Donald Jeffries debunks mainstream narratives. Now he casts his gimlet eye on the Charlie Kirk assassination. From Donald Jeffries at donaldjeffries.substack.com:
The usual anomalies and questions
Charlie Kirk was a popular radio host, and the founder of Turning Point USA. He was shot and killed on September 10, at Utah Valley University, during one of his “Prove me Wrong” appearances before often hostile college students. Immediately, his death became the biggest story in the country, and the response says a great deal about us.
Kirk was hardly the biggest name in the alt media, or the right-wing world. He wasn’t Alex Jones. He wasn’t a household name. He is now. Fox News treated his death like the JFK assassination, and devoted their entire evening schedule to over the top tributes. Kirk became an instant martyr to the Right. President Trump lowered the flags to half staff. Now that sounds outlandish, but remember that President Obama did the same thing for singer Whitney Houston, so the the bar had been set pretty low in recent years. Meanwhile, the Left figuratively danced on his grave, with countless online posters rejoicing over the shooting. He was posthumously smeared as a “racist,” “transphobe,” “hater,” etc. There were too many “I’m not celebrating his death, but….” posts. As Pee Wee Herman once said, everyone I know has a big “but.” Both sides demonstrated once again why America 2.0 is such a shithole, and why those of us who are awake are being forced to live under such corrupt tyranny.
Unlike any member of our “free press,” I’ve actually attempted to look into the logistics of the shooting. You know, the evidence. That’s what they should be doing, of course, but we know they aren’t allowed to investigate anything of substance, and someone has to do it. They tell us that only one shot was fired at Charlie, ironically right after he’d commented on transgender shooters. It struck him in the neck, apparently hitting the jugular vein there, and blood went pouring down the left side of his shirt. My friend Peter Hymans has analyzed the shooting, and has noted that the blood flow doesn’t seem to fit with the alleged position of the assassin. But those who “investigate” these crimes are experts at coming up with conclusions that don’t fit the ballistics evidence. See the JFK and RFK assassinations, for example. And unless I’ve missed it, they still haven’t found the slug that took Charlie’s life. Yet it is matter-of-factly reported that the authorities have identified the weapon.
The security team videos are interesting and what’s with the hand signals?
Repealing or updating Smith-Mundt or banning speech won’t change anything?
Potemkin until you make it.