Blacked-Out Parkland Shooting Doc Released, Reporters Erase Black & Finally Find Truth

by Joe Saunders


Florida’s Broward County had already become a byword for deadly incompetence even before a newspaper report last week detailed the school board’s failures to deal with the teenager who eventually killed 17 students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February in Parkland.

Now, it’s making another reputation, as the home of a school district willing to go to court to punish a newspaper that revealed the truth.

According to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, the Broward County School Board is asking a judge to hold the newspaper in contempt after it published a damning story last week that showed just how badly the school district had failed to handle the case of Nikolas Cruz, the troubled teenager who turned into a mass killer.

The Sun-Sentinel’s article published Saturday was based on a Tallahassee-based consultant’s report the Broward School Board tried mightily to suppress.

However, it finally released a heavily redacted version of the report on Friday under a court order. About two-thirds of the document was supposed to be kept from the public by being blacked out. The problem for the school board was the redactions disappeared when the report was copied and pasted into another software.

That let the Sun-Sentinel reporters read the entire report – and let their readers know what the black-out version of the report kept hidden: That Cruz, who had been a student at Stoneman Douglas before transferring to an alternative school, had not been offered all available options for special education opportunities in the district; and that he was not able to attend the alternative school he wanted thanks in part to Stoneman Douglas administrators.

It also showed that School Superintendent Robert Runcie was misleading the public when he claimed that Cruz had refused special education options the district offered.

As the Sun-Sentinel reported:

“In the past, Runcie said that when Cruz turned 18 and rejected special education placement, the district could no longer provide him with the services given to students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. But the consultant’s report reveals for the first time that Cruz himself requested to return to special education, and his request went nowhere.”

Now, there’s no way of knowing whether anything the school district did could have prevented the February shooting. And no one is responsible for the crimes Cruz committed but Cruz himself. Now 19, he is charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder.

But the facts are that the school district essentially blew it when it came to the case of a deeply troubled teenager, then tried to keep the facts from the public – officially to protect the student’s privacy, of course. The concealment just happened to have another effect.

As the Sun-Sentinel put it: “The redactions removed specifics of the killer’s history in the school system — and in the process removed details of mistakes the district made in handling him.”

The Parkland shooting unleashed a wave of gun-control hysteria, led by the media and touted by the voluble David Hogg and other student “survivors,” who’ve been using the crime as a means of political activism and personal celebrity for eight months now.

But the Sun-Sentinel report – like earlier reports about the Broward County Sheriff’s Office – shows the failure of Democrat-dominated local government to deal with a potential problem before it became a tragedy.

And now the school board is going to court against a newspaper that revealed the truth?

In a time when liberals throughout the land are accusing President Donald Trump and his administration of being at war with the idea of a “free press,” nothing can show how hollow the liberals’ claims are than a school board in a Democrat-dominated county suing a newspaper for revealing the truth about government incompetence.

Broward County has really made a name for itself.



Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.


Texas Seeks to Terminate Mother's Parental Rights Over Daughter Injured by Gardasil Vaccine

by Health Impact News/MedicalKidnap.com Staff



A trial began this week for a mother who was separated from her baby after the 4-month-old mistakenly received a Gardasil-9 vaccine intended for her older brother.

Anita reads to Aniya at a recent visitation. Photo supplied by family.

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services seeks to convince a jury to terminate the parental rights of Anita Vasquez for her now 22-month-old daughter, Aniya Blu Vasquez.

Jury selection began on Monday, June 18, 2018, for the trial which is expected to last up to 2 weeks.

We originally reported their story in June of last year:

UPDATE:
 

Infant Accidentally Vaccinated with Gardasil – Mother Blamed for Vaccine Injuries and Baby Medically Kidnapped

The previously healthy baby, Aniya, began showing symptoms of problems almost immediately after getting the shot, a vaccine which is not approved for use in children under 10 years of age.

Her mother sought medical attention for the symptoms that her daughter exhibited, asking each practitioner about the connection between the symptoms and the Gardasil-9 shot that her baby should not have received, but her concerns were rebuffed at every turn.

No doctor that saw her daughter wanted to admit that the shot could have any kind of side effects.

The doctor who made a medical error in giving her the vaccine has suffered no consequences, but the baby’s family has been ripped apart.

Previously health baby Aniya’s health declined after her doctor mistakenly gave her the Gardasil-9 vaccine. Photo supplied by family.

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy Accusation to Cover up Gardasil Injury?

Instead, the mother was accused by doctors and social workers of Munchausen syndrome by proxy (today usually called “factitious disorder”), a diagnosis that has become a convenient scapegoat to accuse parents, usually mothers, of children who are vaccine injured, medically complex, or victims of medical malpractice.

It is a difficult accusation to fight, since even Munchausen experts recognize that the symptoms of Munchausen syndrome by proxy, or “medical child abuse” as it is sometimes referred as, are remarkably similar to those of parents who are seeking medical help for children with difficult medical conditions.

Dr. Marc Feldman, who is considered to be a leading authority on the subject of Munchausen syndrome by proxy, says that the very fact that a mother protests and defends herself and her child is perceived as a further indication of her guilt. It is a lose/lose scenario, he told Health Impact News. (see article).

The very criteria for diagnosing MSBP are prejudicial, according to Dr. Helen Hayward-Brown, a medical anthropologist from Australia. The profile criteria “lacks scientific credibility” and “is being used by medical practitioners to hastily condemn women.”

In a paper entitled, “False and Highly Questionable Allegations of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy,” which Dr. Hayward-Brown presented to the 7th Australasian Child Abuse and Neglect Conference in Perth, she lists behaviors that are listed among the diagnostic criteria for MSBP and shows how these could actually apply to any normal, innocent parent, especially one with a medically complex child.

See also:

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy – A False Diagnosis to Blame Parents for Vaccine Injuries and Deaths

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy Label Destroys Families – Covers Up Vaccine Injuries

As we continue to report at Health Impact News, the safety of the Gardasil vaccine has come under fire by many countries around the world. The lives destroyed or ended, after the vaccine, continue to stack up while mainstream media and doctors ignore the dangers. A recently published study linked the Gardasil vaccine to infertility.

In this case, a family could be forever-separated as a side effect of the shot, unless the jury finds in favor of the mother.

Baby Aniya and her mother Anita Vasquez. Photo from Justice for Aniya Facebook page.


The Victoria Advocate is covering the story of the Vasquez trial.

Excerpts:

Jurors began hearing a case Monday that will ask them to determine whether a toddler’s illness was the result of endangerment from her mother or the accidental injection of an HPV vaccine.

Attorneys for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services are suing Victoria mother Anita Vasquez, 36, to terminate her parental rights for 22-month-old Aniya Blu Vasquez. They claim the child struggled to gain weight and was hospitalized for severe medical problems because of her mother’s actions.

“I would like a hashtag movement (called) #KeepAniyaSafe,” said Shelly Merritt, an attorney representing the state, to jurors. “It’s what she deserves.”

Note: this seems to be in response to the #BringAniyaHome twitter hashtag that family and supporters have been using as they post in social media and share the story of the medical kidnapping of Aniya.

But Vasquez’s attorney, Chris Branson, of Houston, told jurors the allegations against his client were “nonsense” and based on “an assumption.”

He also asked jurors to hold state attorneys to the strict burden of “clear and convincing evidence” that they are required to meet when the custody of a child is at stake. That burden, one lower than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt requirement used in criminal cases, is the highest available in civil court.

Anita and her daughter during a recent visit. Photo supplied by family

During the jury selection process Monday morning, Judge Jack Marr said the trial could take as long as two weeks.

Branson said he planned to call as many as 14 witnesses. Attorneys for the state and Barron declined to comment, and a Texas Department of Family and Protective Services spokeswoman did not answer phone calls Monday.

Anita Vasquez, who is a registered nurse, first took the stand after jurors were selected, describing Aniya’s battle with persistent health problems in 2017.

Vasquez said those problems manifested after a Victoria doctor accidentally administered to Aniya an HPV vaccine meant for her 14-year-old son.

After the mistake, Aniya suffered not only physical symptoms such as fever and weakness but also psychological changes, such as lip smacking and staring spells, Vasquez said.

Doctors don’t know the cause of Aniya’s illness and have no reason to accuse Vasquez of endangerment, she said.

Note by Health Impact News: Although CPS has argued that her health problems disappeared, there is evidence that she continued to experience health issues after going into state custody.

There was at least one occasion that the fosters took Aniya to the emergency room that the family learned about. The mother has been denied medical information about her daughter in foster care.

The photo below was taken during a visit while Aniya was in state care. Her family described her as lethargic that day, and her eyes showed that she was not feeling well.

Grandma Mary holds baby Aniya on her 1st birthday during visitation. Photo provided by Vasquez family. Read the full article at Victoria Advocate.

Supporters have set up a Facebook page called Justice for Aniya for the public to follow Aniya’s story.



IG Report: President Obama Had ‘Direct Access’ to Hillary’s Illegal Email Server

By Chris Agee


A recent report compiled by U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz makes public new allegations and contradicts previous statements regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s improper use of a private email server.

The scandal became a major campaign issue during her 2016 presidential bid and resulted in a federal investigation, which was the subject of the report released this week.

A number of high-ranking officials were named in the document and accused of some level of involvement in the scandal, including former President Barack Obama. Clinton served as secretary of state during Obama’s first term in office.

Advertisement – story continues below

One of the major revelations in Horowitz’s report involves Obama’s apparent “direct contact” with Clinton through the private email account. He reportedly used an account with a pseudonymous email username.

“FBI analysts and Prosecutor 2 told us that former President Barack Obama was one of the 13 individuals with whom Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail.com account,” a footnote in the 568-page report states.

TRENDING: ‘What Is… Jail?’: Winner of ‘Jeopardy’ Facing Prison for Hacking Email Accounts

The emails sent and received were not classified, according to the inspector general, and there was no indication the president purposely communicated with his secretary of state through an unsecured channel.

Nevertheless, Obama critics say the report appears to contradict statements both the president and then-White House press secretary Josh Earnest offered when the investigation got underway in 2015.

In a CBS interview, Obama said he learned of the email controversy at “the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports.”

Earnest issued a followup statement acknowledging that as “many people expected,” Obama “did over the course of his first several years in office, trade emails with the secretary of state.”

At the time, skeptics maintained that the difference between a secured “.gov” email address and Clinton’s “.com” domain should have been enough to raise a red flag for Obama. Earnest and others, however, continued to maintain the president did not have advanced knowledge of Clinton’s email situation.

Obama was cited in the inspector general’s report for reasons other than his email correspondences with Clinton.  As National Review noted, Obama made multiple appearances in the document.

His contribution to the controversy was largely limited to his assertion in a “60 Minutes” interview, that some in the intelligence community felt undermined their investigation.

“Former President Obama’s comments caused concern among FBI officials about the potential impact on the investigation,” the report states. “Former (Executive Assistant Director) John Giacalone told the OIG, ‘We open up criminal investigations. And you have the President of the United States saying this is just a mistake. … That’s a problem, right?'”

Others in the FBI had similar reactions, the inspector general reported.

“Former AD Randy Coleman expressed the same concern, stating, ‘(The FBI had) a group of guys in here, professionals, that are conducting an investigation. And the … President of the United States just came out and said there’s no there there,'” Horowitz wrote. “Coleman said that he would have expected someone in FBI or Department leadership to contact one of Obama’s national security officials, and ‘tell (him or her), hey knock it off.'”


Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead
promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family.




FBI Refuses to Release Docs About Secret Comey-Obama Meeting, Says America Doesn’t Need to Know

by Richard Pollock


  • The FBI will not expedite the release of documents about secret meetings between Comey and Obama.
  • Comey held a secret Oval Office meeting with Obama on Jan. 5, 2017.
  • TheDCNF requested records of all meetings between the two.

The FBI states it will not expedite the release of documents about secret meetings between FBI Director James Comey and former President Barack Obama, according to a letter the bureau sent to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Such information is not “a matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exists possible questions about the government’s integrity which affects public confidence,” David Hardy, the section chief for the bureau’s Record/Information Dissemination Section, told TheDCNF in a Feb. 26 letter.

TheDCNF, under the Freedom of Information Act, requested records of all meetings between Comey and Obama and sought an “expedited process” as provided under the act when issues are of great interest to the media and the records address issues pertaining to government integrity. TheDCNF FOIA request was filed Feb. 16, 2018.  The issue prompting the FOIA request was the disclosure Comey held a secret Oval Office meeting with Obama on Jan. 5, 2017. Comey never divulged the meeting to Congress.

Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and former Vice President Joe Biden also attended the meeting.

The National Archives revealed the existence of the meeting and released a declassified version of an email Rice sent to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Rice wrote an email to herself about the secret Jan. 5 meeting with Comey on Inauguration Day Jan. 20, 2017, as President Donald Trump was being sworn into office. The email suggested Comey may have misled Congress and was attempting to cover up the extent of his relationship with Obama.

Christopher Bedford, TheDCNF’s editor in chief, called the FBI denial “shameful.”

“The FBI just told us that Director James Comey potentially lying to Congress should not be of interest to us, that it doesn’t speak to their ‘integrity,’ and that it shouldn’t impact America’s ‘confidence’ in them,” Bedford said. “They said this with a straight face. We disagree, we think the American people disagree, and we think it’s absolutely shameful.”

Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and subcommittee chairman, and Lindsey Graham released the Rice email after they received it from the National Archives.

“President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office,” Rice stated in the email on Jan. 5. 

The president urged Comey to proceed “by the book” on the Russian investigation, according to Rice.  Grassley of Iowa and Graham of South Carolina wrote to Rice in a Feb. 8 letter saying the email seemed “odd” to them.

“It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama,” the two wrote.  “Despite your claim that President Obama repeatedly told Mr. Comey to proceed ‘by the book,’ substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State Department, actually did proceed ‘by the book,’” the two senators continued.

Comey claimed in June 8, 2017, testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence he had only two face-to-face meetings with the president in which they were alone.

“I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016,” Comey’s opening statement read.  The qualifier that he had meetings with Obama “alone” permitted the former director to suggest he only met with the former president on two occasions.

The DCNF filed its FOIA request before the bureau “seeking records that identify and describe all meetings between former FBI Director James Comey and President Barack Obama. This records request is for all meetings with Obama alone or with meetings with the president in the company of other administration officials.”   The DCNF requested records to include all Comey “logs, director appointment schedules, emails and memos outlining the meetings with the former President along with administration officials,” adding, the records “should list the date of the meeting, location, topic and meeting participants.”  TheDCNF stated it sought an “expedited request” for producing the records. 

“The issue of Director Comey’s meetings with President Obama is a key troubling issue for Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley,” TheDCNF wrote in its application for the expedited processing. TheDCNF attached to Grassly-Graham letter to Rice in the FOIA request for expediting handling.

Hardy said The DCNF failed to meet its standards for expedited processing as provided under 28 CFR 16.5 (e)(1)(iv).

“You have not provided enough information concerning the statutory requirements permitting expedition: therefore your request is denied,” he told TheDCNF.

A version of this article appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website.


Kansas Characterized by Legislative and Judicial Failure

by Tim Golba


Five courageous Kansas legislators demonstrated their commitment to defending the unborn by submitting their resignations to the House Speaker Melvin Neufeld on the morning of Sine Die. They desperately tried to reason with the speaker, but at the vary least they drew the line in the sand with their unprecedented resignations.

I wish to commend these five legislators for standing together for the unborn. Up till now, I have been reluctantly willing to extend to the House Speaker the benefit of the doubt when he recently requested thirty to forty days to execute his plan (a time period that expires about mid to late June). Here are the concerns:

JUDICIAL FAILURE: A Wichita district attorney and a traffic judge blocked a standing attorney general’s charges against George Tiller with no legal basis to stand on.

JUDICIAL COVER-UP: The traffic judge who had received campaign contributions from Tiller’s attorney and the district attorney was charged with ethical violations for not removing himself from the case. These complaints were dismissed because the judge claimed that he did not look at his own campaign reports.

JUDICIAL FAILURE: Two judges have found probable cause to believe that crimes have been committed. The latest judge found the evidence of criminal activity was directly linked to Tiller. The allegations claim that Dr. Tiller performed abortions for temporary mental health concerns.

All the evidence to support that finding was filed with the original court case and has been available directly to the Attorney General since he was sworn into office. Considering the fact that Carla Stovall, who is pro-choice, stated in a 2000 AG opinion that temporary mental health concerns did not justify a late-term abortion on a viable fetus, do not the allegations indicate that Tiller violated the law? Does the complaint not list the actual diagnosis provided for the abortions? If so, why has Paul Morrison not filed charges? Why did Morrison dismiss the appeal that he promised not to interfere with?

JUDICIAL COVER-UP: Attorney General Paul Morrison fired the Democrat special prosecutor and then has stalled time and again to make a conclusive statement regarding the 30 charges. Let’s not forget the huge campaign debt that Morrison has to Tiller and Planned Parenthood.

LEGISLATIVE INACTION: After the Federal and State Affairs committee voted 12-8 to a approve a resolution designed to force Morrison to reinstate all 30 charge counts against Tiller, Speaker Melvin Neufeld forbade a vote on the floor (according to Tim Carpenter of the Capital-Journal 6-1-07).

LEGISLATIVE INACTION: Speaker Neufeld thus far refused to allow the Federal and State Affairs or the Appropriations Committees to have subpoena power to investigate these judicial failures. ‘A witch hunt is how Neufeld recently characterized the process of the legislative branch holding the judicial branch accountable for enforcing the law.

LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP PROMISES: Speaker Melvin Neufeld, the Kansas House Speaker and others in House Leadership are attempting to buy themselves some time by promising a coming announcement of new initiatives in the battle against abortion. The speaker indicated to me along with others that he needed another thirty to forty days to execute his plan. He made this compromise in mid-May and now his time has about run. IS THIS NOT A CONTRADICTION? Is Speaker Neufeld executing a plan as promised? Why would a reasonable person think that the debt that Paul Morrison owes to Tiller would allow him to send Tiller to prison? Why would Paul Morrison not just slap Tiller’s hand, fine him a few dollars and seal the damning evidence that no Attorney General before Phill Kline has ever been able to access? Has Neufeld ever had any intentions of holding Tiller accountable for his crimes?

Federal and State Affairs Committee Chair, Arlen Siegfried, admitted to an Olathe News reporter on May 23rd, that his committee discussed early in the session whether they should pursue an investigation of Tiller, but that House leadership decided to leave the matter in Morrison’s hands. IS THIS NOT OBVIOUS?

Paul Morrison is no more inclined to enforce the law than any of the other Tiller bought political cronies that have covered for him to date. It is time to place principle and the rule of law (in opposition to the Tiller killing machine) above politics and just simply do the right thing! There are a lot of unanswered questions. The mid to late June extension for Speaker Neufeld’s plan is fast approaching. As a result, every pro-life advocate, every pro-life citizen of this state now anxiously awaits the fruit that will come from the Speaker's investigative and legislative efforts during the next few weeks. As always, it is our responsibility to monitor the progress of our public officials as they represent our best interests.



{Tim Golba is past President of Kansans for Life and project co-ordinator for the Judicial Watch, an organization seeking to hold judges to a strict interpretation of the law and Constitution. - Ed}