Thursday, 21 February 2013

Restricted access to Sandy Hook records proposed

Sandy Hook fallout: Proposal to Restrict Death Certificates http://www.legitgov.org/Sandy-Hook-fallout-Proposal-Restrict-Death-Certificates

Sandy Hook Fallout: Proposal to Restrict Death Certificates
February 22, 2013 by legitgov
ShareThis

Sandy Hook Fallout: Proposal to Restrict Death Certificates --Requests for kids' records dismay lawmakers --GOP Rep refers to reporters who seek info as 'jackals' 21 Feb 2013 [Note: This is a summary of an article, written by Christopher Keating and William Weir, that appeared in Thursday's Hartford Courant (hard copy), but for some reason did not 'make it' to the Courant's website.] A Newtown official's distress over reporters' requests for death certificates after the Dec. 14 schoolhouse shootings has led to a bill that would restrict public access to the records for any children younger than age 18. State Rep. Mitch Bolinsky, a freshman Republican lawmaker from Newtown, testified to a committee Wednesday that legislators "need to do something." "I was shocked, dismayed and deeply disturbed when, on Dec. 17, I got a call from the town clerk about the prospect of having a reporter standing beside her during one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the United States in Newtown looking for death certificates of children," Bolinsky said. Bolinksky said he felt "the outrage, the pain of observing the jackals descend upon my town clerk's office at a time of great, great community loss." Bolinksy introduced the one-paragraph bill, which states that the copy of the public record could be restricted "when the disclosure of the death certificate is likely to cause undue hardship for the family of the child."


8 comments:

  1. Bolinsky, eh?

    This is just the kind of now-you-see-it-now-you-don't stunt to deliberately reinforce the darkest suspicions promulgated by Jim Fetzer's hastily published (in VT, of course) Sandy-Hook-as-Mossad-Op article.

    Makes you wonder if there aren't still more layers to this "Glass Onion" than even Clare suspects.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the Mossad thing was hasty, even if they were involved. -- I am sure there could be layers I don't suspect. :) -- And Bolinsky: what's so odd there? More paranoia about having false flags exposed, or he's not in the know and really does think this was a sad day for children, or what? What are you suggesting?

      Finally: thanks for the John Lennon reference. Love to see that. :)

      Delete
  2. Clare, suspicions have been growing for some time as to the credibility (or even common sense) of Gordon Duff, and those doubts grew much louder starting with his unquestioning support for the CIA/Mossad-backed Lybian rebellion. Yet at the same time he was making his high-visibility website ever more open and welcoming to virtually all varieties (both reasoned and knee-jerk) of Israel bashing. Dr. Fetzer's broadcast interview of Mr. Duff was, IMHO, one of the more troubling (of many, it now seems) in that Jim did very little probing into Gordon's claimed mil-intel vita and his conspiracy-sleuthing bona fides. What I'm getting at is that being TOO free with pointing the (often deserved) finger of blame (for the world's ills) at Israel may be having the same discrediting (to serious research) effect as does wildly claiming that "EVERYTHING THAT SEEMS CONSPIRATORIAL IS JUST DRAMATIC FICTION PERFORMED BY ACTORS" -- from the infamous war-enabling assasinations of yesteryear to the whole panopoly of today's major news-reported catastrophies and scandals. I'm sure Dr. Sunstein's infiltration crew is fully aware (and probably making good use) of the "boy who cried wolf" parable as paradigm for present practice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Originally posted this under bpete's comment by mistake. Am posting in proper reply now.

      Yes, Gordon is obsessed with Israel as cause of so many problems and he's fed information which confirms this or, sometimes it seems, is the spin on the information and ends up confirming this in his mind. Jim also is upset about Israeli malefaction, wrongdoing. On the other hand, he rushes in sometimes on topics in a specific way: he doesn't always think how his words may sound to others. He doesn't seem to be aware that Israel truth is seen as Israel bashing, and Israel bashing often is found with those bringing Israel truth. So he's over focussed on Israel, yet he at least is aware of Israel's machinations (insider Israelis and fanatic ideologues, just as if I said "The US" or "Canada" or whatever in such a context: we're talking of the sicker ideas and persons in the policy making). But Jim is also UNDER aware of the Saudi and British connections to 9/11. This makes his suspicions of Israel too from the hip; Duff merely generally dismisses those aspects as less important. There is a difference there.

      Finally, both fellows are fairly decent to deal with, in spite of their sometimes smugness (Duff) or blustery upsets (Fetzer). They mean well in different ways.

      Jim Fetzer has been on so many e-mails I've watched him in detail in these regards. In fact, he wanted to be cautious about Mossad at Sandy Hook, but the title of the article was put on by Press TV itself. In other places, Jim has tried to be cautious about Mossad at Sandy Hook, emphasizing more than Duff that the operation could have been a mix or even not Mossad. But still, with Jim's suspicions including Duff's Israel idea, it does get repeated in Jim's articles as a potential.

      Personally, I'm open to the idea that this operation at Sandy Hook, if it was one, included Jewish pro-Israel elements from the US and Mossad. But I am also open to the idea that the dark creepiness of hired hands and intelligence agency/ military killers and so on is SO intertwined, that Duff's suggestion that it was mostly or mainly an Israeli plot to get the US guns is absurd even if Israel provided some actors/ killers/ FEMA-type live drill performers.

      Delete
  3. "And Bolinsky: what's so odd there? More paranoia about having false flags exposed, or he's not in the know and really does think this was a sad day for children, or what?"

    Clare, I honestly think that yes, Bolinsky really thinks this is a sad day for children. I honestly don't think he's aware of the CT's that have promulgated since this whole thing happened. He has a town clerk freaking out because she knows the media will be hovering like vultures to see the death certificates for two reasons...1) they totally blew the coverage on day one which helped light the fires to the CT's mushrooming and 2) they're in a rush to be the first to "scoop" the world and say see you nut jobs...kids did actually die neener neener neener

    just my opinion...with that and $2.00 you can get a beer in most bars....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Posted a reply about Gordon Duff under your comment, by mistake. As to your comment: you're probably right. I think most people don't look at the CTs. So they really do get confused and offended. Our CTs should take this into account: ordinary folks get in a huff about things and if they knew more, they'd see why others who are aware of CTs are suspecting them of weird behaviour.

      Delete
    3. I just wanted people to be aware of the fact there was an effort underway to seal access to the death records. I have a new post with the ongoing efforts.

      Delete