Challenge to Brad Friedman on Sandy Hook and Kavanaugh Nomination


Jim Fetzer

Imagine my surprise when I received the Brad Blog for today, discussing Susan Collins decision to vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, where Brad was describing this and the Gorsuch seats as “including one blatantly stolen seat and two men accused of sexual misconduct and/or assault”. Since I have thought he was a smart guy in the past, I decided to write to him in response to his blog as follows:



My confidence in you has been severely shaken by your indefensible position on the Kavanaugh hearings.

Check out the latest five or six of my blogs at and come back and reiterate what you say.

You are supposed to stand for something approximating truth, not come across as a minor political hack.



I suppose I should not have been overly surprised to receive a caustic response:



Given your appalling Sandy Hook “trutherism”, I’ll take your shaken confidence as a compliment.

While you offer no specific argument against the facts I’ve reported either on the blog or radio show, I guess I’m forced to presume you’re just totally cool with a demonstrable and repeated liar (perjuror) being given a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court?

Short of any actual critique — which I always welcome — of my fact-based and independently verifiable coverage, I’ll be happy to remove you from the mailing list if you like. Please let me know.

To which I responded by calling his bluff about Sandy Hook and Kavanaugh both:

You really are an embarrassment. Have you ever actually looked at any of the evidence about Sandy Hook?

The kids were fictions made up out of photographs of older children when they were younger. For example,
Is Noah Michael Vabner? .jpg
From Noah to Michael in four steps.jpg
Michael Vabner .jpg
Noah Pozner all grown up.jpg


It’s embarrassing that I used to think you actually had a functioning brain. What a fraud!


Judiciary Committee releases executive summary of supplemental FBI report on Kavanaugh

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) addresses Senate on Kavanaugh Nomination

Report: Ford’s FBI Friend, Monica McLean, Pressured Witness To Modify Testimony and Statement…

Shock Revelations: Ford’s Ex-BF Says She Had No Fear of Flying Or Living In Enclosed Spaces, Helped Friend Prep For Polygraph

Christine Blasey-Ford Friend In Delaware Was Career FBI Agent and Likely Together During Accusation Letter Construct…


I challenge you to a public debate about Sandy Hook and the Kavanaugh controversy.

The link is that they fake school shootings to take away our guns and fake allegations

of sexual assaults to deprive us of Supreme Court candidates. So how about it, Brad?
I added a copy of the SANDY HOOK POTUS MEMORANDA published on the web site of Robert David Steele, given his apparent ignorance about Sandy Hook:
I was fairly dumbfounded by his response, claiming that these images had been “photoshopped”, which was conclusive proof that he knows nothing about Sandy Hook, since otherwise he would have recognize the persons and images shown. He also insisted that I was not being responsive to his work, to which I replied:


Did you bother to read any of the five or six blogs I linked? The sexual allegations were fabrications. They had no foundation. Even the supplemental FBI report concluded, “There is no corroboration for the allegations made by Dr. Ford or Ms. Ramirez”. Moreover, Blasey Ford appears to have lied about almost everything: fear of flying, no advising on polygraph tests, the second door for security, and more. When I send you the links to articles where this is all laid out in spades, do I have to spoon feed it to you, too?

I am appalled that you are such a shallow thinker that you have been played by allegations that to most of us were transparent fabrications for the purpose of delaying the nomination in the expectation that the Democrats would regain the Senate at the Mid-Terms and kill and future Trump nominees. It appears to me that your ideological blinders are so powerful you are willing to believe any fantastic allegation, up to and including gang rape, as long as it advances your political agenda regardless of evidential support.


The most recent of these blogs suggests that Ford has been used by a small group within the DOJ/FBI to extend the resistance against Trump. But then I suppose you also accept RussiaGate and the additional fantasies that Trump and the Russians were in collusion to promote his election. I wish it weren’t so, but I have no doubt that you are also ignorant of SHATTERED (2015), which explains that Robbie Mook and John Podesta made up the Russian hacking meme out of whole cloth to protect the candidate’s interests.


An even more thorough debunking occurs in THE RUSSIA HOAX (2018) by Gregg Jarrett. Have you heard of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity)? I even featured Bill Binney on my show, “The Raw Deal”, who confirmed that the data was downloaded at a rate too rapid for distant hacking and was done in the Eastern Time Zone. Just how whacked out are you, Brad Friedman? You appear to be a cheerleader for the loony left, which has lost all contact with reality and rushing off a huge political cliff.


I share this exchange out of despair. Someone widely regarded as being on top of his game, who exerts a certain influence among the progressive crowd, appears to be massively ignorant of the subjects he addresses, including the Kavanaugh hearings, in the first instance, where the allegations of sexual abuse have been show to have no substance or foundation, and then about Sandy Hook, which he deftly deployed as though to impale me upon research that was without merit.


Egad! Even when, in response to his dismissal of my (collaborative) research on Sandy Hook, where there were thirteen contributors to NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015), including six current or retired Ph.D. professors (which amazon banned less than a month after its publication), I lay out proof that the kids were fictions made up out of photographs of older children when they were younger, he has to dismiss the proof as “photoshopping” because he can’t handle the truth.


We as a nation are in a bad way when those who are taken to be sources of light and illumination turn out to be pseudo-intellectuals, phonies and frauds. I used to think this guy was a responsible source on serious political issues, but he has now convinced me that I was wrong, where he promotes false positions about serious issues and dismisses contrary evidence. He and his fellow Democrats, I suspect, are in for a rude awakening in just a few weeks hence. We shall see.


Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus on the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota and co-founded of


Please follow and like us:

16 thoughts on “Challenge to Brad Friedman on Sandy Hook and Kavanaugh Nomination”

  1. OK, Jim you got your guy (even though the prospect of this guy being on the SC would have been anathema to you in 2007 when you wrote “Render Unto Darwin”).

    “Besides being predisposed to provide the fifth vote to reverse the Roe v. Wade decision and the Obergefell decision on gay marriage, Kavanaugh compiled a far-right record as an appeals court judge on such issues as police violence, government spying on the American people, executive authority versus the legislative and judicial branches, and democratic rights in general.

    In one of his most notorious opinions, he backed the efforts of the Trump administration to deny an abortion to an undocumented teenager being held by the immigration authorities. The young girl, who had been raped, was able to obtain an abortion only because Kavanaugh was in the minority on a three-judge appeals court panel, and the young woman terminated her pregnancy before the Supreme Court overturned the lower court ruling.

    Kavanaugh is a rabid Republican Party loyalist going back to his days as a top attorney in the Kenneth Starr investigation, which witch-hunted President Bill Clinton for a consensual sexual relationship and laid the basis for his impeachment by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Clinton was subsequently acquitted in a Senate trial.

    The future Supreme Court justice joined another right-wing legal hit squad that was more successful—the team of lawyers who successfully appealed to the US Supreme Court to block the counting of votes in Florida after the 2000 presidential election, handing the state’s electoral votes and the presidency to Republican George W. Bush, who had lost the popular vote.

    Kavanaugh was rewarded with a top job in the Bush White House, where he played a role in the drafting of legal permission for the CIA to torture detainees at secret overseas prisons, including Guantanamo Bay. Bush later nominated him to the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the second-highest federal court, which he joined in 2006.”

    Read it all here:

    1. I believe just as strongly in a woman’s right to choose as I did when I published RENDER UNTO DARWIN (2007). Why would you think any differently? I despise liars, phonies and frauds. There may have been a legitimate case to make against Kavanaugh’s elevation to the Supreme Court, but the Democrats chose to stand with completely baseless and fabricated allegations–a complete disgrace!

      Unless you want to forfeit the presumption of innocence and due process, not to mention logic and evidence, you have to acknowledge that these were underhanded and despicable tactics to use against a man with an impeccable record on the bench. He has been considered a top candidate for the Court for decades. So you ought to stand with me in praising the Republican’s ability to withstand the onslaught.

      I also agree with Susan Collins, whose magnificent speech–surely one of the most significant ever delivered to the United States Senate–was comprehensive and all but definitive of the issues that had cause so much need less controversy that he is not going to undo Roe v. Wade. But he deserved the seat, even if he does. Elections have consequences. No one ought to accept “fighting dirty” over the Supreme Court.

  2. No point in debating Brad Friedman. I used to comment on his blog, insisting on the elimination of all election automation. Maybe Brad is simply ignorant about the various crisis psy-ops, but has to maintain an ad hoc pretense of knowing “something” about these events. Perhaps he has become converted from being a free “leftist” to being a curated (identity politics, etc.) “leftist” by agents manipulating his ego. He’s probably inside the Soros orbit by now.

    By the way most of the websites of the free “left” are now under sporadic, but repetitive DDoS attack. For example:

    Portland Indymedia

    … is completely unavailable at present. Many free “left” websites are under DDoS attack, but of course the .gov does nothing to stop it. The fake well-financed curated “left” webites are not getting DDoSed, however.

    It looks as though a site could make life much harder for the hackers by using multiple third-level-domains, like htpp://,, and so on. Hosting with Cloudflare might work:

    Obviously, the free “left” is being censored on the Internet in every possible way.

  3. t was many years ago that I first started seeing BradBlog do strange things to my computer, the beginning of the not so covert, but very incremental war on our communications and commenting. I would go to his site, and my computer would freeze, or his blog would freeze. It was because he was talking about voting machines, in my opinion the most important lynchpin conversation of our endangered republic. Little did we know that was just the beginning. I have been unable to comment on anything that Jim Fetzer or Dr. Eowyn create for over a year now. Fortunately, I know Jim and he is kind enough to post this for me. I will try a VPN with my new computer, see if that solves the problem. Make no mistake, it’s a soft slow kill…
    A lot of this is smokescreen for the “comment section” war. That is where the real marketplace of ideas has been taking place. I am among legions who begin to read an article, then quickly realize I would much rather look at what the comments say than continue with the pablum (never with your articles, Jim!). Major outlets simply stopped providing comment sections, then they built the programs that are extremely sneaky. Comments would show up just for the commenter, but not anyone else. Now they recognize your computer and put you on a “do not fly list.” How they managed to get the horrific disqus or the monstrous facebook in charge of nearly all comments, I’ll never know. Did all smart people just say, ‘OK, you take charge” after they were inundated with idiots and trolls (as Jim was before he started moderation many years ago)?
    Chance George was a canary in the coal mine. The first person I heard of to have his videos stripped from YouTube, many years ago. Be warned, he also was cut off… years ago… from even emailing Jim Fetzer or commenting on his work. That’s right, they deleted his email accounts, one after another many years ago…. because he was so truthful and effective, and supported Jim Fetzer. That’s what’s coming folks. Hopefully the Satanic elite are being backed in to a corner, which is why we are seeing the new assault on our communications. (Issaq Kappy really was a body blow to them). The things they do are so vile that most reasonable people simply would not believe it, so the take down has to be very carefully done.
    Alex Jones was totally compromised, his “banning” is a very controlled creation of opposition. The important things he doesn’t talk about (like Sandy Hook, voting machines or vaccines) are the ones to really pay attention to. Now it looks like Brad has decided to play along. Whether blackmailed or bribed, we can’t be sure, but I will try to remember his work with Bev Harris and our voting integrity.
    Notice Brad covered up the stupid “I’m so cool when I smoke a cigarette” part of his photo with his “Since 2004” banner? That’s something right?

  4. Fetzer only presents evidence that is favorable to his side. It is called special pleading, Mr Distinguished McKnight Professor of Philosophy. Why don’t you respond substantively to these pieces (much more convincing than any thing you have presented):

    1. Actually, these pieces are excellent examples of the fallacy in question. No one who takes into consideration Blasey Ford’s motivation and history, including that Kavanaugh’s mother presided over her father’s bankruptcy, that she has lied about fear of flying, of contained spaces, the need for two doors and multiple other issues would be taken in. I have to infer that Brad Friedman posted this in an effort to make himself look better; but anyone who reads the blogs I linked in my exchange with him is likely to be played by these extremely biased columns. I could teach a class in critical thinking based upon them because they are perfect exemplars of suppressing relevant evidence.

      1. Do you mean the conventional, even New York Times, articles about Flake, Collins and Murkowski? Nothing new there. Brad has bought the left-wing version hook, line and sinker. No indication of any critical thought applied to sort this out. The accusers were elements of the conspiracy, which was the Democrats desperate attempt to derail his appointment–and it proved to be an utter failure, but not for lack of trying. And they have discredited themselves in the process.

      2. You mean the Current Affairs articles. Yes, I scanned them and it was obvious they were part of the assault on the principles of due process and innocence absent proof of guilt. The point is that he (Brad Friedman) did not even bother to review the five links I send, which provided abundant and compelling proof that the accusations were fabrications. He has simply ignored the evidence.

  5. Sandy Hook? One of the largest and most ugly hoaxes in US history. Obama and the entire government of CT were in on it. Even the US VP at the time said he saw photos of dead children….which was a total lie.

    The CT State Police sent local FL cops to Wolfgang Halbig’s home and warned him to ”shut his mouth”….and also threatened his family.

  6. So Brad sent me a reply that I was ignoring his views and his reasons for holding them. So I wrote back:

    James Fetzer
    8:56 AM (18 minutes ago)

    to Brad

    Characteristically, you are responding without bothering to look at the evidence, even when I present it to you.

    We have an executive summary of the FBI report, so you are trading on an equivocation. As in the case of

    Sandy Hook, you don’t know what you are talking about. And your allusion to “Fox News” is amusing. You

    and Rachel Maddow make an impressive pair (of propagandists trading in disinformation). So tell me, Brad:

    (1) Do you (or do you not) believe the sexual allegations made have disqualified Kavanaugh from the Court?

    (2) Do you (or do you not) believe that Sandy Hook was real (where 20 kids and 6 adults were shot to death)?

    (3) Do you (or do you not) believe that Trump and the Russians were conspiring to bring about his election?

    I have no real doubt about the answers, but I would like to hear them “straight from the horse’s mouth”. I’ve

    tweaked the blog and my invitation to debate these issues in public stands. Why not take me on it? Jim

    But it wasn’t delivered because I have been blocked. Why am I not surprised? Typical of the looney left!

  7. Lazy, self absorbed, lacking in integrity. That sounds like most Americans, not just Brad.
    People just don’t get the level of trouble we are really in.

    Or perhaps Brad has gone the way of Alex Jones……..
    Either way, not good.

Leave a Reply