Hillary Clinton uses Sandy Hook false flag to push for gun control

Rate this post

As predicted, in her acceptance speech last night at the Democratic National Convention, gun control is Hillary Clinton’s solution for the violence in our streets.
And as predicted, she made use of the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting massacre that took the lives of 20 little children, to manipulate Americans who feel instead of think.
Hitler children gun control
In her acceptance speech, Hillary said, referring to Donald Trump’s endorsement by the National Rifle Association (NRA), “And if we’re serious about keeping our country safe, we also can’t afford to have a President who’s in the pocket of the gun lobby.”
To tug at the heartstrings of gullible Americans, Hillary said:

“For decades, people have said this issue was too hard to solve and the politics were too hot to touch. But I ask you: how can we just stand by and do nothing? You heard, you saw, family members of people killed by gun violence.

By “family members of people killed by gun violence,” Hillary was referring to Erica Lafferty Smegielski, who was one of the speakers at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday, July 27.

Erica Smegielski & Hillary Clinton (Getty Image)

Erica Smegielski & Hillary Clinton (Getty Image)

Smegielski is the daughter of slain Sandy Hook Elementary School principal Dawn Hochsprung who, we are told, was the first to be killed by Adam Lanza. Curiously, the dead Hochsprung managed to give an interview about the massacre to Newtown’s local newspaper, Newtown Bee. More curious still is the fact that the cache date of the Bee article featuring Hochsprung’s interview was December 13, a day before the massacre. See:

As recounted by Ricky Campbell for Heavy, July 27, 2016:

Erica Smegielski, the daughter of slain Sandy Hook Elementary School principal Dawn Hochsprung, is joining the likes of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy Wednesday at the 2016 Democratic National Convention to tell her story, along with encouraging voters to support nominee Hillary Clinton and her stance on expanding gun control nationwide.
Smegielski, dedicated to closing gun law loopholes, has appeared in a Clinton ad called “My Mom,” where she says “no more families should have to go through what we have. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate that has what it takes to take on the gun lobby.

According to Heavy, Hillary “has put in a lot of effort this campaign to publicly talk with Sandy Hook families and discuss expanding gun control.”
In that “effort,” Hillary is aided by her willing accomplices in the media, notably CNN who, 3 days before the Democratic National Convention began, in the space of just one hour, obligingly flooded YouTube with one hundred Sandy Hook videos.

This is the same CNN whose live footage on the day of the Sandy Hook massacre inexplicably shows police and first responders running into an entirely different school than the supposed crime scene, Sandy Hook Elementary School. (See “CNN deception: Live aerial footage of police running into Sandy Hook was of another school“)
Back to Hillary’s acceptance speech last night.
Speaking out of both sides of her mouths, Hillary said:

I’m not here to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns. I just don’t want you to be shot by someone who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.
We should be working with responsible gun owners to pass common-sense reforms and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists and all others who would do us harm.”

But the fact is we already have policies in place which are designed to “keep guns out of the hands of criminals”. It’s called background checks. So what other “common-sense reforms” that would “keep guns out of the hands of criminals” is Hillary proposing — reforms that she claims would not “repeal the 2nd Amendment” by further eroding the gun rights of law-abiding Americans?
Her campaign website affords a better idea of what those “common-sense reforms” means. It promises that “As president, Hillary will” do the following:

  • “Expand background checks to more gun sales—including by closing the gun show and internet sales loopholes—and strengthen the background check system by getting rid of the so-called “Charleston Loophole.”
  • Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.
  • Keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill by supporting laws that stop domestic abusers from buying and owning guns, making it a federal crime for someone to intentionally buy a gun for a person prohibited from owning one, and closing the loopholes that allow people suffering from severe mental illness to purchase and own guns. She will also support work to keep military-style weapons off our streets.”

Note that none of Hillary’s proposed gun reforms listed above would have prevented the Sandy Hook or the recent Orlando gay-club massacre because:

  1. The alleged lone shooter Adam Lanza’s guns were his mother’s, and Nancy Lanza obtained the guns legally by satisfying all background checks.
  2. The alleged lone shooter of Orlando, Omar Mateen, also obtained his guns legally. In fact, Mateen was an employee of G4S, a huge security firm with a multimillion dollar contract with the Department of Homeland Security to, ironically, identify suspected terrorists.
  3. Neither Lanza nor Mateen was a “domestic abuser,” had a criminal record (violent or not), or “severely mentally ill”.

So why then would Hillary use Sandy Hook to advocate for her proposed gun reforms that would not have prevented the massacre in the first place?
It doesn’t make sense. And, to quote Judge Judy, “If it doesn’t make sense, it isn’t true.”
Please don’t fall for Hillary’s ruse.
The Alternative Media have conducted diligent and exhaustive research on Sandy Hook, showing it was an elaborate false-flag to promote gun control. For exercising their First Amendment right of free speech, the researchers have endured online harassment, abuse, and death threats. Some paid an especially heavy price: film-maker William Shanley was arrested and imprisoned; tenured professor, Dr. James Tracy, was fired by Florida Atlantic University. (See “Sandy Hook: The hounding of Prof. James Tracy”)
For all the posts Fellowship of the Minds has published on this false flag, please go to our “Sandy Hook Massacre” page. See especially:

For the Orlando false-flag, please see our “Orlando Gay-Club Massacre” page, especially:


Please follow and like us:

28 responses to “Hillary Clinton uses Sandy Hook false flag to push for gun control

  1. Excellent, as always Dr. Eowyn. My comment, for what it is worth is if one goes to the store and buys an item and takes it home and puts it on the shelf, they fully plan on using it at a chosen time – that’s why they bought it. The forces behind Clinton and her ilk, purchased Sandy Hook, and other False Flag Events to be used at a time chosen by the purchaser. This is all part of a big plan, paid for by those with the money and an agenda. We are viewed as cattle by them to be controlled and used – and killed if they so desire. So they want to take our guns? Well OK! We are an ingenious group of people and we will create our own replacement devices, just as lethal and useful. I don’t want them to take our guns but I also won’t let them cause me to be unprotected, Why? Because I am NOT CATTLE and as long as I can think they will have to deal with me, and a lot more just like me.

    • Very nice, Gearbox. I just wanted to add that, while there’s no doubt about the disarmament aspect, there’s a lot of other “modeling” behavior going on there as well. It’s the “whole meal deal” of hoaxes.

  2. What the democrat liberals do is take small bites at a time. In the end they will have planned total gun confiscation. Bit by bit.

  3. Pingback: Sandy Hook repurposed by Hillary. – Cinderella's Broom

  4. Broom Hilda: the hebefrenic sociopath at “its highest and best!” A recent article [https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/288669.php] clearly explains her:
    ” Dr. Nigel Blackwood, co-author of the study, explains that psychopathic offenders are different from regular criminals in a variety of ways. While regular criminals respond to threat swiftly and are quick-tempered and aggressive, psychopaths have a low response level to threats, act cold[ly, sic] and their aggression is premeditated.
    “Evidence is now accumulating to show that both types of offenders present abnormal, but distinctive, brain development from a young age,” he adds.
    We know from her public history that she’s been this way for a very long time, so we cannot expect any positive improvement in the near-term. And soon she’ll have her claws on the Bomb….

    • Oh yes, absolutely. They say that clinical psychopathy occurs in one percent of the population. That’s pretty startling. More startling is the other statistical data that show that “psychopathy” is prevalent in a far larger number.
      I’ve read where psychopaths will actually rehearse human emotion in front of a mirror, as they don’t naturally possess such feelings. While we may feel sorry for them on one level, we should not forget that this is incurable. To know a psychopath is to defend one’s self.
      It is much better not to know them at all. If you must interact with them the only possible answer is “no”. They are relentless. It may make us feel empathetic to say “they can’t help it”, and its true. But, we will be their victims if we don’t resist.

  5. Dare we hope Trump will revoke the unconstitutional EO’s and put some effort into enforcing the Second Amendment as it was INTENDED when it was written? Our entire problem with our 2nd Amendment right is that the Fed.Gov. has taken it upon itself to infer that our Rights need “common-sense reforms” ADDED to the accepted meaning of “shall not be infringed”. She can’t have it both ways-either we have our Right AS WRITTEN,or we don’t. She chooses to take our Right from us in an illegal,unethical,unconstitutional manner,just like Obama has done.
    ANY GUN CONTROL AT ALL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Granted,the Constitutional Second Amendment may enable a rare few people who shouldn’t have guns to acquire them,but until THOSE FEW are found guilty of committing crimes with guns,we must consider them lawful gun owners. Having ANY God given,Constitutionally protected Right involves an element of risk,but it’s the way our Rights roll-nobody is authorized to cherry-pick these Rights-they apply to ALL or to NONE.. In today’s world,we know that restricting gun ownership doesn’t slow gun crimes at all-if anything,it INCREASES gun crime, Criminals will ALWAYS have guns,because all restrictive laws do is restrict US from being able to defend ourselves. Criminals don’t care about laws. They don’t buy their guns from anywhere within reach of our gun control laws,they’re immune from gun control. So,as painful as it maybe,unless someone is in Prison,by Constitutional standards,they can own guns,and UNTIL a person uses a gun to commit a serious crime,they must be considered equal to every other gun owner.
    The upshot of this is that,if a criminal decides to rob,burglarize or outright steal from someone at gunpoint,he goes into that scenario KNOWING that there’s a 90% chance his victim is ALSO armed,and he stands an excellent chance of getting himself killed for that money he’s after-not good odds at all. I fully believe most criminals would consider that a bad deal and would consider less life-threatening ways to make money.
    And for those who say that open carry puts a target on you,I see it just the opposite-if an armed guy walks into a store with intent to rob it and notices there are 8 people all open carrying,will he pull his gun and rob the place,or will he turn around and try to find a safer place to rob? If he goes on with his plan,he deserves what he gets,and a Darwin Award to boot.

    • Truck . . . You are absolutely correct! We have far to many Lamos who would trade their freedom for (false) security. The best security you could possibly have is that you personally deal with any untoward problems that should arise. Now that is true security, and true freedom.

    • Truck, I’d like to “hope”. I’m afraid I have no faith in this circus whatsoever. Trump certainly talks a good talk. After all, a monkey in a man suit would look stellar compared to what we’re seeing.
      I’m afraid I believe that they ALL work for the same master. If they are allowed to play, they are under control. Whatever he does or doesn’t do, The Plan will advance apace.

  6. Reblogged. Great work as usual.

  7. I couldn’t take much of the closing theatrical propaganda spectacle, the DNC lack of reality show, a Hollywood production that, using Morgan Freeman, presented Hillary Clinton as a combination of Mother Theresa and Wonder Woman. An Amazon River of lies that no fact finder could get through in a month. And there was an audience that will never accept the reality anyhow. An award winning production in many categories, including music, script, and memorization and uttering of script (or teleprompter reading.)
    Must reads for reality: ,”Armageddon,” Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, and “Hillary’s America,” Dinesh D’Souza.

    • marblenecltr . . . . you are a far better person than I. I was not able to persuade myself to watch all that drivel. I just hope that enough Americans read or watch the various productions that have come out to tell the real story of Killalry and the Democratic party.

      • I am no better than you, I have probably just taken more abuse for more years than you. Also, my brain cells are rested from flicker television eye fasting times.

  8. Reblogged this on necltr and commented:
    Faux crisis actors needed only for cameo or walk-on; the stars are coming out tonight.


  9. SO-they’re so desperate for butts to fill the seats they “Reserved” all the empty seats for their $50.00/day Rent-a-Crats. That’s just funny right there…..

    • Imagine what HC and her managers (from the US and the UK and Brussels) would do to honest, decent Americans were she to be elected.

    • Not that I have to for a group such as this, but let’s just recap a little. This is “The Party of the Working Stiff”. It is currently being represented by a mega-millionaire fascist.
      They have so much contempt for democracy that they have ousted an opposition group within their party from participation in their convention. They have hired “scabs” to bully and insult their own membership.
      So, what is their platform? More war, more $$$’s for Wall Street, more selling of state’s secrets and technology, more money for the Clinton Fund.
      So, I have to ask, why don’t they leave “their” party and do something else? They obviously care about their fellow citizens. They must realize what a sham this is.
      If there’s ever any hope of breaking this up (and frankly, I don’t think there is), it is by making them irrelevant. They don’t need to beg them to do anything. Just leave them behind.

  10. This ‘event’ is so completely irrelevant, ignorant, and deliberately deceitful that it staggers all human comprehension as to why it is even staged.
    Do its makers really believe anyone above age nine will be taken in by it? If so then humans are beyond redemption: we passed our expiry date many years ago!

    • Well Joseph, we just heard the “delegate” who obviously is “taken in”. I know. I have a hard time believing it myself. But, there it is. She travels across country, after being “elected”, and she gets shut out. They gave her a giant middle finger.
      If that doesn’t wake her up, what will?

  11. Now that we have documented proof Party officials and the conventions they run are completely corrupt, it would be refreshing not to have to go through this sham every four years. The indecent amounts of money wasted to make the populace think their primary votes are meaningful is shameful and sickening. There has to be a better way. Much of America has finally had enough abuse from our so called leaders and they’ve woken up to what’s really going on in this country and the world. I don’t think the citizenry will allow Party officials to “elect” the nominees ever again. We citizens have been “played” for decades through our ignorance of how the game was really being played and our complacency.

  12. Why do the Candidates think they gain credibility by insulting each other? Isn’t the purpose of Campaigning SUPPOSED to be to tell the Voters what YOU can do for the Country,what YOU can bring to the table? How many Candidates have their names seen in the Voting Booths without the Voters knowing anything about them except that they despise their opponent? I wish we could end the cross-line tattling and insulting,and just have the Candidates talk to the People about what they can do to make the US,and OUR lives,better during their Terms. Maybe there needs to be an “Ethics Rule” stating that speaking publicly about,inferring about or mentioning the opposing Candidate would bring sanctions against the offending Candidate,etc.,JUST to keep the honorable reason for running for office at the forefront of the Campaign.

    • Well, I think it adds “class” to the production. No, really, I grew up with ideals just like you state. My mother taught me manners and I knew both of my parents.
      What you see now is a lot like “Swamp People” or “Pawn Stars”. Another couple of election cycles and they’ll just grunt at each other and swing clubs.
      I really didn’t need a scientific study to show me that World Wide Wrestling was rigged. This is much lower quality. People who believe this stuff think chickens live at sea.

  13. I’m not arguing that point about the “quality” of behavior;it just seems to me that Candidates need a bit more “incentive” to stay on point and do what they’re there for,and that ISN’T to entertain the low information voters. Maybe a review board,and possible suspension from Candidacy if a foul is called would keep them focused on their “Job”.

  14. Pingback: Full Video: Wolfgang Halbig has stunning evidence that Sandy Hook Elementary School was closed months before ‘massacre’ – Examining The Reality We've Been Sold

  15. Pingback: Wolfgang Halbig Presents Stunning Evidence That Sandy Hook School Was Closed Months Before ‘Massacre’ – Truther's World

  16. Pingback: Wolfgang Halbig has stunning evidence that Sandy Hook Elementary School was closed months before 'massacre' - Fellowship Of The Minds

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *