No, Tucker Carlson, WHO Is Not Going To Rip Families Apart

A new Coronavirus conspiracy theory was launched by Tucker Carlson on Fox News a few days ago. You may have seen the clip in which Tucker plays a snippet of a World Health Organization official who says, in Tucker’s words, “in response to the spread of this virus authorities may have to enter people’s homes and remove family members, presumably by force.”

The clip is genuine. It is Tucker’s characterization of it that is false.

The WHO official in question is Dr. Michael Ryan, Executive Director of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Program, and the clip was from a March 30 briefing at WHO headquarters in Geneva. Carlson plays about 30 seconds of an answer from Dr. Ryan, but the entire transcript of the briefing is available on the internet here.

In Carlson’s clip, Dr. Ryan says, “In most parts of the world, due to lockdown, most of the transmission that’s actually happening in many countries now is happening in the household at family level. In some senses, transmission has been taken off the streets and pushed back into family units. Now, we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner.”

Frowning at the camera, Tucker offers his translation, saying, “Just so you know, we’re coming to your house, seizing your children, and, quote, isolating them in a safe and dignified manner.”

As many conspiracy theorists are wont to do, Tucker takes a soundbite out of context, changes the meaning to suit his own ends, and emerges with something totally different from what was originally said. In other words, Tucker is lying.

Here is Dr. Ryan’s statement in context (remember that if you want the full context, you can read the entire transcript of the briefing):

So yes, we need the information technology tools. They help. They are not the solution. Right now, we don’t have an alternative to what we would’ve considered in the old days. boot-leather epidemiology. Public health practitioners, doctors, nurses, community workers, working with communities to detect cases at community level. And the most likely person to become a case is someone who’s been a significant contact of another case.

And at the moment, in most parts of the world, due to lockdown, most of the transmission that’s actually happening in many countries now is happening in the household at family level. In some senses, transmission has been taken off the streets and pushed back into family units. Now, we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner.

That’s what I was saying previously about the, the, the transition from movement restrictions and shutdowns and stay-at-home orders can only be made if we have in place the means to be able to detect suspect cases, isolate confirmed cases, track contacts, and follow up on the context health at all times, and then isolate any of those people who become sick themselves.

Note that Tucker’s incendiary claims of health authorities using “force” and “seizing” children are entirely absent from Dr. Ryan’s comments.

Instead, Ryan is saying something completely different from what Carlson alleges. He’s talking about removing people who are sick and isolating them so that they don’t infect their family members. This would presumably be done voluntarily in a hospital since most people would not want to make people they love sick with a deadly virus. Ryan never implies anything else.

Ryan also never mentions force and he doesn’t single out children. Those terms exist only in Tucker Carlson’s paranoid delusions. Presumably, Carlson thinks that the family members will be trucked off to FEMA concentration camps or abandoned Walmarts for re-education, but he doesn’t say.

Tucker Carlson’s fearmongering is particularly dishonest because he is a Trump supporter. Does he think that President Trump is going to allow the World Health Organization to come into the United States and start kicking down doors and ripping families apart? If he really believes this, why is he supporting Donald Trump?

At this point, I have several acquaintances who are suspected of having COVID-19 but who have not been diagnosed due to lack of tests. In almost all cases, they were told to stay home unless they have trouble breathing. This is consistent with CDC guidelines and is part of an attempt to avoid overwhelming hospitals.

However, if infected people stay home, there is a risk that their family members will become infected, as Dr. Ryan points out. As the curve of cases flattens and decreases, it will become more feasible to isolate Coronavirus patients in hospitals, where they can be treated quickly, and avoid infecting others, rather than keeping them at home. This is a good thing. When it happens it will mean that there are few enough COVID-19 patients that they are being treated like typical victims of an infectious disease. Going to the hospital is standard procedure when hospitals are not overloaded beyond their capacity.

Tucker Carlson’s warning against the WHO is a blatantly dishonest attempt at pot-stirring in the midst of a real national crisis. If he doesn’t know his accusations are garbage, he should.

If you liked this article debunking Tucker Carlson’s conspiracy theory, please share it wherever you see the Carlson video posted.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Drunk Pelosi Video Is a Fake

If you happen to see a video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stammering through a press conference as you make your rounds through social media, be aware that the video is a fake. The video of Pelosi at a press conference was altered to make it appear as though the speaker was stammering and repeating herself. Accompanying descriptions often claim that she was intoxicated when she gave the remarks.

None other than Fox News is on record with a description of the fake news video’s origins. Fox reports that the three-minute clip was from a speech yesterday at the Center for American Progress in which Pelosi described President Trump’s angry exit from a meeting with Democrats about infrastructure. Per Fox, the video was uploaded to Facebook on a page called “Politics WatchDog.” At press time, the video is still posted on the page and has 2.4 million views. Similar videos have been removed from YouTube and Twitter.

Fox cites the Washington Post, saying that the video was apparently “slowed down to 75 percent from the original speed and that her pitch was also manipulated in order to present her under the influence.”

“It is striking that such a simple manipulation can be so effective and believable to some,” Berkeley computer science and digital forensics expert Hany Farid told the CNN. “While I think that deep-fake technology poses a real threat, this type of low-tech fake shows that there is a larger threat of misinformation campaigns -- too many of us are willing to believe the worst in people that we disagree with.”

A separate fact-check article by Politifact notes that unaltered audio is available from C-SPAN and is noticeably different than the audio accompanying the video, which has “more slurred and lisping than the one on C-SPAN.”

The original altered video posted to Facebook is captioned, “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on President Trump walking out infrastructure meeting: ‘It was very, very, very strange.’” The clip closes with Pelosi saying that the meeting with Trump was very strange.

In a subsequent post, Politics WatchDog seemed to acknowledge that the video was fake, saying, “Just for the record [sic] we never claimed that Speaker Pelosi was drunk. We can’t control what the people in the comments think. It’s a free country. For your information [sic] we are not a conservative news outlet.”

The fake nature of the page is also apparent by a poll that the group posted which asks, “Should the Pelosi video be taking [sic] down?” Legitimate news sites rarely leave obvious grammatical errors uncorrected.

A spokesman for Pelosi told CNN, “We're not going to comment on this sexist trash.”

Yesterday, President Trump tweeted a different video of Pelosi that had also been altered under the caption “PELOSI STAMMERS THROUGH NEWS CONFERENCE.” This video, which was originally aired on Fox News’ “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” strings together a series of the speaker’s flubs in a speech. Although altered through selective editing, this video does not appear to be digitally manipulated.

While I am no fan of Speaker Pelosi and don’t agree with her policy prescriptions, I do value truth over blatant lies, even when they are about the opposition. The “drunk Pelosi” video is an example of the worst inclinations of the right-wing media. The fact that some conservatives and Republicans actually believe that the video is authentic is a far worse reflection on the right than the doctored video is on Mrs. Pelosi.

Fake news remains a real problem, as do blatantly false attempts at character assassination on both sides. Remember, kids, when surfing the internet, if it seems too stupid to be true, it probably is. However, in this day and age, you should probably check the source just to be sure.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Myth Busted: Georgia Heartbeat Bill Would Not Imprison Women For Miscarriages

Rumors have been going around that Georgia’s new fetal heartbeat law contains a number of onerous provisions. Opponents of the law claim that it would allow authorities to lock up women who have miscarriages or cross state lines to get abortions. If that sounds stupid enough to raise red flags with you, you aren’t alone. Rather than taking the internet’s word for it, I decided to go straight to the source to find the truth.

The text of HB 481, the “Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act,” is readily available and the full bill runs less than 10 pages. With much of the text struck through from previous versions, it’s a quick read so I encourage others to read the bill as well. Quotations in this article are taken from the Georgia General Assembly website’s current version of the bill as of May 11, 2019. Here’s what the law actually says.

 The core provision of the law is the statement, “ Unless otherwise provided by law, any natural person, including an unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat, shall be included in population based [sic] determinations.” This means that unborn children with a detectable heartbeat are considered to be people for legal purposes. For example, the law specifically states that “any unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat… shall qualify as a dependent minor” for purposes of filing a Georgia income tax return.

The law also defines what an abortion is and is not. The new law defines abortion as the “act of using, prescribing, or administering any instrument, substance, device, or other means with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy with knowledge that termination will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of an unborn child.”

Further, the law provides two exceptions that it says will not be considered to be an abortion. These are “removing a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion” and “removing an ectopic pregnancy.”

The law defines “spontaneous abortion” as “the naturally occurring death of an unborn child, including a miscarriage or stillbirth.” This definition puts lie to the claim that women could be prosecuted for a miscarriage.

The law is not a total abortion ban as it does provide limited exceptions that allow an abortion to take place after a heartbeat has been detected. These include cases of “rape or incest in which an official police report has been filed alleging the offense” and the “probable gestational age of the unborn child is 20 weeks or less” or when a “physician determines, in reasonable medical judgment, that the pregnancy is medically futile.”

The law defines “medically futile” to mean “in reasonable medical judgment, an unborn child has a profound and irremediable congenital or chromosomal anomaly that is incompatible with sustaining life after birth.” Note that abortions performed when the pregnancy is deemed to be medically futile are not subject to the 20-week limitation.

The law further stipulates that “if the child is capable of sustained life, medical aid then available shall be rendered” and requires that abortions “performed after the first trimester” take place “in a licensed hospital, in a licensed ambulatory surgical center, or in a health facility licensed as an abortion facility by the Department of Community Health” and be performed by a licensed physician. If abortions are performed in violation of these requirements, the woman is entitled to collect civil damages, but this excludes the accidental results of treatment or if a “woman sought an abortion because she reasonably believed that an abortion was the only way to prevent a medical emergency.”

“Medical emergency” is defined as “a condition in which an abortion is necessary in order to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.” This exception does specifically exclude mental and emotional conditions as well as the threat that the “that the pregnant woman will purposefully engage in conduct which she intends to result in her death or in substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

Penalties under the law are focused on abortionists, not mothers. The bill states, “In addition to any criminal or civil penalties provided by law, failure by any physician to conform to any requirement of this Code section constitutes unprofessional conduct for purposes of… to medical licensing sanctions."

The law does amend the Georgia code to stipulate, “For the homicide of an unborn child, the right to recover for the full value of the life of such child shall begin at the point at which a detectable human heartbeat.” This does open the question of whether an abortion can be considered homicide when the law goes into effect next year. The law does not specifically address this question, but the implication considering a child to be a person is that it would.

While the new law does not specify penalties for the “homicide of an unborn child,” previous Georgia law already declared “feticide” and “voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child” to be a felony with a penalty of between one and 20 years. As previously written, the law excluded abortions, people providing medical treatment, and “any woman with respect to her unborn child” from prosecution. The State of Georgia would obviously have no jurisdiction in abortionist that take place in other states.

The outlandish claims being propagated by the pro-abortion crowd are easily debunked by reading the law’s text. The law contains reasonable exceptions for rape, incest, stillbirths, and medical emergencies. The law specifically protects women in the case of miscarriage and when their life is deemed to be in danger. Finally, the law does not create a criminal penalty for either abortionists or women who seek abortions. Instead, the focus is on preventing physicians from performing elective abortions under the threat of losing their medical licenses and facing civil penalties.

This myth is busted.

Originally published on the Resurgent

Amelia Earhart Photo Debunked, But History Channel May Have Debunked Global Warming Concern

The History Channel special on Amelia Earhart this week fell flat with respect to finding the fate of the famed aviatrix, but, in addition to discrediting The History Channel, the special may have also helped debunk a major concern of climate change alarmists. The evidence for the survival of Earhart and navigator Fred Noonan was largely based on photograph. Ironically, it is a History Channel photograph that, if accurate, causes problems for the climate change crowd.

The “lost evidence” for Earhart’s survival consisted of a photograph that showed people who resembled Earhart and Noonan on a dock on Jaluit Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The History Channel’s assumption, based on the resemblance of the people in the photo to Noonan and Earhart, was that the pair had survived their last flight and were taken prisoner by the Japanese and later executed.

In a post on July 9, Japanese military history blogger Kota Yamano challenged the History Channel claim. Yamano said that an internet search for the picture revealed that it was taken too early to be Earhart and Noonan. The picture was originally published in a travelogue, “The Ocean's ‘Lifeline’: The Condition of Our South Seas,” in 1935, two years before the disappearance of Earhart and Noonan.

“The photo was the 10th item that came up,” Yamano said in an interview with The Guardian. “I was really happy when I saw it. I find it strange that the documentary makers didn’t confirm the date of the photograph or the publication in which it originally appeared. That’s the first thing they should have done.”

There were other problems with The History Channel theory as well. The Daily Beast points out that when Charles Lindbergh made an emergency landing in Japan in 1931, he was given a hero’s welcome. The Daily Beast also cites a Japanese book from 1982 that detailed the story of a crewman on the Japanese navy ship in the picture. According to the testimony of Japanese veterans, the Japanese navy was instructed to join the search and rescue effort for Earhart. The ship’s log contains no mention of Earhart or Noonan.

Earhart and Noonan disappeared on July 2, 1937. At that time, relations between the US and Japan were still good. The attack on Pearl Harbor was four years away. Even though fighting in the Pacific predated America’s entry into World War II, the region was still largely peaceful at the time. Japan’s war with China began five days after Earhart’s disappearance with a battle between Japanese and Chinese forces at Marco Polo bridge in Beijing. At the time, Earhart disappeared, the Japanese had not motive to keep her rescue a secret.

The theory that Earhart went off course on her way to Howland Island and wound up crash landing in the Marshall Islands also strained credulity. The Marshall Islands are 1,000 miles away from Earhart’s intended target. To end up there, Earhart and Noonan would have had to fly to the vicinity of Howland Island, realize that they were lost, and then, low on fuel and disoriented in bad weather, fly past numerous other islands for another thousand miles.

On the other hand, Steve Milloy of Junk Science claims that a graphic used in The History Channel’s documentary undermines the argument for rising sea levels due to climate change. The graphic shows Mili Atoll, an island in the Marshall Islands, with markings that say “area between blue lines was shore in 1937.” The blue lines on the photo show a forested area in 2017. If the History Channel photo is accurate, Mili Atoll has grown since 1937 instead of getting smaller due to rising seas.

The History Channel documentary does point out that coral islands can change shape over time. A 2015 report by New Scientist found that, even if sea levels rise, many islands are rising faster.

If the History Channel expose’ was truly a bust on the scale of Gerado’s unveiling of Al Capone’s vault, what really happened to Earhart and Noonan? Sometimes the simplest and most obvious explanation is also the correct one. The pair were using primitive navigation methods to Howland Island, a small, isolated speck of land. The Pacific is a very big ocean and Earhart and Noonan are most likely at the bottom of it.

Read the full article on The Resurgent

True facts about Seth Rich

http://www.thebluediamondgallery.com

It has been less than a year since the murder of Seth Rich. In that short time, the story of his murder has taken on a life of its own. Like the murder of John F. Kennedy, it has already difficult to separate fact from fiction in the tragic case of Seth Rich.

Seth Conrad Rich was a 27-year-old native of Omaha, Nebraska who worked for the Democratic National Committee as the Voter Expansion Data Director. His job there entailed working on a computer applicationto help voters find their local polling place.

On the morning of Sunday, July 10, 2016, Rich was walking home in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C. At 4:19 a.m., police patrolling the area heard gunshots and used Sharp Spotter, a system that uses acoustics to determine to direction of shots, to locate the scene of the attack.

Multiple sources say that Rich was still alive when police arrived at the scene, which was only a block from his house. He had multiple gunshot wounds and there were signs of a struggle. Early reports, such as this one from a local CBS affiliate, state that Rich was alive and conscious when he was taken to the hospital where he died a few hours later. Police have never revealed whether he was able to provide information about his killer.

Other early reports do support the claim that none of Rich’s personal items seemed to be missing. The local NBC affiliate quoted Rich’s mother, Mary, who said, “There had been a struggle. His hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they never took anything. They took his life for literally no reason. They didn't finish robbing him, they just took his life.” Rich’s father, Joel, also confirmed to the Washington Post that nothing was taken.

The New York Daily News reported on July 11 that police had said that there was no indication of robbery, but that attempted robbery had not been ruled out as a motive for the attack. Joel Rich said that he believed that Seth had attempted to fight off his attacker before he was killed.

Many of the sources also point out the high crime rate in the neighborhood where Rich was killed. NBC’s Channel Four pointed out that robberies using guns were up 12 percent in the Metro Police Fifth District and that seven people had already been killed there in addition to Rich that year. The New York Daily News noted that armed robberies had doubled in Bloomingdale over the previous year.

Almost two weeks after Rich’s murder, on July 22, the first dump of Democrat emails from WikiLeaks was posted. Even as the emails were posted, there was immediate speculation that the source of the emails was of Russian origin. The date range of the first DNC hack was from January 2015 through May 2016, about two months before Rich’s murder. A second trove emails stolen from John Podesta was dumped by WikiLeaks beginning on October 7, 2016, three months after Rich’s death.

The conspiracy theories seemed to have started within days of the murder. On July 13, a conspiracy site called Whatdoesitmean.com cited a Kremlin intelligence report that said that Rich was preparing to meet with FBI agents in order to testify against Hillary Clinton. The story reports that the FBI agents were really a “hit team” that was then “captured yesterday after a running gun battle with US federal police forces just blocks from the White House.” There were no reports of captured hit men or “running gun battles” in other sources.

The WikiLeaks angle to the story came several weeks later. WikiLeaks founder and accused rapist, Julian Assange, appeared on Dutch television on August 9, almost a month after the murder, and hinted that Rich was the source of the pilfered emails, although he never expressly stated any connection with Rich.

The same day, WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of Rich’s murderer. The District of Columbia Metropolitan Police had previously offered a $25,000 reward. Other individuals, including Rich’s brother, have offered additional rewards.

On May 15, 2017, a private detective named Rod Wheeler told a local television news reporter that he had evidence that Rich had contacted WikiLeaks before his death. Two days later, Wheeler retracted his claims. NBC News reported that Ed Butowsky, a Dallas businessman and Breitbart contributor, hired Wheeler to investigate the murder on behalf of the Rich family. Butowsky initially denied being connected to Wheeler, but eventually admitted his involvement to CNN. A spokesman for the family said that Wheeler had showed them no evidence to support the allegations that Seth had contacted WikiLeaks.

Police also told the Washington Post that Rich’s computer and email had been examined and that there was no evidence that he was connected to WikiLeaks. A former law enforcement official with knowledge of Rich’s laptop told NBC News, “It never contained any e-mails related to WikiLeaks, and the FBI never had it.”

Still, the rumors keep coming. The Russian embassy tweeted on May 19 that Rich was the “WikiLeaks informer” and accused the US media of ignoring the truth about his murder. At about the same time, Kim Dotcom, a European hacker fighting extradition to the US from New Zealand on money laundering, racketeering and wire fraud charges, claimed to have known Seth Rich as the WikiLeaks source.

District of Columbia Deputy Mayor for Public Safety Kevin Donohue recently told NBC’s local affiliate that Rich’s murder was still under investigation, but that there was no truth the WikiLeaks rumors. “This is a robbery that ended tragically. That’s bad enough for our city, and I think it is irresponsible to conflate this into something that doesn’t connect to anything that the detectives have found," Donahue said. "No WikiLeaks connection.”

If Rich’s murder is still unsolved, the mystery of the DNC hacking is not. In January 2017, the Director of National Intelligence released an unclassified version of a report detailing the unanimous assessment of the American intelligence community that the Russian government was behind the cyberattack. The assessment echoed the findings of CrowdStrike, a private cybersecurity firm retained by the DNC.

In the case of John Podesta’s emails, investigators have identified a fraudulent email that urged Podesta to click a link and change his password. Podesta did so and compromised his email password as a result. This sort of breach is known as “phishing.”

Time reported in January that the CIA had even identified the individual Russian officials who had passed the stolen emails to WikiLeaks. The report said that the information followed a “circuitous route” to WikiLeaks so that Assange could plausibly deny Russian involvement.

At this point, there are a few basic problems with the conspiracy theory that Seth Rich was the source for the stolen Democratic Party emails. First, Rich was murdered before WikiLeaks published the emails. Second, the DNC’s internal investigation pointed to the Russians, not an internal leaker, as the source of the breach. Third, US counterintelligence has identified the real perpetrators of the theft, the Russian government. Most importantly, there is not a shred of evidence that ties Rich to WikiLeaks other than unsubstantiated innuendo. There is not even evidence that Rich had access to the emails that ended up the hands of WikiLeaks.

Conversely, it would be logical for the Russians and WikiLeaks to implicate the conveniently dead Rich in the leak to distract attention from the real culprits. Intelligence agencies agreed that the Russian covert operation that interfered with the election seemed to be partly to sow chaos and partly to help Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton. Even with Trump in the White House, Vladimir Putin seems to relish causing chaos and doubt about the US government.

Rich’s family, who have the most to gain in seeing their son’s killers brought to justice, reject the conspiracy claims. Rather than embracing the conspiracy, the family released a statement that called upon the conspiracy theorists to stop defaming their son’s reputation and distracting attention from the real killers. “We are a family who is committed to facts, not fake evidence that surfaces every few months to fill the void and distract law enforcement and the general public from finding Seth's murderers,” the statement said.

“It's sad but unsurprising that a group of media outlets who have repeatedly lied to the American people would try and manipulate the legacy of a murder victim in order to forward their own political agenda,” a spokesman for the family told Business Insider. “I think there is a special place in hell for people like that.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Jade Helm Walmart investigation at Midland, Texas

Midland, Texas is in the heart of the Texas oil country. Founded in 1881 as the halfway point on the railroad between Fort Worth and El Paso, Midland was originally a cattle town. In 1923, oil was discovered there and the town boomed. Many of the downtown buildings still reflect the art deco construction of the 1920s and 1930s. The city gained fame in the early 2000s as the hometown of President George W. Bush. Today, Midland is feeling the effects of the most recent oil bust, but is even more famous for something else: a closed Walmart.

Until recently Midland was a two Walmart town. One store was located on the north side of town and another the south. That changed in April when the retailer suddenly closed the north side store along with other stores in Livingston, Texas, Pico Rivera, Calif., Tulsa, Okla., and Brandon, Fla. The Midland store closing included layoffs for most of the 456 employees according to the Dallas Morning News. The Midland Reporter-Telegram notes that the store will be closed for approximately six months. Other area businesses are concerned because they benefit from the customers that Walmart draws to the area.

Almost immediately, conspiracy theorists linked the sudden store closings to an upcoming military exercise, Jade Helm 15, set to take place in the southwestern states this summer. The conspiracy theorists fear that the exercise is a cover for the Obama Administration to implement martial law. This theory is based on a map in a military briefing that designates Texas as “hostile” for the purposes of the exercise.

The tie-in to Walmart stems from the company’s claim that the stores were closed because of plumbing problems. A Walmart statement said, “Each of these five locations had more than 100 plumbing problems reported over the last two years, the most out of our more than 5,000 stores in the U.S.” according to the Dallas Morning News.

An employee group disputes the plumbing claim. OUR Walmart filed a dispute with the National Labor Relations Board claiming that the stores were closed because of labor activism, noting that the Pico Rivera store was the first store where workers protested the company. The Dallas Morning News reports that the group is seeking an injunction to force Walmart to rehire the workers.

Last month, Examiner sent an investigative team to the Livingston, Texas Walmart to investigate reports of a military buildup in the store in conjunction with Jade Helm. Yesterday, the same team was sent to investigate the Midland store.

The closed Midland Walmart, like many Walmarts around the country, is in a high traffic area. The store is in a busy shopping area and several restaurants are adjacent to the parking lot. Another shopping center and more restaurants are across the street. A road runs along the back side of the Walmart and a gas station sits at the back corner of the store’s lot. The loading docks are easily visible to passersby. Any suspicious activity would be quickly noticed by the multitudes of diners and shoppers in the area.

Also unlike the Livingston Walmart, the Murphy Express gas station in Midland was still open for business. Most of the entrances to the Walmart parking lot were roped off, but there was still access from two sides. This allowed a steady stream of cars to purchase the Murphy Express’s cheap gasoline.

Unlike the Livingston Walmart, the Midland store is locked down and deserted. There were no cars or employees except for a solitary private security guard. When first glimpsed by the Examiner team, she was outside her truck, seemingly dozing on a shaded bench on the warm, Sunday afternoon.

When approached by the Examiner team, the guard said that she had not seen any suspicious activity and that there had been no sign of any military vehicles or personnel. She said that there had been quite a few civilians who were curious about the store closings and the conspiracy claims. She said that some of the other guards who had worked the night shift had reported suspicious civilians trying to find out what was inside the store.

The guard did not patrol inside the store, but said that, in the weeks after the closing, there had been many employees working inside to “take everything out,” presumably unsold stock as well as shelves and furnishings. More recently, there had been no activity at the store at all.

“It gets really boring,” she said.

Examiner was able to take photographs of every side of the store. There was no evidence of any other guards or activity. There were no military vehicles, either trucks or aircraft.

Previous reports of military vehicles and aircraft around the Midland Walmart, if not totally fabricated, may be easily explained. First, Walmart stores often allow trucks and recreational vehicles to park overnight. The large – now empty – parking lots with numerous restaurants in the proximity might also make an attractive stopping point for military convoys, especially since many Walmarts, including those in Livingston and Midland, are close to interstate highways.

In Midland, the presence of military aircraft can be explained by the proximity to Midland International Airport (KMAF). The map in the slide show shows that the closed Walmart is located about five miles from Midland International and under a common flight path for arriving aircraft. It would not be unusual to see both military and civilian aircraft flying low in this area. There do not seem to be any reports of military aircraft actually landing at the Walmart.

Texas is home to a multitude of military bases. Army vehicles and helicopters around Midland may well be traveling to or from Fort Hood, a large base some 200 miles away that is home to 1^st Cavalry Division as well as other units.

As with the Livingston Walmart, the Examiner team saw no reason to believe that there was any suspicious activity, military or otherwise, at the Midland Walmart. Differences in activity between Midland and Livingston may well reflect different stages in the process of removing items from the store and readying the buildings for renovation.

See the slideshow here.

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Baltimore riot conspiracies debunked

After every national tragedy, conspiracy theorists rush to fit the facts into their pet theories. The Baltimore riots are no exception. Among the many questions and claims being put forward on conspiracy sites are claims that the riots may be linked to Jade Helm 15 in preparing America for martial law. This in spite of the fact that Maryland is across the country from Jade Helm exercise area.

These theories hold that the riots in Baltimore are meant to instill fear and panic of a race war throughout the country. A posting sent in by a reader (tip of the tinfoil hat to Jason Doolin of Florida) seems representative of the conspiracy claims. “In case you missed it,” the post begins, “media focused on the few areas in Bmore [sic] where rioting took place and made it look like ww3 [sic] throughout the city. Meanwhile their ratings went through the roof and they paraded interviewees in front of the audience begging for the govt. to enact martial law in order to save them. This is known as PSYOPS aka conditioning.” The posting concludes, “Now the headline is martial law saved the city.”

Examining the claims, we find that the conspiracy is wrong on almost all counts. In many cases, it is true that media coverage of a small area can give the perception that devastation is much larger than it actually is. In the case of the Baltimore riots, however, a map published by the Baltimore Sun showing the violence of the first day of rioting shows that incidents occurred over a widespread area. According to the Sun, the violence began near Mondawmin Mall, located in the northwest section of the city, and spread towards downtown. The violence was worst on the west side of town, but there were a number of scattered incidents in eastern Baltimore as well.

None of the conspiracy sites seem to have an example of anyone “begging” for the government to enact martial law. Examples of black leaders inciting the riot, another claim in some articles, are easier to find. A frequently cited example is Malik Shabazz, president of Black Lawyers for Justice, who was quoted in the New York Times on Saturday, April 25 as telling protesters to “Shut it down if you want to! Shut it down!” Shabazz said he was encouraging civil disobedience, not violence.

Others were more direct. On Monday, April 27, Marc Lamont Hill, a professor at Morehouse College, said on CNN, “There shouldn’t be calm tonight.” He added, “I think there can be resistance to oppression

In one infamous piece on Salon, Benji Hart wrote, “It is crucial that we see non-violence as a tactic, not a philosophy” and argued against the “slandering of protesters in Baltimore this weekend for not remaining peaceful.” Hart’s words were published on Tuesday, however, as the riot was already in full swing.

Some conspiracy sites claim that martial law was declared in Baltimore and that the National Guard was used to restore order. Indeed, a New York Times article with the headline “Martial law enforced in Baltimore” comes up in Google searches. Upon closer inspection, the dateline is April 23, several days before the start of the riots. Even closer inspection reveals that the year is 1861. The article is part of the Times online archives and refers to President Lincoln’s imposition of martial law to prevent Maryland’s secession at the onset of the Civil War.

In 2015, martial law was never declared. On Monday, April 27, Maryland governor Larry Hogan declared a state of emergency on the request of Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake according to CBS Baltimore.

Gen. Linda Singh, commander of Maryland’s National Guard told Real Clear Politics Monday night that “this is not martial law.” Singh went on to say that the National Guard troops were being deployed “in support of the police department, and are taking our direction from the police department….”

A Baltimore Sun report from Tuesday, April 28, indicated that 1,700 Guardsmen were deployed around the city. Some were in supporting roles while others provided backup for police responding to calls. At this point, there is no evidence that the Guard was involved in combat with looters and rioters, but their presence, as noted by Gizmodo, was clearly intended to intimidate the rioters and quell the violence.

It is worth noting here that the National Guard is not under the control of President Obama and the federal government. As noted on Military.com, in peacetime the National Guard answers to the civilian leadership of its state, not the president. The president can mobilize the National Guard and call them up for duty in wartime or an emergency. This makes the National Guard an unlikely component of a federal plan for illegal martial law.

There is also no evidence of headlines saying that the military response saved the city. Instead, the big story seems to be the inept response of Baltimore’s mayor, which is generating conspiracy claims of its own. A widely circulated quote by Mayor Rawlings-Blake purports to show that she purposely allowed the violence. On Saturday, April 25, the first day of the riots, she said, “We also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.”

On the surface, the quote seems damning, but when viewed in full context, her words take on a different meaning. Politifact provides her full remarks:

“We’ve had these kinds of conversations before, and I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech. It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate and that’s what you saw this evening.”

Mayor Rawlings-Blake was actually describing the unfortunate result of her attempt to protect the First Amendment right of peaceful protesters, not an intent to allow violent demonstrators to engage in destruction of property.

Another conspiracy blog points to a Fox News article that states that “between 20 and 50 social media accounts in Baltimore [were also] linked to the violence in Ferguson, Mo.” The article goes on to say that there was “a spike in message traffic in Washington D.C., Philadelphia and New York City, with ‘protesters’ trying to get rides to Baltimore for Tuesday night.”

Rather than a government attempt at martial law, this social media traffic is more readily explained as “professional” protesters and outside agitators on the left. A number of protesters arrested in Ferguson last year were from distant liberal meccas like New York and Chicago according to USA Today. The social media traffic would seem to indicate that many militant leftists from neighboring cities were stoking the fires of Baltimore as well.

The argument that the riots were conditioning Americans to accept martial also seems questionable. The inability of the government to protect its citizens and their property for several days likely did little to inspire the confidence of most Americans in federal authority.

In reality, the aftermath of riots often inspires citizens to arm themselves. Last year’s riots in Ferguson led to dramatic increases in gun sales at nearby stores according to the Washington Post. Similarly, the Los Angeles riots of 1992 led to record-breaking gun sales noted the Los Angeles Times. If the government were truly planning to implement martial law, it would probably want to lull its citizens into a false sense of security, not send them scurrying to the gun store.

The conspiracy theorists did get one thing right. The riot coverage was a boon to television news networks. Variety reported that the top networks were CNN and Fox News, as is usually the case with breaking news. Even a blind squirrel can find a nut occasionally.

 

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Visit to a Jade Helm Walmart

Deep the heart of Texas, about an hour north of Houston up Highway 59, lies the small town of Livingston. According to the sign at the city limits, Livingston is the home to 5,335 people. There are numerous businesses and civic organizations including, until recently, a Walmart.

The closure of Livingston’s Walmart puts the small Texas town at the center of a conspiracy theory regarding an alleged plot to impose martial law on seven U.S. states this summer. The theory holds that a military exercise, codenamed “Jade Helm 15,” is a cover for soldiers to take positions across the southwest in order for the government to implement martial law. When Walmart announced five store closings earlier this month, including two in Texas and one in California, many websites arrived at the conclusion that the Walmarts were being coopted by the military either as staging areas for Jade Helm or detention areas for detainees who would be arrested under martial law. Examiner investigators went to Livingston, home of one of the two closed Walmarts in Texas, to look into these allegations.

The Livingston Walmart is located in a bustling business district about a quarter-mile from Highway 59. The area is heavily trafficked and there are numerous other businesses, both large and small, nearby. A Lowe’s home improvement store and HEB grocery store were both located within a short distance. Like many Walmart stores, this one appeared to have been built on the outskirts of town and drew other businesses around it.

The first impression upon arriving at Livingston’s Walmart is that the store is far from abandoned. The parking lot is relatively full of civilian vehicles. Blue-shirted Walmart associates walk to and from the building from their cars. There are also landscape crews in the parking lot.

The Livingston Walmart is a standalone super center. From a distance, the only indication that the store is not open are large white banners that say “store temporarily closed” that hang near the Walmart sign on the store front. The garden center, enclosed by a fence, is bare.

Across the parking lot is a Taco Bell that appears to be open. A separate strip mall to the west side of the parking lot contains several other businesses and is served by a separate parking lot. A Murphy Express gas station, a brand frequently collocated with Walmart, in the parking lot is also closed.

One of the two main entrances is closed. Employees are entering and exiting from the second. We approach the open door and enter through the open glass doors.

Inside, rather than the typical gaping cavern of a Walmart interior, there are temporary walls that form something like a lobby with two doors, one to each side, that lead to the interior of the store. Facing the exterior doors is a folding table with a sign that says “associate sign-in.” At the table sit a Walmart employee and a Livingston city policeman.

We identify ourselves as writers investigating the Jade Helm-Walmart connection and ask to speak with a store manager. The Walmart employee, a middle-aged blonde woman, answers that the managers are not answering questions or giving interviews.

We ask the pair if there has been any suspicious activity and the policeman answers, “Not that I’ve seen.” He adds, “Does it sound like any training is going on?”

The sounds coming from inside do not sound like training. They sound like construction. Drills, hammers and associated noises that would be consistent with a store renovation.

There are windows in the two doors that lead to the interior. What is visible through the windows, looks like a typical Walmart store.

We ask if they know when the store will reopen and both reply that they do not. The work going on inside makes it apparent that Walmart does plan to reopen the store, contrary to the fears of many local residents. KHOU 11 reported that many residents fear that the store is gone forever, along with 422 jobs. Losing the Walmart is a major blow to the local economy.

Taking our leave, we return to our vehicle and drive around the side of the Walmart to where the Tire and Lube Express is located. This entrance is closed as well. The only thing that looks unusual is a large group of pallets piled high with plastic bags marked as mulch, peat moss, and other garden products. These are likely destined for the empty garden center when the store is restocked.

Continuing to the rear of the store, we see… nothing. There are a couple of Walmart trucks at the store’s loading docks, but no people. As we drive around the store, we are unchallenged by police or security.

In light of the conspiracy theories, the most notable absence is any sign of military activity. In spite of some reports of soldiers, military vehicles and helicopters at or near the closed Walmarts, there was no sign of any military activity in Livingston, either near the Walmart or elsewhere. There are no convoys on the interstates, no trains filled with tanks, no uniformed personnel other than the one policeman, and no suspicious men loitering with strange bulges under their shirts. We don’t even see any AH-64 Apache helicopters, a common sight in this part of Texas due to the proximity of army bases and military flight training routes.

As a result of our investigation in Livingston, we have to conclude that there is no evidence to support the theory that Walmarts are being used in conjunction with the military Jade Helm exercise. In fact the only thing to support a connection between the two events, other than pure conjecture, is the timing and location of the store closings.

Even this connection is tenuous. Of the five store closings, only three are in states where Jade Helm will take place. Another closing is in Oklahoma, which borders the Jade Helm area, but the fifth is in Florida, on the other side of the country. Additionally, the closings began almost three months before Jade Helm’s kickoff on July 15. This may even mean that the renovations can be completed and the stores reopened before Jade Helm begins.

The biggest flaw in the conspiracy may be Walmart’s own claim that the store closings are due to plumbing repairs and renovations. It is unlikely that a major corporation would allow the federal government or other unknown forces to seize five stores without putting up resistance. In other cases of government overreach, businesses have fought federal mandates in the courts and won.

 

Read the full article and see more pictures on Examiner.com

Relax. Obamacare doesn’t bring beheadings to US.

A new rumor about Obamacare, formally known as the Affordable Care Act, making its rounds on the internet is that the law will make beheading an official method of execution in the United States. The rumor, apparently started by Lorri Anderson on the Freedom Outpost on Nov. 18, 2013, claims that a medical code for “legal execution” reveals that beheading and decapitation are coming to the United States. The Freedom Outpost is a conservative pseudo-news site that promotes birtherism, nullification as well as other conspiracy stories.

Anderson claims that a medical code, “ICD 9 E 978,” purports to list the legal methods of execution in the United States. The definition of the coding is found on CentralX.com under “International Classification of Diseases” and is as follows:

E978 Legal execution

          All executions performed at the behest of the judiciary or ruling authority
          [whether permanent or temporary] as:
           asphyxiation by gas
           beheading, decapitation (by guillotine)
           capital punishment
           electrocution
           hanging
           poisoning
           shooting
           other specified means
           INJURY UNDETERMINED WHETHER ACCIDENTALLY OR PURPOSELY
          INFLICTED

Anderson notes that the code is part of an international coding system, but doesn’t seem to understand what the codes are for or how they are used. She seems to believe that, because the United States is using the coding system, all parts of the code will apply to patients in the United States.

Writing for About.com, Trisha Torrey explains that “ICD” codes are “International Statistical Classifications of Diseases.” The codes are used to categorize every disease, set of symptoms or cause of death that can be attributed to human beings. The coding system was developed by the World Health Organization, the coordinating authority for health in the United Nations. As electronic medical records are implemented, the codes will be used for diagnosis and treatment of health problems.

When someone dies, an ICD code will also be used to record the cause of death. This is where Anderson’s code for “legal execution” comes in. The code will obviously be used when a person has been executed “at the behest of the judiciary or ruling authority [whether permanent or temporary].” Even though “beheading” and “decapitation (by guillotine)” are not legal methods of execution for the federal government or any of the 50 states, beheading is still legal in Saudi Arabia. Additionally, rebels in Syria and the Taliban in Pakistan (possibly a temporary authority in areas that they control) have been known to use beheading, as did Saddam Hussein in pre-war Iraq. Other Islamic terrorists have also been known to behead their captives. In one notable case, Nick Berg, an American business who was Jewish, was kidnapped and beheaded by Iraqi Muslim terrorists in 2004 and the video of the murder was posted online. And no, there is no evidence that Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Regardless of what international medical codes define as legal methods of execution, the method of legal execution in the United States is established by the legislature. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 35 states plus the federal government have the death penalty. All states have lethal injection as the primary method of execution. In Georgia, lethal injection is the only legal means of execution. Federal law requires that in federal death penalty cases, the method of execution follows the law of the state in which the conviction took place. No state law permits execution by beheading.

Anderson also attempts to tie in the ICD coding to Agenda 21 by asserting that “WHO is a specialized agency of the United Nations and directly linked to the League of Nations under the guise of collecting data.” In reality, the League of Nations was the predecessor to the United Nations and was disbanded in 1946 after failing in its primary mission of preventing a second world war. The United Nations was founded a year earlier in 1945.

Agenda 21 (read the full text here) is frequent fodder for conspiracy buffs. Agenda 21 is a protocol for achieving “sustainable development” in the 21^st century that was drafted by the United Nations Earth Summit in 1992. The agenda is not a treaty. The Heritage Foundation noted in 2011 that Agenda 21 is “voluntary” and “nonbinding.” The United Nations Association agrees that Agenda 21 is “not legally binding” and “does not take precedence over U.S. law.” Agenda 21 passed the House of Representatives in 1992 (sponsored by Nancy Pelosi) according to the Library of Congress but was never passed by the Senate so it never became U.S. law.

Conspiracy proponents like Townhall.com columnist Rachel Alexander sometimes refer to Executive Orders that supposedly implement Agenda 21 without congressional approval. In reality, President Obama’s Executive Order 13575 which in 2011 established the White House Rural Council specifically says that “nothing in this order shall be construed to… affect… authority granted by law” and that the order “shall be implemented consistent with applicable law….” Obama’s Executive Order 13547 carries similar disclaimers to avoid in pretense of amending current federal law. Similar claims about other presidents are also farfetched. Two orders by Bill Clinton cited by conspiracy buffs (12852 and 12996) establish an advisory council for the president on sustainable development and create wildlife refuges on public use lands. George W. Bush is also blamed for Executive Orders 13423 and 13366, which are equally innocuous and also carry disclaimers that they do not amend existing law.

It takes little research to quickly determine that the Affordable Care Act will not implement beheadings in the United States. It can be determined almost as quickly that however ill-advised that Agenda 21 may be, it does not apply to the United States.

If you find an internet conspiracy theory that would like Examiner to investigate, contact the Atlanta Conservative Examiner at ThorntonDavid@yahoo.com or on the Common Sense Conservative Facebook page. If your conspiracy is selected for an article, you will receive an official Atlanta Conservative Examiner tinfoil hat. Readers might also be interested in Examiner’s guide to “Becoming a discerning internet user,” a helpful article on distinguishing fact from fiction on the internet.

Originally published on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Beware of tax protest conspiracies

As we approach April 15, the deadline for filing federal income tax returns for most individual taxpayers, many people question whether Americans are really required to pay an income tax. Scores of Youtube videos featuring people such as former IRS agent Joseph Bannister claim that the federal income tax is illegal and that Americans cannot be forced to pay taxes to the IRS. In celebration of the Ides of April, let us once again don our tin foil hats and delve into the world of income tax protesters.

One claim made by tax protesters is that there is no law on the books that permits a federal income tax. It is true that the original income tax signed into law by Abraham Lincoln in 1861 was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1895. This problem was fixed with the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913. Some tax protesters argue that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. Professor Jonathan Siegel of the George Washington University Law School explains that the 16^th Amendment had the same ratification process as other amendments and really is part of the Constitution.

Another claim is that even though the Constitution permits an income tax, no federal law ever enacted one. Some tax protesters claim that even after years of searching that they have found no law establishing an income tax. In truth, they need look no further than Title 26 of the U.S. Code, commonly known as the Internal Revenue Code. Subtitle A, chapter one, subchapter A, part one legally establishes an income tax on individuals. This part also defines that wages are included in taxable income, debunking another claim by some tax protesters.

The “861 argument” against paying income tax is based on a section of chapter one of the tax code. Section 861 relates to resident and nonresident aliens working in the United States as well as foreign corporations. Section 861 does not apply to U.S. citizens unless they have income that has already been taxed according to Professor Siegel. If a U.S. citizen has paid taxes to a foreign government, the federal tax code allows them to use these payments as a credit on their federal income tax. Otherwise Section 861 does not apply to U.S. citizens.

Tax protesters also cite the names of many people who have allegedly “beat the IRS” in court. What they don’t say is that while these people may sometimes avoid jail time, they are not so fortunate when it comes to avoiding civil penalties and being forced to pay back taxes and penalties. Often tax protesters are sent to jail as well.

Vernice Kuglin, a former FedEx pilot who appears in some online videos as someone who beat the IRS in court, actually was acquitted in 2003 of falsifying W-4 forms and failing to pay taxes. Although she did not go to jail, she agreed to pay more than half a million dollars in back taxes and penalties and had her wages garnished by the IRS according to court documents cited on Tax Protester Dossiers. The Memphis Daily News reported in 2007 that the IRS had filed an additional tax lien against her house for $188,025.

Joseph Banister, the IRS agent who was mentioned in the first paragraph, also escaped jail although he was indicted for conspiracy to avoid taxes. According to Tax Protester Dossiers, Banister was acquitted of the criminal charge, but was disbarred from IRS practice. The California Board of Accountancy revoked his CPA license in 2007. The CBA website cites the cause for discipline as “providing erroneous advice to taxpayers” and “improperly advising them that tax returns were not required….”

Banister’s client in the case that led to his disbarment was Walter “Al” Thompson. Thompson refused to withhold taxes from their wages and file tax documents as required by law. According to etax.com, Thompson was convicted, fined $7,500, and sentenced to 72 months in prison on a variety of charges including filing a false return and failing to pay income and Social Security taxes for his employees.

Other tax protesters were also not as lucky as Banister and Kuglin. Sherry Peel Jackson, a Stone Mountain, Ga. resident and former IRS agent, was found guilty on four counts of failing to file tax returns. Jackson appears in some of the internet films espousing tax protest theories. She was sentenced to four years in prison. She surrendered her CPA license to Georgia authorities after her conviction.

Many other tax protesters have gone to jail when they followed their beliefs and failed to file tax returns. Other prominent tax resisters who have gone to jail include Peter Hendrickson, author of “Cracking the Code,” a book of tips on how to avoid paying taxes, who received a 33 month jail term and a $25,000 fine. Larken Rose, a proponent of the 861 argument, received a 15 month prison sentence and $10,000 fine. Irwin Schiff has gone to jail three times for criminal violations of tax laws. He is currently serving a 13 year sentence on tax charges and criminal contempt.

The lesson taxpayers should learn is that if there were an easy way out of paying taxes, nobody would pay them, taxes would not be a major political issue and the Republicans would not put such emphasis on tax cuts. Most obviously, if paying income taxes was not mandatory, people who do not pay taxes would not go to jail. It is not illegal to question the legality of the income tax. It is illegal to refuse to pay taxes or file a return.

Many conspiracy theories are ultimately harmless. Staying inside because of a fear of chemtrails may hamper one’s life, but it won’t ruin it. Believing that that JFK was the victim of a vast conspiracy, that secret forces were behind the September 11 attacks, or that Obamacare requires Americans to receive implants or establishes a secret police force probably won’t cause one to lose their job or family. While it is not against the law to espouse conspiracy theories about the income tax, acting on those theories can cost conspiracy believers years in jails and thousands of dollars in fines and penalties.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/tax-protester-conspiracy-theories-can-lead-to-jail-fines

Myths, lies, and conspiracies about the Sandy Hook massacre

Often after a violent event that leads to a dramatic shift in public opinion or government policy, conspiracy theories abound. The Kennedy assassination, the moon landing, and the September 11 attacks all spawned numerous conspiracy theories. Now the Sandy Hook school massacre in Newtown, Ct. is becoming fodder for the purveyors of conspiracies.

Second shooters and the man in camouflage

One of the first conspiracies about Sandy Hook is that there was a second shooter. News coverage on the day of the murders showed a man in camouflage who had been arrested in the woods near the school. Bystanders reported that the man said, “I didn’t do it,” but no information on the man’s identity was forthcoming.

The mystery was quietly solved two weeks after the murders. On Dec. 27, the Newtown Bee reported, almost as an afterthought, that “a man with a gun who was spotted in the woods near the school on the day of the incident was an off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town.” The article does not explain what the officer was doing in the woods, but his identity was probably withheld because of his status as a SWAT officer. It is plausible to think that he might have been nearby and responded to the shootings. The Bee cites a “reliable law enforcement source.”

The SWAT officer was not the only person detained by police near Sandy Hook that day. Chris Manfredonia ran around the school trying to find his six-year-old daughter when he was handcuffed by police according to a Dec. 14 Los Angeles Times report. Manfredonia was released and found his daughter alive. Another unidentified man was detained according to Snopes, but was released when it became clear that he was not involved in the murders.

Chris Rodia was also accused of being the second shooter by some conspiracy theorists. In reality, the Connecticut Post reports that Rodia was being stopped for a traffic violation in Greenwich, Ct. at the time of the murders. Connecticut State Police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance told the Post that Adam Lanza was the only gunman and that the car belonged to his relative (Nancy Lanza, his mother, according to other reports), not to Rodia, whom Vance had never heard of. Apparently, the officer who stopped Rodia was using the same police frequency as units responding to Sandy Hook, causing bloggers monitoring scanners to become confused.

The Post tracked the Rodia conspiracy to several websites including one called “USA Hitman.” The administrator of the site admitted that “"I have a full-time job and don't have time to research the stories.”

Did Lanza use an assault rifle?
The weapon used by Lanza has also been the source of confusion. Paul Vance of the State Police confirmed to CNN that Lanza carried three guns in the attack. The primary weapon was a Bushmaster AR-15, but he also carried Glock 10 mm and Sig Sauer 9 mm pistols. The Newtown Bee’s law enforcement source confirms this information.

Early reports that the AR-15 was found in the trunk of Lanza’s (not Rodia’s) car were not correct. The weapon recovered from the trunk was actually a shotgun. CNN noted that authorities had not released details of the shotgun. A Youtube video shows police removing the gun, which does not appear to be an AR-15, from the trunk of the car.

There are reports that the gun in the trunk was a Saiga 12 gauge shotgun, but these could not be verified. The Saiga 12 gauge is a combat shotgun that can accept a large capacity magazine and could easily be mistaken for an “assault rifle.”

Ryan Lanza’s ID

Ryan Lanza’s role in the massacre has also been the source of confusion. Initial reports were that Ryan, Adam Lanza’s brother, was the killer. In reality, Ryan Lanza was at work in New York City when he heard about the shooting according to the Daily Mail. Lanza was picked up by police for questioning and was later released.

The confusion stems from the fact that Adam Lanza was reported to have carried Ryan’s identification. Precisely what sort of identification cannot be determined from the information that has been released. It is possible that the identification was old and out-of-date since the Lanza brothers did not live together.

Peter Lanza and LIBOR

There were also reports that Lanza’s father was scheduled to testify before Congress in the LIBOR scandal. The conspiracy theory claims that the father of James Holmes, the “Dark Knight” killer from Aurora, Co., was also scheduled to testify on LIBOR. The problem was that no such hearing was scheduled to take place according to Talking Points Memo. Holmes worked for FICO and Lanza worked for GE. Neither is connected to LIBOR scandal, which is not even an American scandal.

Victoria Soto

Another myth involves Victoria Soto, one of the teachers murdered by Lanza. Early reports indicated that Soto had hidden her students in a classroom closet and then told Lanza that they were not in the classroom. In reality, one of Soto’s students said that Soto lined her students up and put herself between them and Lanza. The student, Aidan Licata, told CNN that he had been taught to run if they saw someone with a gun. Aidan and several of the other students ran past Lanza and escaped. Aidan was picked up by a woman who took him to a police station, but some of the students from Miss Soto’s class ended up in Gene Rosen’s driveway.

The closet tactic was used by another first grade teacher, Kaitlin Roig, according to ABC News. Roig hid her class in a bathroom and wheeled a storage unit in front of the door. She piled some of her six- and seven-year-olds on top of the toilet to fit everyone inside while telling those “who believed in the power of the prayer, we need to pray and those who don't believe in prayer" to remain positive. When the police came, Roig refused to open the door, thinking that it might the murderer trying to trick her. She told them that if they were really the police they could find a key to open the door themselves. Roig and her students all survived.

Gene Rosen

Gene Rosen, who opened his home to several Sandy Hook survivors, has also been the target of the conspiracy buffs. Rosen’s home is slightly more than a tenth of mile from Sandy Hook, an easy walk for first graders. (Examiner is not publishing Rosen’s address to protect him from further harassment.) In spite of claims to the contrary, Connecticut’s News Times reported that Rosen did invite the bus driver who was with the six children into his home. The children eventually told Rosen what had happened. One of them even said that the killer had “a little gun and a big gun,” supporting the claim that Lanza carried the Bushmaster into the school. The original article does not specify whether the bus driver was male or female.

Much has been made of Rosen’s delay in contacting the police, but the News Times article indicates that he was initially somewhat skeptical about the children’s story. He did not realize that it was true until he watched the news that night.

It is not clear how much the bus driver knew about what had happened at the school. The driver may have even been in shock, since Rosen focuses mainly on the stories that the children told after they came inside. A Fox News report indicates that Rosen and the bus driver called the driver’s supervisor, who helped them to contact the children’s parents. It is reasonable to assume that the police would have been notified, either by Rosen or the supervisor, even though this is not specifically mentioned in the story. The bus driver’s name is apparently not mentioned in any news story. With the negative attention that Rosen has received, who can blame the driver for remaining anonymous?

According to the article, parents of four of the children were contacted and picked up their children at Rosen’s house and then the group went to the firehouse next door where other parents were gathering. Presumably, the other two children were either reunited with their parents or turned over to authorities there.

According to Snopes, Rosen was never a member of the Screen Actors Guild as some have claimed. This was a case of mistaken identity with another Eugene Rosen. The Eugene Rosen who lives near Sandy Hook has been a lifelong Connecticut resident. This is easily confirmed through online address searches and background checks.

Emilie Parker

Six-year-old Emilie Parker has also been the target of conspiracies thanks to a photo of President Obama surrounded by children. A girl in the picture bears a striking resemblance to Emilie and even wears the same dress that Emilie wore in a family portrait. The girl with the president is Emilie’s sister, Madeline, who is now four-years-old.

A collection of pictures posted on Metabunk helps clear up the confusion. The family portrait was taken in 2010 when Emilie was four and Madeline was two. Two years later, Madeline is at the same age that Emilie was in the family picture. She obviously wore a hand-me-down dress in the picture with the president.

Actors and smiling parents

Other conspiracies revolving around the massacre are more subjective. Conspiracy buffs claim that the parents interviewed on television are too happy to be grieving parents and that they are actually crisis actors employed by the government. There are many reasons that a parent might laugh after the death of child. There might be anxiety and nervousness about going on television, they might remember a happy moment with their baby, or they might even be in shock and not yet fully comprehending the loss.

An online conspiracy video states that Robbie Parker, Emilie’s father, is listed in an internet search as being 57-years-old. This is another obvious case of mistaken identity. An internet search performed by Examiner found no fewer than 12 Robert Parkers in Connecticut, including two in Sandy Hook. What the video fails to note is that the Robbie Parker interviewed on the news is the same man in the 2010 family portrait with Emilie and Madeline.

An Anderson Cooper podcast shows Veronique Pozner, another parent who is obviously distraught and says that she is still numb from the loss of her son. Lynn McDonnell, also cited on the conspiracy video with her words dubbed out, was on Anderson Cooper as well. A transcript of the interview shows that she was talking about her daughter’s sweet spirit, how she loved school, and how she would blow kisses as she got on the bus. These are memories that could easily make a grieving parent smile for a moment.

It is not reasonable to judge a parent to be an imposter based solely on their facial expression. People grieve in different ways. There likely were parents who fit the stereotype of grief in which they constantly cry and are totally inconsolable. It is reasonable to assume that these parents declined to do television interviews.

The claim that the parents are actors is easily debunked. Crisis Actors is a private business that provides actors for mock disaster drills. This is not a secret government organization. These are private citizens who work with government agencies to help them train for disasters, terrorist attacks and mass killings. The Crisis Actors website states, “We do not engage our actors in any real-world crisis events, and none of our performances may be presented at any time as a real-world event.”

Snopes believes that it has traced the origin of the actor conspiracy to Wellaware, another conspiracy site. This site apparently promotes the idea that many famous people have been replaced by actors. Among their theories are that Jerry Sandusky was replaced by Kevin Costner, that George Herbert Walker Bush was really Joseph Kennedy, Jr., that Queen Elizabeth is really Betty White, and that Kermit Roosevelt, son of President Theodore Roosevelt, portrayed both Adolf Hitler and Walt Disney.

The idea that actors are portraying the parents defies logic. If the parents on television are actors, then where are the real parents? If actors were being used, wouldn’t they be trained to portray stereotypical grief instead of laughing? If parents are not really grieving, where are the children? If the children and teachers were really killed in a “false flag” operation then why bother to hire actors? Wouldn’t the real parents be more convincing since they were really grief-stricken?

Ambulances, Lanza’s accuracy and controlling the crime scene

The conspiracy video also refers to news camera pictures showing the lack of activity around the school in the wake of the shooting. The answer here is simple: Most of the news crews arrived long after the action was over. The famous photo of a teacher leading a line of children was taken by the Newtown Bee, the local paper and apparently the first and only reporters on the scene for a time. The video says that there are “no ambulances” while simultaneously showing a video in which ambulances are clearly present. By the time video news crews reached the scene reached the scene, the children had already been removed from the school, to the fire station if they were uninjured or in ambulances if they were. NBC News reports that ambulances were even called in from neighboring towns, but most were unused. The majority of the victims were dead, not injured.

Adam Lanza’s accuracy has also been questioned due to reports that all victims had multiple wounds. The Hartford Courant reports that Lanza was a frequent player of first-person shooter video games and, according to MSNBC, he was familiar with guns and marksmanship. Children in the classrooms with one door had little room to escape. Many of the bullet wounds were probably inflicted after the victim was already dead or injured and unable to run.

Conspiracy buffs have keyed in on a comment about “controlling” the scene by Connecticut’s chief medical examiner, Dr. Wayne Carver. A full transcript of Carver’s comments indicate that he was talking about controlling access to the crime scene to spare the families more emotional distress.

Carver’s full comment was, “We did not bring the bodies and the families into contact. We took pictures of them of their facial features. It’s easier on the families when you do that. There is a time and a place for up close and personal in the grieving process. But to accomplish this, we felt it would be best to do it this way, and you can sort of – you can control the situation, depending on the photographer and I have very good photographers.” This explains why the parents were kept from the crime scene and not allowed to see the bodies as well as why any closed circuit camera images have not been released.

Bridgeport FEMA conference

Conspiracy sites have also pointed out that FEMA was holding a conference in Bridgeport, Ct. on the day of the massacre. The topic of this sinister conference? “Planning for the needs of Children in Disasters.”

The location of the conference was not on the same road as Sandy Hook as some sites claim, although Highway 25 does connect both towns. According to Yahoo Maps, the two locations were 20 miles and about half an hour apart. It should be remembered that Connecticut is a small state with an average length of 90 miles and width of 55 miles. This means that the conference in Bridgeport was halfway across the state from Sandy Hook.

None of this is in the least incriminating or suggestive of FEMA involvement in the shooting. In fact, the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection calendar reveals that the same course was offered a total of four times in December. On the days of three of the four classes, no mass murders occurred.

Dates on internet postings

One of the last conspiracy items is the claim that news stories and Facebook pages about the murders were posted to the internet before the shootings actually occurred. This is based on dates posted on Google search results.

To see the fallacy in this theory, go to Google.com and type in a search term, something along the lines of “Sandy Hook shooting.” Click “search tools” in the menu below the search field. Click the arrow beside “any time” to open up a time range menu and then select “custom range.” Select a date range before the Sandy Hook shooting to search, for example, you can search the dates between January 1 and December 1, 2012. The results show news stories about the Sandy Hook massacre from as early as Jan. 14, 2012, far beyond the day or so early claimed by the conspiracy buffs. When dates are expanded, search results dating back to 2007 and 2008 can be found. This should be too early for even the most ardent conspiracy believers to justify as secret operation.

A similar search on Bing does not yield similar results. Bing does not offer custom date range searches, but after scrolling through many pages of search results, nothing prior to Dec. 14, 2012, the day of the shooting was found. The same is true of other search engines including Ask and Yahoo. Obviously, there is a flaw in Google’s methodology.

Without a doubt, President Obama and the Democrats are using the tragic murders at Sandy Hook for their own political ends. There is no evidence that they actually carried out the shootings or orchestrated a hoax of any sort. They didn’t need to. Mass murders happen on occasion and this one, happening just after the election, came at an opportune time.

A hoax would have been much smoother. They would have hired actors who knew how to cry. They might have set up websites in advance, but they would not have activated them, much less more than one, before the shooting. Eyewitness testimony would have matched. In reality, conflicting testimony is not a sign of a hoax because people perceive things in different ways and remember things differently. Stories that match up perfectly are more likely to indicate that the testimony was planned in advance.

For Sandy Hook to be a hoax perpetrated by the government, the conspirators would have to be exceedingly incompetent. They would have had to execute the killings and plant Adam Lanza as a patsy, but forget to plant the AR-15 on his body. They would also have to inexplicably put one of the “dead” girls in a photo opportunity with the president and launch websites several days early. Actors portraying the parents would have to all be so incompetent as to forget their roles on camera.

In any unfolding news story, there is a lot of erroneous information at the beginning. The “fog of war,” conflicting information coming in from different sources and all presented as fact, means that some of the early information is not true. The news media are not intentionally lying; they are just reporting the story as they know it at the time. When this information is corrected later, it isn’t a hoax or a cover up; they are just setting the record straight.

As with any conspiracy theory, the best solution is to apply Hanlon’s razor to conspiracy claims about Adam Lanza and the mass murder at Sandy Hook. “Never accept for malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

Originally published on Examiner:

http://www.examiner.com/article/myths-lies-and-conspiracies-about-the-sandy-hook-massacre?cid=db_articles