more psyop tactics designed to humiliate and demoralize the populace. They get at least a “twofer’ from this. One, they can see how many don’t even react to this development. Two, those who do will get nowhere in their demands for an answer. The message is: “we do whatever we like and you can pound sand”.

          I see this a sort of a race. We want to expose this stuff to as many as possible. They want to marginalize anyone who notices. If they consolidate their audience, pass laws to restrict discussion, and declare insane anyone who points out their lies, they’re home free.

          The winning strategy isn’t getting them to do anything. It is getting the eaters to stop listening to them. If we can break the spell, they will take it from there. The general statistic would be ten percent. If you can reach ten percent you can break the cycle.

          The fastest, most effective method is ridicule and humor. For non-initiates to get interested requires that they stop thinking of all these mutts as all-powerful “authorities”. If you treat them like you don’t believe a thing coming out of their mouths, you win. You win because you just changed the dynamic. You’ve said; “I have no obligation to believe. Prove it to me”.If you can learn to do that while grinning broadly, they will shrink before your very eyes.

          I’d like to see Lenny being chased by A.J. with his bullhorn. He could take a few of those girls he dresses like witches with him. He does that all the time in Austin, I don’t see why he couldn’t do that in Florida, or Connecticut.

  6. Well I think it’s good thing they attacked Alex Jones because he can really move this to the foreground.

    Most people don’t know that these attacks and censorship are happening.

    I guess Lenny and the Honr Network felt confident enough now to attack Jones because of all the kaos Obama has cooking at the FCC.

    If they can take Alex Jones down, they can easily take out almost everyone including this blog

    Interesting side, Alex said he can’t believe they attacked him when he has actively been trying to stay in the middle as many have attacked him for this.

    After a called expressed how many people think he’s been avoiding Sandy Hook he said ” My Reporters and I were told early on by the FBI to STAY out of it. Whether that’s true or not I don’t know but he said it.

    Then he said now, (referring to the Pozner attack) “I think I’m going to go to Sandy Hook myself” Can you imagine Jones running around Sandy Hook with his Bullhorn…haha

    Whether you like him or not or he’s “controlled opposition” is a non-issue.

    Obama via the FCC are preparing for a war on the internet and free speech that should have everyone alarmed.

    Pozner/Horn Network are throwing the first stones to see how they land.

  7. Why was the picture reused?

    Who first noticed it?

    Why did the BBC blast out the story?

    It strikes me that they are laughing at us once again. They are using Alex to make well certain that the world knows all about it–whether he is aware of it or not. They want us to know that they reused the picture, desperately. They want the fakery to be completely out in the open, and talked about.

    They don’t do things like this for no reason. Ours is but to wonder what that reasn is.

    1. It is very clear, Patrick, that these people suing people in alternate media have very good, very expensive legal helpers. To me, the hidden helpers all work for the US Government…..It’s been over 2 years and Sandy Hook has been the springboard toward more and more strict laws directed against gun owners and citizens in general. Here in Connecticut, I can assure people that something is very rotten and the stink emanating from this state and this incident is horrendous.

      As of this date, the Number 1 question is “how have they kept all the citizens of Newtown quiet on this issue”? I have heard of no people who have decided to go straight and unload the truth on us, but it has not happened. Interestingly, Veterans Today has a recent article that calls Newtown a “synthetic town” that went together around 3 years before the “event”. Real estate records are bizarre, this is an amazing mess and the vast bulk of Connecticut residents know NOTHING and care even less!! Only a citizenry that is braindead would allow this to happen.
      I can go on and on about the event, it is both interesting and incredibly complex. But, the hounds are on the heels of the fox and our task now is to identify a method to gain far wider dissemination of the truths gleaned from the efforts of great investigators like Dr Jim Fetzer. We must all do our part to get the word out.

    2. Believe it or not, there are “subtleties” to this. I know, I know, we’re talking A.J. here! But, he’s getting played like a cheap fiddle (or he’s volunteered for the concert).

      I’ve already talked about advancing policy through faked tragedy, this is similar. It is establishing case law through bogus legal actions.

      I would never have believed that Connecticut would have gotten away with the laws they passed regarding public records. But, there they are.

      The move here is in controlling the internet. We can see from “Absmover’s” clip (below), that they are already at work with the name calling and mis-characterizations. They are basically saying “our hoax was real. These people are to be pitied. Their right to be pitied trumps your rights as citizens”.

      So we are faced with the bizarre situation in which these actors plaster their mugs all over the internet and appeal for donations and legislation, and anyone who copies their photos or text will be challenged for copyright infringement?

      This is very close to the discussions a while back about what constitutes a “journalist”. If you work for the MSM you are “authorized”. If not, shut up.

      Whenever they pull one of these stunts I have to wonder what their end game is. My guess is that it is making it difficult, if not impossible, to oppose their propaganda.

  8. Conspicuous by their absence, where the heck is the ACLU hiding with all the censorship taking place and the possible govt. takeover of the internet? A look at their website shows them to be busy fighting for breast feeding rights, advocating for not giving patents for gene technology, immigrant rights and many other ‘important’ issues’ but free speech not so much. They used to be ‘out there’ advocating before you could say Al Sharpton.

    There has to be some other ‘angle’ to this AJ censorship thing going on. Lenny Pozner has to be some kind of govt. agent that works with the govt. agents at google/you tube in order to be taking down all incriminating videos and channels. It’s obvious what they are targetting. If the ‘Poz’ was a real grieving father he’d be raising holy hell about how his kid Noah unbelievably was reported as a victim of the Pakastani school shooting! I have not yet heard him or anyone else address this phenomena. Or the phenomena of him being ‘fake’ dead twice. Only in a psyop intel world could that possibly happen. Since the ‘POZ’ and the HONR network are central to a lot of the censorship at you tube, examples of the censorship would need to be presented. I can’t imagine how any of this would even be able to get to first base secondary to all the judicial corruption. If the internet goes hardcore censorship, a lot of people making a lot of money off it–AJ– for one will lose. Or, maybe he’s playing a part to bring it on. We seem to be to be in some kind of reality vs unreality war.

    1. The ACLU only works for Liberal causes and are the equivalent of the Southern Poverty Law Center which works for the FBI to promote ONLY White People are the biggest threat to America but don’t include themselves in the White part.

      There, I said said

      They are the worst of the worst and get your tax money to “advise” our Govt. on who Bad and Who good.

      They don’t include themselves in the calculation because they are Superior to us mere Humans.

      I said it, let the chips fall where they may….

      1. I need to clarify before everyone calls me some kind of Racist as the left love.

        There is a group of people claiming to be Religious that don’t have a religious bone in their body that claim they hold the superior right over us. yet promote everything that is immoral. then claim they are morally superior.

        I need not tell anyone here.

        If I’m a racist then John of Revelation is a Racist too. Enough said.

        The good people are your next door neighbors and don’t share their ideals.

        i hope I’m understood and in NO way are down on my Brothers and Sisters……

      2. The Electronic Frontier Foundation – among many other orgs are fighting tooth and nail against this abomination proposed for the internet.

        Scott creighton has covered this from its origins, t he latest bill is not to be vetted by the public. unfortunately I can’t name one fortune 500 company that isn’t on board the people.

        I’m guessing they just wanted to get rid of any liability -if there is any – in regards to sharing our private information, especially with the government.

        Willy Loman explains it much better:

        1. Before you start relying too heavily on EFF as the savior of freedom, check out James Corbett’s interview with Pearse Redmond called “Peeling the TOR Onion”. Very enlightening.

    1. Yes, Ray, I can see your point regard theatrics and absense of tears in the SHS crisis actors; however, this woman, after watching carefully, is too spot-on to be believed. She is Vogue Magazine beautiful and an immediate sympathetic character. Skepticism hangs on like a cloud.

      Here’s the thing: The PTB are now voicing grave concerns over the EU shooting incidents blaming it on social media…aha! We have it narrowed down. A high level French minister is calling for control over this
      culprit–social media–which led young Muslims to a radicalized mental state ending in violence. (otherwise, they would appear to be perfectly normal, mischeivious post-teens. hmmm) Sounds like a set up for giving impetus for censoring and to take down certain websights. Will play well in the usual precincts of controlled information outlets.

      Remedy–gov control of social media, i.e., stiffle dissent in its many permutations. The North Carolina killings are just toooooo convenient and counter the murders in the European capitals. The “we are all in this together” meme is pitch perfect, inciting huge demonstrations across the world. Biggest turnout in N.C. since the days of civil rights for Blacks– protesting the tragic killings of three harmless college students.

      Just wondering about the timing. In politics, timing is everyhing. A few sacrifices must be made for “the greater good,” as the Globalists constantly preach.

      Don’t misunderstand, I am all in for real peace, but it must be real and organic, not another trumped up scenario born of a dubious agenda.

      1. We shall see if the Globalists go after social media soon. It will be interesting to track what rabbit reason they will pull out of their hats.

        The French Interior Minister blames social media outlets for radicalizing those who committed the carnage. However, it was the French government intelligence who dropped the ball when they sumarily dropped surveilance of the two suspected brothers. Ever wonder why the police chief committed suicide?
        Could it be he was told to stand down from keeping tabs on the two and when he realized his own gov aided and abetted the massacre, his conscience could not handle it?

        Cass Sunstein (Obama czar of regulatory affairs under the Office of Management and Budget wanted to ‘nudge’ supreme powers to curtail and manage the effects of dissenting social blogs by infiltrating the discourse to rein in critical thinking. He hoped to rehabilitate sinners (read: promote his way of thinking). Sounds more like a collectivist approach than a democratic process.

        Can you say New World Order? Gerald Celente, on a recent AJ show said all those hand-holding elites from the EU march, crying crocodile tears (My opinion re the
        tears) were ALL actually terrorists,

        1. Political correctness is a Marxist pill of persuasion and reminds me of the Marxist mantra: “religion is an opiate of the people.” Actually both of these axioms are enshrined in propagandist thinking.

          France’s jihadist surge is part and parcel of the Communist Manifesto. Always left-leaning, the French are taking a second look at their love affair with inclusiveness and cultural assimilation after decades
          of pretending not to notice that it isn’t working. Now we have the same incorrect correstness foisted upon us
          in the US.–the UN agenda runs amok.

          Read this for background…

        2. If you’re right about France thinking twice, Marilyn, it’s too little too late. All Europe chose civilizational suicide. Check out this story about Sweden:

          “In 1975, the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the former homogeneous Sweden into a multicultural country. Forty years later the dramatic consequences of this experiment emerge: violent crime has increased by 300%

          In the 1960s pretty much everyone in England was English, everyone in France French, everyone in…well you get the picture. The importation of huge numbers whose minds held to the assumptions of an incompatible, alien, civilization was A CHOICE, made by all Western countries’ leadership, with no consultation of the people they supposedly served/represented.

          Why was this done? Why did the powerful in the Western world intentionally invite in the very people we had for centuries fought bloody wars to drive back when they invaded our lands?

          And why did we not rebel against those traitors?

          I know the answer to these questions, but no one wants to know them.

          Everyone, by now, seems to assume that the vast numbers of moslems residing in European countries (and, increasingly, North America) is somehow normal. Charles Martel, where are you when we really need you?

        3. And why did we not rebel against those traitors?

          Because, for the last 100 years we have been operating under the false assumption that the people we put in charge were using Christian values to guide their decision making process. We should have been using the internet to expose their marxist/satanic belief system just like they use the MSM to continuously beat into the population that right is wrong, good is evil, there are no such things as monsters, everything is relative, huge steel and concrete buildings collapse from fire, and the government is here to help. Then again, we have, its just too late.

        4. Great comment, Rich. Thank you.

          “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.” John 1:5

        5. Responding to a quote from an article referenced in Patrick’s comment… “In the 1960s pretty much everyone in England was English, everyone in France French, everyone in…well you get the picture. The importation of huge numbers whose minds held to the assumptions of an incompatible, alien, civilization was A CHOICE, made by all Western countries’ leadership, with no consultation of the people they supposedly served/represented.” I say there is some very relevant information missing from this statement. It may be that “everyone in England was English, everyone in France French” but I submit that there was a MAJOR split in the English and French and other European country populations long before the 1960’s. In fact, the “split” happened from about the time of the Protestant Revolt or “Reformation.” The people of France may have remained “French” but that does not equate with homogeneity. They may all still be “French” living in one country and the same culture, and incidentally all have the same “white skin”, but the people of France were DEEPLY divided because of religious belief differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. I believe that it is THAT split in religious beliefs that led to many of the other negative impacts on the culture of each European country. I do agree with the idea that “multiculturism” is usually negative for a group of people living in proximity of the same one culture. I just think that religious belief system is the most important divider of a people. I do not believe that there is ever much “fair and balanced” discussion of Muslim “immigration” into other countries. I believe the Muslim religion was born in the seventh century A.D. and was born in mass bloody murder. But every human being must be treated fairly and what has happened to the Muslim peoples in Palestine and other countries is wrong in God’s sight. As for Western countries’ leadership being the ones who made the decision to admit to their country “huge numbers whose minds held to the assumptions of an incompatible, alien, civilization”, I would say that the people of the USA were already totally worn down by the slaughter of their large urban cities of the northeast USA by forced immigration of Southern Africans into ethnic neighborhoods (Irish, Italian, Polish, etc). Read book, The Slaughter of Cities. The people of those ethnic neighborhoods that were “slaughter” and “blown apart” moved into suburbia in droves, called “White flight.” There is a strong intimidation factor in that people do not like to publically object to any ethnic group, be it Muslim or African, coming into their country because then they are said to be “racist” or discriminatory. So that is why the people did not object to their leaders’ decision to allow the Muslims to immigrate. “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.” John 1:5

        6. The protocols should not be overlooked. We see the results everywhere and every day. Some of the nicest and most decent people I have met are Jewish, and some of the most miserable ones have been “my own kind”. This does not detract from the fact that there is a certain faction among us hell bent on a one world government at all costs. That faction is the one with the real power as this just in from Sweden proves:

          Swedish Radio and the host of its current affairs program Studio Ett apologized to the country’s Israeli ambassador for asking him an offensive question, such as are Jews themselves guilty of creating anti-Semitism. The radio station is publishing an edited version of the interview.

          In English:

        7. Well, dachsielady, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I disagree with it.

          English people were getting along fine in England, once Bloody Mary was, thank God, stopped from burning “heretics” in the public square. Certainly, the Glorious Revolution put an end to the prospect permanently. It wasn’t long before Catholics were pretty much forgiven, and everyone was getting along fine. But the time Chesterton converted to Catholicism, no one cared. The Catholic, Tolkien, was the man responsible for leading Lewis, the protestant, to salvation–to all the world’s absolute benefit. This was the late 19th and the first half of the 20th century. Catholic and protestant walked arm-in-arm in England, spiritual giants of living memory, who blessed all the world.

          France is a bit more complicated, but not altogether different. In the aftermath of Huss, and a century later, Luther’s listing of Rome’s corruption, the continent became roiled in a Thirty Years’ War to sort it out. France’s Cardinal Richelieu kept that pot boiling as long as possible. Perhaps that’s why the priest-killers of the French Revolution emerged a couple centuries later. Yet, all this religious contention was completely settled down by the end of the 19th century. Great voices of French Catholicism (Hilaire Belloc, for instance), and French protestantism (Paul Ricœur is an example) could speak freely, and everyone was fine with it–even in the context of the official atheism of the French state, post-napoleon.

          We could talk about Germany–the other side in the Thirty Years’ War, to oversimplify, and come down to the same story: by the turn of the 20th century, everyone was German, and getting along fine–religion-wise.

          I don’t know if the Reformation made it to Italy, or Spain, But it really doesn’t matter to my original point. Before the social engineers in the 1960s and 70s decided to fundamentally remake all the countries of the West, by importing, inorganically, huge numbers of people representative of an alien civilization that could not conceivably be expected to blend in and acculturate, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, Norway, England, France, Italy…. The people that lived in these countries were Spanish, Swedish, Danish, Greek, Norwegian, English, French, Italian.

          Say what you want, the wars of religion were a distant memory by the 19th century. Religious divisions were no longer tearing those countries apart. Interpretations of Biblical theology were, finally, a matter of drawing-room debate, not pyres in the public square.

          And this brings me to the point I was trying to make (and I’m glad for your comment, because it draws it out in full form): the growing pains we experienced over the course of Western history were an organic, logical, outgrowth if the internal logic of Christianity. It was all a struggle to “get it right,” “it” being who WE are. We were fighting an intramural squabble. What the social engineers of the 60s and 70s did, on the other hand, was exactly the opposite. They intentionally brought in a completely different conversation, without asking us, and expected us to deal with it–a situation never before experienced in the history of the West.

          It is akin to the owners of the NFL decreeing that each team accept a certain percentage of hockey players be hired, and ordain that they play in every quarter, in key football positions, however inept they might be. Or the FCC force television networks to put deaf-and-dumb presenters on their top shows, where they have to pretend to hear and speak.

          By the time of the First World War, the West had long since gotten over the heated split between Rome and those Christians who considered its theology incorrect, and was living the best life history has recorded. After the end of the Second World War, the rulers of the West’s countries determined to destroy that comity. We live with the aftermath today.

        8. Let’s identify some of the major “social engineers” of the 60s and 70s.

          Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, Theodore Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Alexander Lowen, Stanley Keleman, Moshe Feldenkreis, Ida Rolf, Paul Goodman, Norman Mailer, Allen Ginsberg, Saul Bellow, Fritz Perls and Arthur Janov.

          John 1:5

        9. Those are indeed truly that, D, if you want to talk about social engineering of the mind. I was referring to socially engineering the human population, by changing the civilizational demographics. Both are evil, and equally destructive. The goal is to create a New World Order, to be ruled by Antichrist. Order out of chaos can only be achieved if chaos has been created–and Western civilization at the turn of the 20th century was anything but chaotic. Unacceptable. So it was undone.


        10. Same folks.

          “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.” John 1:5

    2. Anderson Cooper with exclusive interviews of the newly bereaved who shed no tears equals another propaganda driven false flag event.

      The actress has to cover her face a number of times to try and muster grief. As in explain the conflicts you family had with this man. Cannot imagine a person saying “I am not comfortable with the way you look…” Cover face to hide the smile and state, sorry this is too hard.

      She is not entirely sure of his name – is it DEEah or is it daAHH?
      Deah Shaddy Barakat is almost as bad as Marcia McNutt declaring at the recent global warming conference that we should experiment with pumping carbon dioxide in the sky and plant more trees to make it cooler.

      Here is an atheist’s analysis of the alleged killers face book account, seems fair, although strange that with the long history, there are not many ‘likes.’

      Did not find any facebook pages for the individual alleged victims, but many fundraising links for ‘their’ cause.

      We can always rely on the Guardian to crack the case in less than 2 days, he was an anti-religion, gun loving, scary person with mental illness. His ex of 25 years ago had to leave as all he did was watch a sick movie over and over laughing. The neighbors were all scared and even called a meeting a year ago to discuss him.

      With all the video of the beleaguered Boston folks guarding their dug out public parking spots with lawn chairs, expect a new rash of hate crime murder sprees over parking rights.
      Seems we would have better luck exposing the current hoaxes with fresh trails, than those already bulldozed! How about an #exposefraudAndersonCooper?

      1. I swear they’ve used that picture before of the guy who killed 3 muslims.

        He has the whole crazed face going on like Lanza, Holms and company but I swear he looks very familiar maybe from 5 years ago or something.

        It’s obvious they’re running out of ‘”bad guy” photos as we witnessed with noah’s pic being reused.

      2. Of course, this propaganda piece is intended to make us think Muslims are a kind and gentle race too, not the ones who murder Christians and Jews of course.

        This facebook page of Crag.Hicks.967 has to be fake. There are endless computer generated rants on how bad religions are with very little personal touches. As an afterthought, 3 pictures of Hicks are inserted on one day in Dec, with hair and without.

        You can’t be a pro-gun person and a fan of HuffPro, or against Republicans and those who do not support the unaffordable health care takeover. A computer generated fanatic, who’s programmer just could not resist inserting their leftist views.

  9. For those of you that wish to attack AJ on this blog, be patient and wait for what develops – I think he is A Ok. This new development can lead to opening the next can of worms.

    1. Amen. We need all the help we can get and Lenny just kicked open a hill of Red Ants.

      AJ removed his video posted here by Tracy. And nothing from yesterdays broadcast is posted on his youtube page which is not the norm.

      So,two things come to mind. He’s either packing it up and running OR he’s getting ready for the fight.

      As you said, lets be patient and see what develops.

    2. I wonder if infowars has morality clauses in its contracts, preventing them from issuing statements that offend the public. Check out NBC’s here –

      “If artist commits any act or becomes involved in any situation, or occurrence, which brings artist into public disrepute, contempt, scandal or ridicule, or which justifiably shocks, insults or offends a significant portion of the community, or if publicity is given to any such conduct . . . company shall have the right to terminate.”

      NBC contract morality clause – Williams isn’t considered a reporter but called “an artist” meaning actor, so he can offend as an actor but otherwise lie or act his head off while reading phony news reports.

      1. Interesting information, Marzi.

        “I wonder if infowars has morality clauses in its contracts”

        Regarding this specific MHB article, I doubt very much if Infowars’ has any separate and binding formal contract with Google/YouTube (YT) and think Infowars has only the agreement that all the other YT channel operators have with YT, and I doubt very much if that YT standard agreement includes any wording such as you suggest NBC has. I would think that standard YT agreement would be available now to any of us who would like to view it.

        I would think, at this point in time anyway, that YT is a different kind of company than NBC and the other “MSM” television news broadcasters.

        An MSM news “talking head” being regarded as an “artist” I am sure would apply to all the alternative internet radio show hosts, but that does not seem to be what legally would apply or be at issue in the current Infowars matter regarding complaint to YT by “Lenny Posner.”

        “Williams isn’t considered a reporter but called “an artist” meaning actor, so he can offend as an actor but otherwise lie or act his head off while reading phony news reports.”

        But NBC contract implies that not only can the artist “lie or act his head off ” while delivering the news on the broadcasts, but the artist MAY NOT act in any manner ON AIR OR IN THE ARTIST’s PRIVATE LIFE…

        “If artist commits any act or becomes involved in any situation, or occurrence, which brings artist into public disrepute, contempt, scandal or ridicule, or which justifiably shocks, insults or offends a significant portion of the community, or if publicity is given to any such conduct . . . company shall have the right to terminate.”

        I notice that the above description of the “offense” against the network news outlet, NBC, is one that can take place while the artist is speaking the news live on TV or even the artist’s conduct outside of the employment setting and includes any of the artist’s actions in the artist’s private life.

        Williams acted a lie on air, but that action while in and of itself is permissible and not a contract violation, the artist, by that permissible on-air lie, was brought into “public disrepute, contempt, scandal or ridicule”, so that second part is where NBC can fire Williams and not be in contract violation.”

        I have noticed that very many of the most popular alternative media Internet radio talk shows have started filling up their show content with talking about the day’s main “news” stories, as does Infowars and The Power Hour and several others. That has been a convenient choice of show subject matter for the show hosts and co-hosts but it has not made them “reporters” in any sense of that word that I hold in regard to true journalism. I do not know if any real “reporters” and true journalism still exists anywhere.

        “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.” John 1:5

      2. Also, I think that NBC is just using or capitalizing on this Brian Williams matter to boost their severely sagging ratings. NBC wants to make it look like NBC truly cares about the accuracy and truthfulness of their reporting and therefore people should keep watching NBC news because of its high standards.

        Sorry NBC. Too little too late.

        “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.” John 1:5

  10. infowars has money, which means they can afford lawyers. They should file suit
    against that fake half wit Lenny. He is clearly breaking the law to a point where it is criminal.

  11. I think they just censored the Sandy Hook video of the Wasik’s coaching their daughter and choking her during an interview with Fox News. That video had over 125 thousand views. I think it was called “Sandy Hook Mind Control and Child Abuse” I forgot who produced it.

      1. that’s it – after 125 thousand plus views it is now gone from youtube- great video and it promoted the other big video at the end of the clip

        1. This video is still on YouTube – title …

          Disturbingly Creepy!! CNN Child Abuse Mind Control!! 2015 USA documentary


          “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.” John 1:5

    1. I found that coaching/choking vid on Red Pill Revolution, not sure if you are speaking of the same source. RPR seems to be stumbling recently and I think he may have deleted all his work himself, but don’t quote me on this.

  12. Where to begin? No wonder Shanely, Alex Jones and others involved in the truth movement seem at times a bit disconnected from reality-based, penetrating thought processes. Just finished viewing this ‘Guns and Butter’ video with Bonnie Faulkner and two Ph.Ds traking gangstalking of targeted individuals.

    This area of inquiry commands my attention for reasons I am not at liberty to divulge–just trust me on that….

    1. Marilyn, thanks, it was an interesting video. I am keeping an open mind about this. I have to admit that there are simply to many “holes” that remain unfilled to evaluate it.

      Besides the medical check list refinements mentioned, there are other disciplines that should chime in on this one. I don’t have issues with the technology or the explanations for it. I still can’t understand the “who’s” and “why’s” of it. If there were discernible patterns and outcomes it might be clearer to me.

      As they said, I sympathize with anyone going to the authorities or professionals about this problem. If they are serious about helping their fellow sufferers, they will have to establish reliable methods of diagnosing and controlling it. For them to say “we don’t know how its done, and it doesn’t matter”, evades one of the core problems of getting serious interest in it.

      At a minimum, they will have to come up with a test that conclusively differentiates this from Schizophrenia. They will get no professional help without it.

    1. Patrick- Don’t you mean the nightmare that the END of net neutrality represents?

      There is an excellent book on this subject titled “Captive Audience” by Harvard professor Susan Crawford which offers an account of the legal history behind this controversy. The monopoly power in the telecommunications industry (Comcast) has created a legal fiction overturning years of established law governing what is known as the “common carrier” status of their cables. Instead of putting their “pipes” (cables), into the same legal category as phone lines or electrical lines, or roads for that matter, the telecom industry argues that as a content provider, its “pipes” or cables, are part of its service, and therefore are not subject to the common carrier status which governs other types of utilities. Common carrier laws prohibit utilities from charging different rates to the individual users of its roads or wires or cables. These roads or wires or cables are held to be “common property” in the sense that competing enterprises are allowed use them without paying additional costs. This law ensures that no private utility can have a monopoly on the one and only road or wire or cable that leads to your house, for instance. This obviously beneficial law is what is being fraudulently overturned by the FCC.

    2. He does explain it so all can understand with humor.

      It’s nice to see that maybe some of the intellectuals on the left understand how serious this is. Of course the voting majority of the left will never get it or even care.

      Because Obama is using the FCC he can “just do it”,

      We can scream and beg all we want for congress to do something about it as we have with ALL of Obama’s E.O Orders. Yawn

      1. I was going to say something else in my last entry then changed my mind but decided to go ahead.

        What if during this whole turmoil of the “Net Neutrality” argument and the uncertainty of using the ‘Fair Act” to comment and post videos on major issues as Lenny Poszner/Honr Network has demonstrated by shutting everyone down there is a Major False Flag?

        Can we Blog?

        1. I’m not sure I am totally understanding the question, but here goes.

          Everyone here would say, look we were right!
          The rest of the world would go, huh? and then resume playing Sudoku, or candy crush.

        2. What I was trying to say when I said this:

          What if during this whole turmoil of the “Net Neutrality” argument and the uncertainty of using the ‘Fair Act” to comment and post videos on major issues, as Lenny Poszner/Honr Network has demonstrated by shutting everyone down, there is a Major False Flag?

          Pozner/Honr Network seem to be trumping the Fair Use Act with their Copywrite Claims being honored by Youtube/Google.
          I don’t think this is a fluke either.

          There has also been a long argument by this administration that Bloggers are essentially Journalists without Govt. sanctioned credentials.

          So, I see a scenario brewing here where if another False Flag occurs.

          They could shut all opposition down in mere hours of the incident.

          The usual Great bloggers, who show news clips of the crime scene from 3 different major news agencies under the Fair Use Act may get a surprise.

          The bloggers always point out all the discrepancies in the Video footage and the Agenda driven reporting may get trumped by the Same Copyright infringement claims that Pozner/Honr Network is successfully doing.

          That’s 3 strikes your out on the Darpa owned Youtube/Google site.

          All our good friends who work so hard exposing the lies might get shut down in the first day of the False Flag so we are in the dark.
          We will only have the MSM for news.

          Then they’re next move is to qualify who is a Journalist?
          Someone Brainwashed in our institutions, or, can a regular guy with a brain state his uneducated opinion on a blog without credentials?

          That’s all I was trying to saying 20 words or less..haha

        3. That would reinforce the amendment to the shield law they were trying to pass a few years back, where non government recognized journalists would lose first amendment protections. I don’t think they ever got it passed, but along with your idea would give them a 1-2 punch. If they talk about it, they usually get it. It takes time, but eventually, they always get what they want.

          Although our government starts wars in far off places, its just camouflage for their never ending war against their own people.

        4. Thanks Rich,
          That was what I was trying to say.

          They Pull a Major False Flag and use this whole smoke screen/ argument about if we have the right to opine and rebroadcast “their”news footage on the internet using the Fair Use Act as protection to shut everyone down.

          As you said, a 1-2 punch your out.

          It’s just a theory but anything is possible with these bottom feeders.

    3. This guy is very funny, and he gets to the heart of the matter quite well. My concern is that the only people on TV (or TEE VEE as our esteemed commenter calls it) who are allowed to get angry about anything, are the comedians. First Jon Stewart, Colbert, and now this guy. Its like they have added a new department to Airstrip One, and its name is “The Ministry of making the Crap Sandwich go down better”. They let these guys tell it like it is, but it doesn’t change anything.

      Reminds me of “Network”, when the anchorman yells “I’m sick and tired and I’m not going to take it anymore”. But we did take it, and still do, and apparently, always will.

      1. : They let these guys tell it like it is, but it doesn’t change anything. Reminds me of “Network”, when the anchorman yells “I’m sick and tired and I’m not going to take it anymore”. But we did take it, and still do, and apparently, always will.”

        Yes, all of much of what “we” do is respond to adn complain about the one big garbage category — outrageous corruption everywhere. This is the Ain’t it Awful game described in the book Games People Play.

        If what we are presently doing, and what we have consistently done for many years is not effecting a positive change, shouldn’t we stop playing the ain’t-it-awful game and try another tactic?

        My personal Corruption Tolerance Level is off the charts.

        “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.” John 1:5

        1. Corruption lives off money and excess. Starve them. If you can’t starve them, then far too many people are still too happy with the system to effect any change.

        2. Agreed. I think something like Bitcoin could be a powerful resource. If we all started investing in it, promoting it, and using it in lieu of the dollar, I feel it would have the potential to pull the rug out from under their feet.

  13. You really need to back way the hell up to WWII propaganda, and discover for yourself that nuclear bombs do not exist. There is no such thing as a nuclear explosion. It is not physically possible. The entire Manhattan Project was a hoax, not only on the enemies of the US at the time, but on the people of the united states as well.

    AJ’s wife is a member of the tribe.

    1. So All those Japanese people that were evaporated and reduced to mere Shadows on the sidewalks were just delusional and the Japanese Govt. surrendered for no reason? Wow. /sarc off

      The Twin Towers were a combination of thermite wired with explosives and some kind of unknown nuclear device. IMO

      I can’t understand the fight between the thermite crowd and the mini-nuke crowd.

      I think BOTH were used in conjunction with each other. I can’t see it any other way

      AJ’s wife is a Christian Jew and just out of common respect and decency his family should never be part of conversation.

      Of course, My Humble Opinion

  14. Patrick says:
    Congress? Sure, it could eliminate the EPA or the IRS or any other monstrosity it created, but then it would have to take responsibility for those tasks, and the voters would hold them to account. Can’t have that.

    I agree with the comment until this point. Simply because the voters are the weakest link in the system. They can hold no one to account. The only people in Congress(or Presidents for that matter) who ever stand on the carpet, do so for diddling an intern, or tapping their feet in airport bathroom, or having two families. Well… at least in the last 30 years or so, with the exception of James Trafficant, who would still be in office today had he not gone to prison(not sent by the voters) and gotten magically run over by his own tractor.
    Sure, maybe someone here or there may pay at the box office… er, I mean voting booth. But the replacement stooge is selected for us by the governmedia, and we all know that either candidate will do as far as they are concerned. The voters have no power as long as they are dumb enough to vote only left left(D), and left right(R). The people are as guilty of kicking the can down the road as the government. The people are just as afraid of the pain that would be involved in fixing the system as our leaders.
    Per the examples of EPA and IRS; I would really like to see congress try to abolish one of these. If for no other reason, just to see if it is possible. Maybe they will someday, just to prove their relevance, but I highly doubt it. Isn’t it interesting that these agencies all eventually become law enforcement agencies in their own right. This of course strengthens the executive, like Patrick said, but also gives Congress reason to fear them. After all anyone trying to eliminate an agency will have to open his own shorts to inspection, and that is where the accountability resides, not with the voters.

  15. Patrick, I have been following the rape of Euopean cities forever with horeror and curiosity as to why it is allowed to happen.

    The murder of a Dutch filmaker, Theo Van Gogh, several years ago should have raised the red flags…not actually.He made a film called “Subnission” detailing the Muslim abuse of women, as well as an earlier one entitled, “Fitna”– the Arabic word for strife. A Muslim immigrant took issue with the subject matter and killed him in broad daylight on a city street in the Netherlands. So much for propogating peace and brothehood.

    Dutch politician and activist, Geert Wilder locked horns with the PC devotees in the country. He was indicted for his failure to follow the leaders and kowtow to Muslim extremism.

    He said in the Dutch Parliament, “If you wave an ISIS flag. it is an EXIT ticket–leave!” He has lectured in the US warning about our coddling of Islamic ideology and engaging Muslims in their political ploy called, “tagyyah,”which I gather, means you can pretend to cooperate while lying though your teeth (in the name of Allah”).

    Do the math: count the number of Muslim/Arab countries or fellow travelers in the UN vs. votes by others in opposition to realize the power of Islam.

    Just checking in on this issue…

    1. great big oopes..sorry: tagiyya may be spelled wrong but the meaning is the same, as far as I can find on Google.
      Also, it was Geert Wilders who filmed “Fitna” not Theo Van Gogh. Must be getting weary. Long day.’

      I try to be correct. It is important when dealing with important matters.

    1. A hoax within a hoax?
      This little mystery has never been explained. According to Wilfrido Cardenas Hoffmann’s public defender he is unable to speak English, but this is what he said when calling Newtown resident and psychiatrist Dr. Jacqueline Taback:
      “This is Adam Lanza and I am going to kill you.”

      Sandy Hook Telephone Hoaxer Gets More Prison Time

  16. Alex Jones DOES have his own TV network. He doesn’t need YouTube anymore than a duck needs a raincoat. He uses it for the same reason that anyone with a smartphone that does video uses it. It’s free, and if you post original content that generaters millions of hits, you can become a millionaire.

    The Sandy Hook parents have been far more interested in making a buck off of their alleged dead kid than in making a memorial for him or her. I say “alleged” not because I believe someone like Noah Pozner is still alive, but that Noah Pozner or any of the victims are the biological children of the parents interviewed.

    The possibility for real dead kids and fake parents is the same as fake dead kids and fake parents. To put it another way, if there was a massacre oif 20 children, it did not happen as the media, the parents, the Newtown police, the Connecticut police, and the Connecticut AG’s office described it. In fact, if there was a massacre, it happenbed elsewhere and not at Sandy Hook beginning at 9:35am on December 14, 2012.

    The video footage aired by CNN was taken of St. Lima and not Sandy Hook. Was it a drill or a live event? A drill for that date and that location had been announced but terrrorists have turned staged drills into live terrorist attacks as they did on 7/7 in London, and maybe at the Boston Marathon as well.

    There has never been an event like Sandy Hook – which, in reality, was a Columbine copykat so it was not a unique event – wehere so little informstion weas given out, where there should have been parents launching into fits of grief and agony, and not giving out smiling interviews to oine news agency after another, where peopole were threatened with jail time by SS Lt. Vance for asking the same questions that network TV anchors were asking, and reporters were writing about leaked information from “unknown sources” or “Sources who wished to remain anonymous.”

    Vance wanted to maintain total control on what information went out in the same way that Hamas terrorists threaten Western journalists to report their totally distorted accounts of IDF attacks – especially the casualty counts that were multiplied by 100 and never distinguished between Hamas “militants” and civilians.

    I’ve done my own research and am working on a long report that will be released as soon as my FOIA requests are fulfilled and I have the info I need to complete the circle.

    The bottom line is that the final report released by Assistant Connecticut DA Steven Sedensky on November 25, 2013 (eleven months after the Sandy Hook incident took place), that Adam Lanza acted totally alone is total and complete hogwash – and a cover-up of epic proportions is what has transpired in Connecticut as the evidence proving that more than one person was involved in the events of 12/14/2013 id overwhelming and irrefutable.

    Obama wants to control Youtube because all of the videos exposing his fraud are on there, and since none of them violate Google’s TOS, it’;s the only way he can remove them by applying his own rules to them via his federal agencies.

    The House needs tro defunds the FCC totally until it reverses its decision and leaves the Internet free and open.

Comments are closed.