Here is what is floating around: “In reference to your inquiry concerning the March For Our Lives Demonstration, here in the District of Columbia on March 24, 2018. MPD received a permit application several months prior to the actual event, and there was several months of planning for this large event.”
Snopes, of course, is in the business of making things go away. As I never tire of pointing out–because it is evidence, prima facie, incontrovertible evidence, in my view, of a sickness in our media and popular mind–Snopes, when it was unable to refute allegations that Obama’s mother posed nude as a teenager for a black Communist photographer in the late 50’s or so, simply deleted the claim. Here is a link: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/your-right-to-know-more-racy-photos-of-obamas-mother-discovered-video/
I’m not going to go deeply into this right now, again. Suffice it to say, that large, very world altering truths can be exposed, reach daylight, reach widespread saturation, and still disappear as if they were never uncovered at all. Most people are stupid, few people remember anything from day to day, and very few people can or do take the time to think carefully about anything.
Here is the thing: Snopes claims to falsify this claim by a later report by the same Department indicating they had confused the March for our Lives with the March for Life. Here is what they say: “However, Earhardt told non-partisan fact checker PolitiFact that he had confused the “March for Our Lives” rally with an annual event in January bearing a similar name: March for Life.”
First off, any time anyone says they are non-partisan, you should doubt their credibility immediately. Snopes claims to be non-partisan. Some joke.
But the salient point is that the original communication, which is seemingly transmitted verbatim, mentions a very specific date, March 24, 2018. The March for Life happened, if I’m reading correctly, January 19, 2018.
How is this mistake possible? Is it CREDIBLE to believe that this mistake, with a very specific date, was simple stupidity or carelessness? Or is it more credible to believe that on first pass he had not thought through the implications of what he was saying, then later realized that if he didn’t recant immediately, that a firestorm was going to engulf him and his department?
I’m far from the only one saying this whole thing feels managed. As near as I can tell, everyone died who is said to have died, and the shooter seems to have been Nicholas Cruz. But something is not right. I watched Double Indemnity over the weekend, and what I feel is that “little man” that drove Edward G. Robinson to nearly uniformly correct conclusions, even when they seemed to contradict what evidence he thought he had.
It’s like Obama’s birth certificate. Whenever that became an issue, the responsible people went and looked for it, found it, then saw that the father was Frank Marshall Davis, and decided to shut the fuck up, and simply validate that it was there, and they had a record of a Hawaiian birth. It’s not hard to shut up bureaucrats. Almost to a person, they are career conformists. That is how they have careers. I would not last in nearly any bureaucracy. I tried AT&T and didn’t even make it a year. I cannot stand group stupidity, and cannot stand the energy needed to keep my mouth shut.
But to the point here, there remain a ton of unanswered questions, and we cannot even remotely count on mainstream media to do its job.
Again, this is why liminal, sometimes crazy websites like InfoWars are so essential. I don’t agree with everything Alex Jones says by any means. Sometimes I think he’s off in the deep end. But he is not afraid to say what he thinks, to think out loud, to speculate, to run with stories that are not well documented, but which COULD be true.
Journalistic “professional” exist, in some respects, to “curate” information. They don’t exist to tell all possible truths, and the truth is that many things are in fact true which can never be proven so. Many things exist on a continuum of possibility, but most journalists tend to ignore anything which they can’t affirm to be true. This leaves large segments of potentially useful information completely unmined, and it makes it easy to ignore ideas for which little evidence exists, but which might be world changing.
Most of the time, the people who more or less call themselves information professionals are merely note-takers, couriers of statements, made by this person or that person, or public cryers, announcing weddings and funerals. They are reactive. They don’t dig into deep issues, they don’t stay with hard topics. They are reactive to our continually changing attention, but they also help create it. They don’t ever ask anyone to pay sustained attention for very long. And they themselves seem to have forgotten how to do it.
Here is a short video with some of the problems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1I_rpG7WSM
The issue with regard to Hogg’s whereabouts seems to have been solved: it was bad editing, and the bike ride happened that evening.
But either the girl is LYING about Cruz–and her story is corroborated by a second witness–and obviously, they were in a crowd, so more witnesses could be found if there remained any honest fucking journalists–or we are being lied to about how many shooters there were, and who they were.
Why Cruz would cooperate if he knows he is innocent, I don’t know. Perhaps he was threatened, perhaps he was offered something.
But something stinks to high heaven. There are a number of flexion points which would make the whole narrative pop. One would certainly be proof that the permit for the March was applied for months ago, about when the FBI was warned about Cruz.