KIDIST PAULOS ASRAT writes:

I don’t know if you watch news on TV, but ever since I gave up on Fox News, I’ve been tuning in sporadically on CBS, NBC or ABC.

Today, I made it onto CBS news, where there was an interview with one of the “survivors” of the “Orlando Shootings.” He is a black man, decked in a wide-brimmed purple hat (how “gay” is that!!), who had me convinced, complete with his tearing eye, until he describes his escape scene from a bathroom, a women’s bathroom, no less. Why should this gay man, in this hedonist mass of full of Dionysian revelry, care about women’s or men’s bathrooms, especially now with the “transgender” thing going on?

Demetrice Naulings says near the middle of the interview recounting his experience with his friend Eddie Justice:

We ran into the women’s bathroom…As…Eddie Justice was getting ready to get out of the women’s bathroom [my notes: Why does he have to repeat “women’s bathroom? Wouldn’t a normal narration omit the repetition. And wouldn’t one normally say “bathroom” instead of  “women’s bathroom?”] Eddie Justice [my notes: Why does he have to repeat the last name? If it were indeed his friend, wouldn’t he just say “Eddie?] the image in his face I will never forget [my notes: I can’t make out this jumble, and it is as though he’s scripting his words as he goes along] for the rest of my life. He looked at me [my notes: Jumbled words] “Take care of me! Please don’t leave me!” I was going to take care of him because he was more than just a friend [my notes: was it really his thought process in all that panic that he articulated to himself that he “was going to take care of him?” Wouldn’t a normal behavior, recounted in this narration be: “I ran over to take care of him…?] He was like a brother. The person that would put a smile on my face. The person that told me that, “You’re gonna make it. You’re gonna be big. People don’t know you now. But you’re gonna be somebody. We’re gonna be somebody.” [my notes: then he seems to say “when…” and stops himself, since he is supposedly recounting a past declaration of faith and that “when” implies “when we get out of this…when everyone sees us in this video” a conversation they could have never possibly had if the panic, and the desperation to get out alive were real].

He continues:

Naulings:  “As ‘m running out of that same hallway…”

And the interviewer,  Scott Pelley reminds him: “But it’s dark.”

Naulings: “It’s dark. He wasn’t behind me. But, as I’m looking behind me, and still him moving, a girl gets shot right behind me. She falls on the floor and people tramps over her like she’s nothing…and we’re at a standstill at this time because it’s dark [my notes: he interjects the ‘it’s dark’ bit since he was reminded that “it’s dark” by Pelley, who like the accurate interviewer he should be, is trying is trying to figure out what was visible and what wasn’t, “in the dark.”]

And he goes on, recounting  in some improvisational manner a cleverly stitched story.

And Pelley, with his serious demeanor, lets this man ramble on, which makes me wonder how involved he was in the acting.

It is quite hilarious.

You can watch the interview here.

Laura writes:

These phony interviews, so sinister and comical, do not prove the shooting did not occur. The lack of any evidence that people were shot and the abnormal behavior of emergency personnel at the scene are the real tip offs. There is even a video on Youtube that shows men from the Pulse club in Orlando carrying their friend, a supposed victim (something that is never done at a scene where there are emergency personnel.) As they walk past the camera, and think they are no longer visible, they put him down and the victim stands up and they all start joking. (Unfortunately, the video has some bad language by the commentator so I haven’t posted it.)

But, aside from this damning evidence, the interviews reek. They are not the interviews of people who have just witnessed a massacre.

Here is an interesting talk with a policeman who says that he had never in his years of criminal investigative work seen anything like the interviews with the parents of the Sandy Hook children. Victims’ families do not launch into sentimental, smiling eulogies. They are in a state of shock after massacres. Even more so for those who have witnessed others being shot. Even soldiers have a hard time seeing their friends mowed down and they are trained to expect violence.

The purpose of these interviews is to not only deceive, but to soak the people in their own emotions. It’s sort of like the Sexual Revolution, on an emotional plane. People who are dominated by their passions are easily led. Always, always in these interviews we see this familiar strain of brotherhood. Oh, he was such a loving person and we were so bonded together. Oh, he would do anything for a friend. He always had a smile on his face … blah, blah, blah

It’s a corny sales pitch for humanitarianism, the essential emotional foundation of global government.

Please follow and like us: