Wade Vids, American Free Press and Controlled Opposition

Controlled Opposition is a political term for when an organization has someone who claims to oppose it is actually part of it.     It's either a political fraud or ruse de guerre, depending on your point of view.

In Fetzer's case he's got a controlled critics in Wade Vids aka the Deadliest Minute who wrote a blog about how  he's "not pulling any punches:

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

AFP Radio Interview: Wolfgang Halbig goes to Newtown.

Deanna Spingola was to interview Wolfgang Halbig and AFP Producer Dave Gahary (the one with the cane at the meeting) after the Newtown meeting; however, Halbig apparently flaked out.  Dave Gahary and Spingola talked about the event. Keith Johnson called in.  Then I called in and we held a round table discussion. I am well beyond the point of pulling any punches when it comes to those two frauds, Halbig and Fetzer and any of his cronies.

Problem:  Wade is promoting both the Sandy Hook Hoax conspiracy and American Free Press, then claiming to believe Fetzer and his cronies are frauds.    Someone must not have told Wade the people at American Free Press are  Fetzer's cronies.

American Free Press is a loathsome front for publishing racist and Nazi propaganda.   Wade couldn't have missed that:

The Southern Poverty Law Center considers it a hate group^[9] and claims that it "carries stories on Zionism, secret 'New World Order' conspiracies, American Jews and Israel."^[10] One of the newspaper's ex-contract reporters, Christopher Bollyn, is sometimes cited for his reporting in the 9/11 Truth Movement. The Anti-Defamation League has criticised the newspaper and, in particular, Bollyn for linking of prominent figures in the Jewish community with the events of September 11, 2001, and in September 2006 attacked the newspaper for disseminating "antisemitic propaganda".^[11]
Many contributors such as Mark Dankof^[12] and Mark Glenn are also contributors to Iran's PressTV television station. According to Accuracy in Media, "Press TV spews out unending streams of anti-American propaganda", and refers to Dankof as a Ron Paul supporter who is also a "Press TV propagandist".^{[citation needed]} In a May 2011 article Dankof protested the British government attempting to shut down Press TV, blaming it on "media outlets and correspondents with provable connections to the American Jewish lobby; Israeli intelligence; and Neo-Conservatives thirsting for a War of Civilizations with Iran specifically, and the Islamic world generally.” ^[13] In a May 2011 article, Dankof also quoted from and wrote that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion accurately reflect the state of the world. He lauded PressTV as one of the few exceptions to the Jewish control of the media.^[14]

Many of the people listed at Wiki are cronies of Fetzer or in his circle of friends:

Michael Collins Piper
Christopher Bollyn
Mark Dankof

In 2006 they had a conference with Fetzer's cronies Doug Rokke, Tex Mars, and Victor Thorne:

 Links to Fetzer and AFP cronies:


Michael Collins Piper :radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2012/08/michael-collins-piper.html

Christopher Bollyn:  http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/05/murderous-mossad-and-9-11-by.html

Mark Dankof: radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2011/10/mark-dankof.html

 Doug Rokke: radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2009/06/doug-rokke.html

Texe Mars: https://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/israels-netanyahu-and-the-jewish-neocons-in-america-vow-revenge-by-texe-marrs-with-jim-fetzer/

 Victor Thorne:  911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/jesse-ventura-reveals-black

Also Fetzer is Facebook friends with Victor's long time associate Lisa Guliani.


And site search shows AFP giving Fetzer a regular platform:

About 2,110 results (0.40 seconds) 

Search Results

Date with a Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Keith Johnson | American ...
americanfreepress.net/?p=14908

American Free Press
Jan 21, 2014 - On Thursday, January 23, 2014, at 8 p.m. ET, Dave Gahary moderates a debate between Keith Johnson and Jim Fetzer, who tackle the ...
Date with a Debate: Piper vs. Fetzer and Friend | American ...
americanfreepress.net/?p=15106

American Free Press
Jan 26, 2014 - For two hours, Mike Piper takes on Jim Fetzer and John Friend, who tackle the controversy surrounding the Sandy Hook Elementary School ...
AFP RADIO: Boston Marathon Bombing Live Debate Jim ...
americanfreepress.net/?p=16872

American Free Press
Apr 23, 2014 - On Thursday, April 24, 2014, at 3 p.m. ET, Dave Gahary moderates a two-hour debate* between James H. Fetzer and A. J. MacDonald, Jr. on ...

It's laughable to expect anyone to believe AFP or anyone representing AFP really believes Fetzer is a fraud. 

This is another conspiracy shell game to make it look like there exists "debate" in the community.  It's also damage control.  The Hookers failed hard Tuesday and they know it.   Maybe the only way to save face it to pretend Fetzer is "disinfo", and the real Hookers will save the day. Expect Fetzer to be pulling strings behind the scenes.

Wade may be a clueless duffus who hasn't bothered to do the research.   He can start with this Google searches:       

site:americanfreepress.net  Jews
site:americanfreepress.net  Holocaust

Great sleazy gems here:

IRS Scandal Reveals Jewish Control of White House ...

americanfreepress.net/?p=11147

AFP PODCAST: Holocaust Hoax Exposed! | American Free ...

americanfreepress.net/?p=3342

 Wade wrote:

"Then I called in and we held a round table discussion."

No one with a brain calls in and  and has a roundtable discussion with a group of Nazis.  Wade, if you really aren't a closet Nazis sleazebag, AFP is not your friend.  Here's some info on your friends supposedly criticizing Fetzer and Halbig:

https://archive.org/details/DeannaSpingola-UnderstandingTheTruthAboutTheHolocaust

Deanna Spingola - Understanding the Truth about the Holocaust

Deanna Spingola discusses the Importance of Debunking Holocaust Lies and Understanding the Truth about what was done to Germany - May 25th, 2011. [Re-Edited 6.15.11 due to bogus claims of copyright infringement regarding the bumper music by people who do not want you to hear this information]

Dave Gahary of American Free Press Interviews Ernst Zündel

zioncrimefactory.com/.../dave-gahary-of-american-free-press-interviews-...

May 12, 2012 - Dave Gahary of American Free Press Interviews Ernst Zündel ... holocaust™ propaganda lies to psychologically enslave the “goyim” masses.

You're welcome.

Post game fall out of Hooker Road Trip

Read more:

http://sandy-hook-hoax.blogspot.com/2014/05/fetzer-and-halbig-road-trip-to-newtown.html

http://sandy-hook-hoax.blogspot.com/2014/05/hooker-fail-shamed-by-school-board.html


Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exaqs3h5jEw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB3BU-fzRPA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy_3U-eYLqM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0CJ1W2brts
[note  has interview with fringe racist American Free Press]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNbtIbeVWu4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vii1qiMAvvU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxLzbGZVP_k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLc5oY06HcE
[Particularly annoying one with Halbig whining his calls aren't returned.  Great comment:

djstcroix

19 hours ago

hahahahaha, is that it.
Halbig collected all that money from people to go to Newtown and say the same crap he has been saying for the past 2 years.
He didn't do a damn thing, he actually admitted something happened. LOL, he scammed you people.
I know you are going to try and delete my comment again, but I'll keep coming back.
Your man took people's money, went to Sandy Hook, and did nothing.
Hell they basically said it did happen. LOL

]

More photos![by Jim Lathier]:

spreading paranoia

Halbig Bothers Someone

Halbig annoys cop, not arrested

Michelle Murphey aka Microwave Lady

Dave Williams, plugs American Free Press

Final word on the Hooker team:

Hooker FAIL, shamed by School Board

As reported here, Fetzer and Halbig were on their way to crash the School Board Meeting.     Whatever the plan was, it flopped as no one took the bait and they were left looking like the insensitive, ignorant douches they are:

 http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Newtown-school-board-greets-Sandy-Hook-skeptics-5458442.php

 Newtown school board greets Sandy Hook skeptics with silence  
Nanci G. Hutson
Published 10:07 pm, Tuesday, May 6, 2014

NEWTOWN -- They came and they spoke, but their words fell flat with a respectful but thoroughly disgusted audience.
A dozen or so self-described skeptics of official accounts of the Sandy Hook school shooting appeared Tuesday night at the Board of Education meeting, each taking the allotted three minutes to address pointed questions to board members.
Wolfgang Halbig, the most prominent member of the group, raised questions about everything from the scale of police response that day to their refusal to accept his expert help in analyzing the event. He suggested that his legitimate efforts to get answers have been thwarted, and accused board members of toeing an official line.
"Board members, these are your children," Halbig said. "We want answers. We want truth.''
But board members refused to take the bait, remaining silent throughout presentations by Halbig and several of his supporters who followed him to the microphone. The audience, which included First Selectman Pat Llodra and several other town officials who had come to support the board, also stayed silent.
The only public response came from Newtown resident Jim Fitzpatrick, who was the last to speak. Unable to let this group have the last word, he said, "It's a shame to see this circus come to town, and I'm offended by the people who have come, and these conspiracy theories. Newtown has conducted itself wonderfully.''
He was greeted with a round of light applause, quickly waved silent by Board Chairman Debbie Leidlein.
Halbig, a former Florida state trooper and U.S. Customs inspector, describes himself as a school safety and security consultant. He claims to have given school safety training and assessments to thousands of school districts nationwide, and to be a frequent speaker on safety at school board conferences across the country.
He is one of the more prominent of those who question official accounts of what happened the day of the school shootings. In numerous interviews he has criticized police response as inadequate, and on his website, sandyhookjustice.com, he poses 16 questions he says officials have never satisfactorily answered about the event. He also claims to have been threatened for persisting in his efforts to get answers to those questions.
Halbig's "16 Questions" have become a regular theme among online writings by conspiracy theorists, who began raising questions about Sandy Hook within days of the mass shooting that killed 20 first-graders and six faculty members on Dec. 14, 2012.
School and civic leaders have done their best to ignore these theorists.
Before the meeting, Llodra declined to comment on Halbig's appearance, saying she would rather keep her sights on doing what's best for her town and its residents.
"We know what happened to us and to our community, and our families and our schools, on Dec. 14, 2012," said Llodra, who took a seat at the board table to show solidarity with the members."We want to be as transparent as possible, but we have things to do on a daily basis, and this particular level of dialgoue I'm referring to our attorneys."
None of the victims' families attended.
The strategy of town and school leaders was to give this group as little attention as possible. And it worked.
A half-hour before the meeting started, Halbig's followers rallied in front of the Municipal Center. One man dressed in a Revolutionary War-era uniform wave a hanging effigy of Governor Dannel Malloy.
At one point when the group blocked the sidewalk, town officials asked them to stand on the grass so as not to block the walkway. A policeman was then posted at the front door, and the door locked until the meeting was ready to begin.
When public comments concluded, the group left the room, with a police officer standing guard at the door to assure an orderly exit.
Earlier Tuesday, a group of Halbig's supporters visited the Danbury offices of the
United Way of Western Connecticut, demanding records about the use of charitable funds collected on behalf of the Sandy Hook community. Chief Executive Officer Kim Morgan said the group was told that all financial documents for the non-profit agency can be found online.
"I would prefer not to give them a voice in the mainstream media, and to reassure the public that all of our financial documents are online and can be accessed by anyone,'' Morgan said.
Seven members of the group, some carrying still and video cameras, then visited the offices of the News-Times, asking to meet with a reporter. A News-Times editor met with one member of the group, Nevada attorney Day Williams, who asked for a story about their visit to United Way, but the request was declined.
School board members used the door on the opposite side of the "truthers'' to enter the building.
Noting that he has served with many school boards over the years, newly installed Superintendent Joseph Erardi Jr. was clearly impressed with how the board handled such a sensitive event.
"I was incredibly proud of the school board this evening," he said.
One audience member, though, couldn't quite contain himself, adding as Fitzpatrick finished his comments.
"It's crazy," he said, shaking his head. "It's sad.''

 Photos of the idiots on parade:

Wolfgang Halbig, a former Florida State Trooper and school principal, asks questions about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting during the public participation section of the Board of Education meeting at the Newtown Municipal Center Council Chambers in Newtown, Conn. Tuesday, May 6, 2014. Photo: Tyler Sizemore

Melbourne San, of Rome, N.Y., dressed as a patriot walks into the Newtown Municipal Center Council Chambers in Newtown, Conn. for the Board of Education meeting Tuesday, May 6, 2014. Wolfgang Halbig, a former Florida State Trooper and school principal, spoke during the public participation part of the meeting, asking questions about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on Dec. 14, 2012. Photo: Tyler Sizemore

Melbourne San, of Rome, N.Y., dressed as a patriot uses a prop for demonstration outside the Newtown Municipal Center in Newtown, Conn. before the Board of Education meeting Tuesday, May 6, 2014. The prop reads "Here hangs Gov. Malloy Oath Breaker" and "Expose me w/ Sandy Hook...I'll give you back your 2nd Amendment rights!"

A crowd watches during the Board of Education meeting at the Newtown Municipal Center Council Chambers in Newtown, Conn. Tuesday, May 6, 2014.

Wolfgang Halbig, a former Florida State Trooper and school principal, speaks about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting before the Board of Education meeting at the Newtown Municipal Center Council Chambers in Newtown, Conn. Tuesday, May 6, 2014.

Dan Bidondi, of Infowars.com, speaks at the Board of Education meeting at the Newtown Municipal Center Council Chambers in Newtown, Conn. Tuesday, May 6, 2014.

Wolfgang Halbig, left, a former Florida State Trooper and school principal, and Melbourne San, of Rome, N.Y., laugh before the Board of Education meeting at the Newtown Municipal Center Council Chambers in Newtown, Conn. Tuesday, May 6, 2014.

Melbourne San, of Rome, N.Y., dressed as a patriot uses a prop for demonstration outside the Newtown Municipal Center in Newtown, Conn. before the Board of Education meeting Tuesday, May 6, 2014.

James Fetzer, of Oregon, Wis., speaks during the Board of Education meeting at the Newtown Municipal Center Council Chambers in Newtown, Conn. Tuesday, May 6, 2014.

Kevin Laprade, of Woonsocket, R.I., speaks at the Board of Education meeting at the Newtown Municipal Center Council Chambers in Newtown, Conn. Tuesday, May 6, 2014.

------

This one on Fetzer found on the Interwebs and posted for laughs.  Cuz after this sick Hooker fiasco Fetzer deserves everything coming to him:

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY

A little something for the concern trolls eager to leap on any insult as an excuse to yell "ad hominem".  The short version:  you're doing it wrong.

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY


One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.
Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.
Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.
But enough vagueness. The point of this article is to bury the reader under an avalanche of examples of correct and incorrect usage of ad hominem, in the hope that once the avalanche has passed, the term will never be used incorrectly again.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. By your own argument, the set of rodents is a subset of the set of mammals; and therefore, a weasel can be outside the set of rodents and still be in the set of mammals."

Hopefully it should be clear that neither A's argument nor B's argument is ad hominem. Perhaps there are some people who think that any disagreement is an ad hominem argument, but these people shouldn't be allowed out of fairyland.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow."

B's argument is less comprehensive, but still not ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. You evidently know nothing about logic."

B's argument is still not ad hominem. Note that B directly engages A's argument: he is not attacking the person A instead of his argument. There is no indication that B thinks his subsequent attack on A strengthens his argument, or is a substitute for engaging with A's argument. Unless we have a good reason for thinking otherwise, we should assume it is just a sarcastic flourish.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic. This does not logically follow."

B's argument is still not ad hominem. B does not imply that A's sentence does not logically follow because A knows nothing about logic. B is still addressing the substance of A's argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic."

B's argument is, most probably, still not ad hominem. The word "evidently" indicates that B is basing his opinion of A's logical skills on the evidence of A's statement. Therefore, B's sentence is a sarcastic way of saying that A's argument is logically unsound: B is attacking A's argument. He is not attacking the person instead of the argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You know nothing about logic."

Even now, we can't conclude that B's reply is ad hominem. It could well be, and probably is, the case that B is basing his reply on A's argument. He is not saying that A's argument is flawed because A knows nothing about logic; instead, he is using A's fallacious argument as evidence to present a new argument: that A knows nothing about logic.
Put briefly, ad hominem is "You are an ignorant person, therefore your arguments are wrong", and not "Your arguments are wrong, therefore you are an ignorant person." The latter statement may be fallacious, but it's not an ad hominem fallacy.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. And you're an asshole."

B is abusive, but his argument is still not ad hominem. He engages with A's argument. There is no reason to conclude that the personal abuse of A is part of B's argument, or that B thinks it undermines A's argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You're an asshole."

B's reply is not necessarily ad hominem. There is no evidence that's his abusive statement is intended as a counter-argument. If it's not an argument, it's not an ad hominem argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic. And you're an asshole."

Again, B's reply is not necessarily ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Fuck you."

Not ad hominem. B's abuse is not a counter-argument, but a request for A to cease the discussion.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you've never had a good grasp of logic, so this can't be true."

B's argument here is ad hominem. He concludes that A is wrong not by addressing A's argument, but by appealing to the negative image of A the person.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you're a moron and an asshole, so there goes your argument."

B's reply here is ad hominem and abusive.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you're a rodent and a weasel, so there goes your argument."

B's argument here might appear on superficial inspection to be sound, but it is in fact ad hominem. He is using the terms "rodent" and "weasel" in different senses to those used by A. Although he tries to make it appear that he is countering A's argument by invalidating one of the premises, he is in fact trying to counter A's argument by heaping abuse on A. (This might also be an example of an ad homonym argument.)

A: "All murderers are criminals, but a thief isn't a murderer, and so can't be a criminal."
B: "Well, you're a thief and a criminal, so there goes your argument."

Harder to call this one. B is addressing A's argument, but perhaps unwittingly.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Wrong! If a weasel isn't a rodent, then it must be an insectivore! What an asshole!"

B's argument is logically fallacious, and he concludes with some gratuitous abuse, but nothing here is ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "I'm sorry, but I'd prefer to trust the opinion of a trained zoologist on this one."

B's argument is ad hominem: he is attempting to counter A not by addressing his argument, but by casting doubt on A's credentials. Note that B is polite and not at all insulting.

A: "Listen up, asshole. All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

A is abusive, and his argument is fallacious, but it's not ad hominem. B's reply, ironically, is ad hominem; while he pretends to deal with A's argument, in using the term "ad hominem" incorrectly, B is in fact trying to dismiss the argument by imputing that A is resorting to personal attacks.

A: "Listen up, asshole. All rodents are mammals, and a lizard isn't a mammal, so it can't be a rodent."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

A's argument is sound, and not ad hominem. B's reply is again ad hominem.

A: "B is a convicted criminal and his arguments are not to be trusted."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

A's argument is ad hominem, since it attempts to undermine all of B's (hypothetical) arguments by a personal attack. B's reply is not ad hominem, since it directly addresses A's argument (correctly characterising it as ad hominem).

A: "All politicians are assholes, and you're just another politician. Therefore, you're an asshole."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument."

If you accept the premises, A's argument is sound. Either way, from the given context, we cannot conclude that it is ad hominem: it's not an attempt to undermine B's (hypothetical) arguments by abusing him, but instead an attempt to establish that B is an asshole. B's reply is ad hominem, since by incorrectly using the term "ad hominem", he is trying to undermine A's argument by claiming that A is resorting to personal attacks.

A: "All politicians are liars, and you're just another politician. Therefore, you're a liar and your arguments are not to be trusted."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument."

If you accept the premises, A's argument is sound; but I think most of us would sympathise with B and class it as fallacious, and ad hominem. This is because we do not accept the premise that all politicians are liars. There is a false premise that lies behind all ad hominem arguments: the notion that all people of type X make bad arguments. A has just made this premise explicit.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "That does not logically follow."
A: "*Sigh* Do I have to spell it out for you? All rodents are mammals, right, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal! What's so hard to understand???!?"
B: "I'm afraid you're mistaken. Look at it logically. If p implies q, then it does not follow that not-p implies not-q."
A: "I don't care about so-called logic and Ps and Qs and that stuff, I'm talking COMMON SENSE. A weasel ISN'T a mammal."
B: "Okay, this guy's an idiot. Ignore this one, folks."
A: "AD HOMINEM!!!! I WIN!!!!!"

Although the last line of B, taken out of context, might look ad hominem (and was seized upon as such by A), it should be clear that taken as a whole, B's argument is not ad hominem. B engaged thoroughly with A's argument. He is not countering A's argument by saying A is an idiot; on the contrary, having logically countered A's argument, and having seen A's reaction, he is arguing that A is an idiot. 

Fetzer and Halbig: Road Trip to Newtown!

 Update on trip posted here:

http://sandy-hook-hoax.blogspot.com/2014/05/hooker-fail-shamed-by-school-board.html
 -----

After over a year and several months of boring the shit out of everyone on the Internets by exploiting the corpses of dead children for their sick and twisted conspiracy, they're finally going to Connecticut like they've been threatening to do:

James Henry Fetzer

6 hrs ·

Wolfgang Halbig and I are traveling to Newtown in search of the truth about Sandy Hook.
We are going to appear at the monthly meeting of the Newtown School Board on Tuesday to ask questions about Sandy Hook that no one has been willing to answer.
That the Newton School Board and The Newtown Bee were complicit in the fraud is not difficult to establish.
This event appears to have been designed as an elaborate “psy op” to advance an aggressive gun control agenda on the basis of reasoning that must have gone something like this:
“If we don’t get guns under control, something horrible, like a school shooting, will inevitably take place. We need to show the country what is going to happen if guns aren’t brought under control, which will guarantee that something like this never happens–as long as no one here is actually killed! Let’s do it!” (read more)

This post links to a Veterans' Today article laughably asserting the Newtown School board is complicit in the "Hoax":

Monday, May 5th, 2014 | Posted by Jim Fetzer

Newtown School Board, The Newtown Bee complicit in the Sandy Hook hoax

by Jim Fetzer

 “O, what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive”–Sir Walter Scott

Wolfgang Halbig and I are traveling to Newtown in search of the truth about Sandy Hook.
We are going to appear at the monthly meeting of the Newtown School Board on Tuesday to ask questions about Sandy Hook that no one has been willing to answer.
That the Newton School Board and The Newtown Bee were complicit in the fraud is not difficult to establish.
This event appears to have been designed as an elaborate “psy op” to advance an aggressive gun control agenda on the basis of reasoning that must have gone something like this:

If we don’t get guns under control, something horrible, like a school shooting, will inevitably take place. We need to show the country what is going to happen if guns aren’t brought under control, which will guarantee that something like this never happens–as long as no one here is actually killed! Let’s do it!”

The alternative explanation is that this plan originated at the federal level,  since Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, visited with the governor of Connecticut about a month before the event.  During a press conference that day, Governor Malloy would observe that he and the Lt. Governor had been “spoken to” that something like this might happen.
But what could he possibly have meant by that? (a) That he had been told there would be a mass shooting of children at a Connecticut elementary school, in which case he should have taken steps to preclude it. (b) That he had been told that a drill would be conducted at a Connecticut elementary school and presented as though it had been a real event.  Since he took none of the steps that might have prevented such an event, the correct explanation has to be alternative (b).

It's the usual tinfoil drivel  with a bit of 911 conspiracy truth for good measure:

The School Board and The Newtown Bee were complicit

We not only have multiple indications that Sandy Hook Elementary was not an operating school at the time of the alleged shooting, including that it was not ADA compliant and that it was being used as storage, which of course the School Board had to have known. but ample proof that The Newtown Bee was in on it, too.

And:

The Parallel with 9/11

We have a parallel to the premature report by Jane Standley of the BBC that Building 7 (WTC-7), a 47-story skyscraper, had also collapsed, which in fact took place at 5:20 PM/ET. But Standley was making her report at 4:57, which meant that she was 23 minutes too early:...

WHATever.

Pro Hooker comments are as pathetic as ever:

• Travellerev Ev Oh that should be interesting!

  6 hrs
• Alex Fulton good luck.

  6 hrs
• Jason J. Carlton go get 'em, gents!

  5 hrs
• Greg Burton Take more friends, wear a flak jacket, eat your own food, drink your own water, do not telegraph your moves beforehand. You know the drill.

  5 hrs
• Greta Kirkland Be sure somebody has the bail money.

  5 hrs
• Brian Benson I would expect no less! Kick ass!!!!

  5 hrs
• Kevin Laprade See you tomorrow then bro. Dan Infowars Bidondi, and myself will be there as well!

  5 hrs
• Rosalee Grable Bravest man I ever knew.

  5 hrs
• William Green Regarding the photo of the children leaving, the cars in the background appear to be the same cars as in the air photo (one red, two blue, one white and a hazard cone). The shadows are also consistent. So it appears it was taken the same day/same time as the air photo showing the fire truck etc.

  3 hrs
• Michael Stephen Hottinger Great Article Dr Fetzer !

  2 hrs
• David Bauer We are with you Jim...

  2 hrs

As a service to the good people of Newtown,  we'll get the contact information for readers to warn them the loons are coming as soon as we have it.


Edit:  Fetzer and his loons aren't making it easy.    They're not revealing the address of the meeting.  Wandering around the Newton Public School website,
we found the pdf for the meeting:

Board of Education Meeting
May 6, 2014
Council Chambers
7:30 p.m.

As citizens of our community, we will conduct ourselves in accordance with Newtown’s Core Character Attributes as displayed in our character tree. We will be responsible for our actions and show respect for each other. We will interact
peacefully, productively, and politely. We will be trustworthy and honest and show compassion toward others.

Newtown’s continued success is contingent upon our ability to persevere, to follow through with our commitments, and to stay focused on the greater good.

AGENDA
Item 1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Item 2 CONSENT AGENDA
      • Minutes of April 8, 26 and 29, 2014
       • NHS Field Trip
        • Donations
         • Personnel Items
Item 3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Item 4 REPORTS
      • Correspondence Report
       • Chair Report
        • Superintendent’s Report
           • Committee Reports
Item 5 OLD BUSINESS
      • Nurses Contract Negotiations Representative
       • Non-Lapsing Account
Item 6 NEW BUSINESS
Item 7 ADJOURNMENT

During Public Participation, the Board welcomes commentary from citizens. We request that speakers be concise and respectful in their comments, do not make reference to specific persons, avoid repetition of comments made by other speakers and limit comments to no more than three minutes. The Board of Education does not discuss personnel items in public. If you desire more information or answers to specific questions, please complete the Citizen’s Request for Information form located on the table.

 Quote:

"During Public Participation, the Board welcomes commentary from citizens. We request that speakers be concise and respectful in their comments, do not make reference to specific persons, avoid repetition of comments made by other speakers and limit comments to no more than three minutes."


We've got to see this.  The list of "evidence" Sandy Hook was a hoax takes longer than 3 minutes to read, much less speak.  Look for the archive here.

Contact info for the district here.

Board of Education with email  here.

The Newton Bee can be contacted here.

Used to be this blog gave out Hooker contact info to shame them.
Now we're giving readers contact info to report the Hookers.

Kinda come full circle with that one.