Fired professor, James Tracy, sues his University

Jon Rappoport

James Tracy, a tenured professor at Florida Atlantic University, was fired because he dared to express his contrarian views and lay out his research about the Sandy Hook shooting.

rappoportTracy did so as a private citizen on his blog. He made that clear.

But the University didn’t care. They ripped away his tenure and job.

Now Tracy is suing. As he should. Because the issue is a little thing called the 1st Amendment.

I’ve read his court filing. It appears to me that Tracy’s own union took his side and then betrayed him. It appears to me that the University cooked up a fake reason for firing him: he didn’t send in a vaguely worded form they wanted him to sign.

But the real reason had to do with Tracy’s view about Sandy Hook: that it was a hoax. It doesn’t matter whether you or I or anyone else agrees with his assessment. What matters is his inherent right to express his view.

The University doesn’t want to grant Tracy that right. The University is worried about press blowback and “reputation.” Apparently, shutting down free speech doesn’t affect the University’s standing in this day and age. It’s an easy sell.

Well, it shouldn’t be.

There is a lot riding on the outcome of this court case.

Where are the thousands of college professors all over the country who should be flocking to Tracy’s side with uncompromising support? Where are their voices?

These professors are already sold out or they’re afraid, and that tells you a great deal about the current academic climate in America. The professors are captives of the system in which they work and live. They’re know which way to jump on any given issue. They know when to shut their mouths. They know when to launch an attack against an officially un-favored person. They know the boundaries and the game, and they play it.

Here is a full press release about the case posted at Professor Tracy’s blog. Read it, share it, and support this man who dares to speak and write what he finds to be true without checking, first, with some authority who wants to exercise control over the 1st Amendment.

This is the latest trend, you know, especially on college campuses. Let some group decide what everyone should believe—and then repress any contrary opinion.

This trend needs to die, and soon.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon Rappoport was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

27 thoughts on “Fired professor, James Tracy, sues his University”

  1. Funny how Jon wouldn’t let my post out of moderation re: Trumps friendship with convicted pedo Jeffery Epstein when he was pimping for him. So much for Jon’s promotion of free speech except on his site.

    1. I went to lunch some time ago with a man who was in the Mob. I also knew a man who burned the bodies of the Mob’s victims.

      I knew many wife beaters, people who abandoned their kids, people who spread AIDS with careless sex.

      I knew a wide range of misanthropes, murderers, misogynists, the scum and scourge of humanity.

      I was a parole officer. Was I pimping for the dregs of humanity? Was I going to bat for them? Was I promoting them?

      Why is Jon being excoriated because of “Trump’s friendship with Jeffrey Epstein”??

      1. Trump’s friendship with a pedo have nothing to do with Jon. I found it rather odd about his 1st amendment rights but where were mine when I tried to post a link re: Trump’s friendship and he would not allow it while pimping for Trump. He has an agenda as so many others do but doesn’t want to let facts get in the way.

  2. Jon is absolutely right about this, of course. James Tracy’s case against FAU should be getting much wider coverage. This was a flagrant violation of the terms of academic tenure, and of Tracy’s first amendment rights. American academia is squeamish and running scared. I hope Tracy crushes FAU in court and wins his job back.

  3. Reblogged this on happytailswag and commented:

    the real reason had to do with Tracy’s view about Sandy Hook: that it was a hoax. It doesn’t matter whether you or I or anyone else agrees with his assessment. What matters is his inherent right to express his view.
    The University doesn’t want to grant Tracy that right. The University is worried about press blowback and “reputation.” Apparently, shutting down free speech doesn’t affect the University’s standing in this day and age. It’s an easy sell.
    Well, it shouldn’t be.
    There is a lot riding on the outcome of this court case.
    Where are the thousands of college professors all over the country who should be flocking to Tracy’s side with uncompromising support? Where are their voices?
    These professors are already sold out or they’re afraid, and that tells you a great deal about the current academic climate in America.

  4. Shutting down free speech should be the greater threat to the University’s reputation. Yet they would rather trample on the 1st amendment than have a professor who questions the consensus on difficult, important issues. Was there ever a time when universities were a bastion of free, critical, and uncensored thought? Perhaps not for a long, long time…but the saddest thing is of all is that they still pretend to be- and in many ways this is far more disingenuous and insidious than just coming out and squashing free thinkers openly.

    It reminds me of Lysander Spooner’s argument about the highwayman (robber) vs government. At least the robber is courteous enough to not pretend to be anything other than a robber when he points a gun in your face and takes your money…


    “It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay any tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected.

    But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.

    The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travelers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.”

  5. Jon Rappoport writes very well about the various virus hoaxes, like HIV, Zika, Bird Flu, etc., and he likes to write about a gray blob he conceptualizes as “The Matrix”, but I’ve never seen a word written about the murder, fraud and other crimes committed by the Juice. I wonder why? An 800 pound gorilla should be even easier to see and write about than teeny tiny so-called “viruses”.

    1. Oh ye of little faith.

      Jon Rappaport knows enough about the control structure of this nation and world and knows how to avoid/minimize damage to himself. Let’s admit it. Coming out against the Juice can be harmful to one’s health, physical and otherwise. The Juice own the media, they can do worldwide and damaging character assassinations at the drop of a hat. Riding high one moment, assassinated the next moment.

      Run away today so you get to play tomorrow. Is that such a bad idea?

      Or, do people think that because Jon does not attack Talmudia he’s a ratfink? If so, I can pretty much assure folks that one tries to stay in the game by whatever means possible.

      Jon Rappaport has done yeoman work on many fronts and is very, very wise to avoid the shoals of Scylla and Charybdis.

      Why play it so fast and loose so you get knocked out in the first round?

      Go, Jon, Go. You are one of our most staunch allies and we like it that way.

  6. Professors are generally cowards, in my experience. What are they so afraid of that makes them afraid to raise their voices in disagreement with any university example of unethical behavior, fraud or crime?

    I have seen it time and time again. Oooohhhh those cushy jobs with the tyranny on the top. Or is it they’re just hoping for that extra discretionary funds travel funding?

    James, I hope you get what you want: If it’s your job back, or a fat settlement, whatever: You deserve much more.

    It would take REAL intelligence on the part of the adminstration to realize what a COMMERCIALLY SELLABLE gem James Tracy is! Yes, you can entice students to enroll with someone who is “controversial”! Yes, you can BRAG about your institution for ALLOWING freedom of speech and critical thought!

    1. Speaking as a professor (who doesn’t have tenure btw), I totally agree with you about the coward-stuff. But I don’t think it’s anything unique to academia: look at the medical profession, for example, how many of them don’t want to rock the boat by challenging deadly vaccines?

      Look at the military, how many of them have been deployed to the Middle East and saw that innocent civilians were being tortured (or otherwise mistreated) by their fellow-soldiers, and said nothing?

      Look at bankers and others in the financial sector, how many of them still obediently tow the line and “advise” their clients to invest in stocks and bonds and put their money “safely” in the bank–knowing full well it’s all about to collapse and they’ll lose everything?

      I could go on, but you get the idea. It’s not about professors, it’s about modern men and women having a spine, and speaking up when the professional ethics of their professions demand it. Dr. Tracy’s got a spine. Few in academia do. But few in society at large today do.

  7. Mayer Rothschild convened a meeting of twelve other wealthy men at his home in Frankfurt, Germany as of 1773 – back when his family still lived under the Green Shield in the ghetto.

    From there, they created a 25-point strategy for Rothschild’s new group, “The Illuminati.”

    Rothschild’s 25 Point Plan For World Domination – Nationalist Truth / New World Order Satanic Truth: Videos
    January 7, 2012 by admin

    Found on the body of a man, struck by lightning,
    Rothschild’s 25 Point Plan For World Domination

    In 1770, Mayer Amschel Rothschild married Gutta Schnapper. In that same year, he retained Jewish-born, Adam Weishaupt, an apostate Jesuit-trained professor of canon law, to revise and modernize Illuminism, the worship of Satan, with the objective of world domination and the imposition of the Luciferian ideology “upon what would remain of the human race” after a final orchestrated social-cataclysm. In 1773, Mayer summoned twelve wealthy men to Frankfort and asked them to pool their resources, then presented the 25-point plan that would enable them to gain control of the wealth, natural resources and manpower of the entire world.

    Those 25 points are:

    Use violence and terrorism rather than academic discussions.
    Preach “Liberalism” to usurp political power.
    Initiate class warfare.
    Politicians must be cunning and deceptive – any moral code leaves a politician vulnerable.
    Dismantle “existing forces of order and regulation.” Reconstruct all existing institutions.”
    Remain invisible until the very moment when it has gained such strength that no cunning or force can undermine it.
    Use Mob Psychology to control the masses. “Without absolute despotism one cannot rule efficiently.”
    Advocate the use of alcoholic liquors, drugs, moral corruption and all forms of vice, used systematically by “agenteurs” to corrupt the youth.
    Seize properties by any means to secure submission and sovereignty.
    Foment wars and control the peace conferences so that neither of the combatants gains territory placing them further in debt and therefore into our power.
    Choose candidates for public office who will be “servile and obedient to our commands, so they may be readily used as pawns in our game.”
    Use the Press for propaganda to control all outlets of public information, while remaining in the shadows, clear of blame.
    Make the masses believe they had been the prey of criminals. Then restore order to appear as the saviors.
    Create financial panics. Use hunger to control to subjugate the masses.
    Infiltrate Freemasonry to take advantage of the Grand Orient Lodges to cloak the true nature of their work in philanthropy. Spread their atheistic-materialistic ideology amongst the “Goyim” (gentiles).
    When the hour strikes for our sovereign lord of the entire World to be crowned, their influence will banish everything that might stand in his way.
    Use systematic deception, high-sounding phrases and popular slogans. “The opposite of what has been promised can always be done afterwards… That is of no consequence.”
    A Reign of Terror is the most economical way to bring about speedy subjection.
    Masquerade as political, financial and economic advisers to carry out our mandates with Diplomacy and without fear of exposing “the secret power behind national and international affairs.”
    Ultimate world government is the goal. It will be necessary to establish huge monopolies, so even the largest fortunes of the Goyim will depend on us to such an extent that they will go to the bottom together with the credit of their governments on the day after the great political smash.”
    Use economic warfare. Rob the “Goyim” of their landed properties and industries with a combination of high taxes and unfair competition.
    “Make the ‘Goyim’ destroy each other so there will only be the proletariat left in the world, with a few millionaires devoted to our cause, and sufficient police and soldiers to protect our interest.”
    Call it The New Order. Appoint a Dictator.
    Fool, bemuse and corrupt the younger members of society by teaching them theories and principles we know to be false.

    25 Twist national and international laws into a contradiction which first masks the law and afterwards hides it altogether. Substitute arbitration for law.

    1. It’s under the Red Shield not Green. You’re missing the true history which was a partnership of the Rothschilds and ruling monarchs. The real Gutele was married at 16. She had 19 children (!), including some girls of course, and not all of them lived, so she must have looked genuinely tired after all those births. The Rothschilds were in business with Prince Metternich. It turns out that the Rothschilds’ funds, with son Nathan in England propping up Wellington, led to the allies’ victory at Waterloo in 1815 over Napoleon, an unseen nemesis. The other sons scattered across banking capitals elsewhere backed the allied monarchs and their conservatism. Earlier, in 1811, Napoleon overran Frankfurt and it was his appointee, Grand Duke Karl von Dahlberg, who abolished the ghetto. Napoleon’s creed of spreading the ideals of the French Revolution, with better education and emancipation, was the exact doctrine that Wellington, and the others were fighting. Napoleon knew that an economy with Jews and Protestants free to move about was good for business. The Rothschilds were for reform but their successful banking dynasty was ironically due to backing the old guard.

        1. Marie Antoinette and the king went to Latvia instead of getting the chopper? Napoleon is Jewish? This is hilarious and where are the footnotes and documents? Missing just like they are for the illuminati and satanic nonsense about the Rothschilds, as these cults were far older. They didn’t need cult reinforcement since they already ran the banking for five countries and in the 1800s intermarried with royalty. Royal Dutch Shell,other European royals and the Queen are among the wealthiest people on earth along with several Jewish banking families. Of course the Saudis caught up this century. All one big happy club so it’s silly to single out one group over another.

  8. It is 100% true that Dr. Tracy’s right to due process was violated as also Melissa Click’s right to due process was violated. Both will sue and win big.

    1. Melissa Click teaches media studies and attempted to exhort people into physical violence against someone in total violation of the target’s most basic rights, and of the american First Amendment. Her case has nothing in common with James Tracy’s. There is video evidence of her demanding that someone physically attack a journalist.

      Her criminality and boundless hypocrisy are what got her fired. James Tracy exercised his and all citizens’ constitutional rights to expose criminality and hypocrisy. I see him as fighting exactly what Melissa Click promotes.

      1. The public mind is being groomed with each media event shooting. This guy is very articulate and extremely loquacious. I believe that this event may not have even occurred. The lone wolf, nut with a gun narrative has taken force in the public mind. The dangerous terrorist is now a lone wolf, domestic terrorist, conspiracy theorist. All of these, by the way, are becoming fungible. So in the public mind the “conspiracy theorist” is now the lone wolf=domestic terrorist.

        Only 2 percent of the population suffers from schizophrenia/delusional disorder. I would bet it would be difficult to locate a career psychiatrist who has come across a delusional complex as intricate as is detailed in MacPherson’s manifesto. This whole thing smacks of intelligence disinfo.

  9. Would you really want someone who is likely to teach false history to your kids in your local university? To say that this tragic event is a hoax is so disrespectful to those involved. If that is the standard of his professionalism then he should be sacked.

    1. This remark is emblematic of the opinion promoted in mainstream US media outlets on Prof. Tracy’s public comment and termination by Florida Atlantic University. What is perhaps most amazing is that the commenter is affiliated with a higher ed institution, according to her/his email suffix. The comment is rooted in complete ignorance of Tracy’s academic/instructional regimen, research foci, and careful consideration of complex phenomena such as the Sandy Hook massacre.

Comments are closed.