Send this article to a friend:


The Shooting At Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School In Parkland Florida
Paul Craig Roberts

Readers have inquired about my silence about the Florida shooting on Valentine’s Day. The answer is that school shootings are not my expertise. Moreover, a country, such as the US, which no longer has an independent TV and print national media, is unable to find out and is dependent on the story told by authorities. Although it is probably impossible to find out what happened, independent Internet media makes it possible for a person willing to invest the time and effort, to arrive at a conclusion on their own. Here are some of the things to think about.

A Parkland FL Stoneman Douglas high school teacher says the school had been told there would be a code red drill. When he heard shooting, he assumed it was the drill. 

A woman, Debbie, provides videos of reporters interviewing students who say they were told there would be a drill with police firing blanks with people screaming, the purpose of which was to prepare the students in the event a real shooting occurred. about the 28 minute mark in the video Parkland FL high school students tell news reporters interviewing them that they were told there would be a realistic drill at the school that would simulate a real attack. 

I do not know anything about Debbie. It is important to note that it is not Debbie who is making the claims. The interviews with the students are interviews broadcast by news organizations.

Debbie’s video could have been better organized, much shorter, and less confusing. Instead of preparing a concise report beforehand, she prepares her report as you watch. At the 55 minute mark Debbie becomes emotional over the gullibility of the public and the inability of Americans to see the inconsistencies between the official timeline and news reports and the inconsistencies between the evidence the media presents and the media’s explanation of the evidence. 

There is no doubt about the inconsistencies. Whether this is just sloppy reporting or simply reporters reading the official story off of pre-prepared press releases I do not know. 

There is no doubt that the video interviews with school teacher and students who say they had been told there would be a code red drill are real. What I find disturbing is that there does not seem to be mention of the drill in the official story. Remember the Boston Marathon Bombing. That day the Boston newspaper had announced that there would be a bombing drill at the end of the race, and in videos of the event an announcement of a drill is made at the scene just prior to the explosion, which the announcement says will not be a real bomb. 

Other puzzling features of the Parkland FL shooting are (1) one student says she was walking out of the building with the suspect while shooting was going on elsewhere in the building, which leads her to the conclusion that there were two shooters. Another student says there were three shooters. (2) Students report that police were in the building while shooting was underway. (3) Apparently there is no news interview with the Uber driver who delivered the shooter to the school. (4) The timeline which allows only a few minutes for the shooting is not sufficient time for the suspect to have put on his bulletproof vest, helmet, gasmask, go up a stairwell and shoot up 3 different floors. 

What I have to say about this is the same as what I have said about other events. Instead of clearing up the inconsistencies and acknowledging that a drill had been announced, the media dismisses those who ask the obvious questions as conspiracy kooks. In place of rational explanations we get name-calling. Why?

What is so difficult about the authorities and the media explaining either that the teacher and students misunderstood and are mistaken that a drill had been announced, or, alternatively, explaining why there are several instances of an actual event occurring simultaneously with an announced drill? A person would think that the print and TV media would find a very interesting subject in real events occurring simultaneously with drills of the events, including apparently 9/11 itself, and how facts are known in advance of the actual event. 

Instead, once again we get a pre-prepared story. In this one, timeline problems are reminiscent of the BBC reporter standing in front of a still standing World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001, announcing that the unexpected collapse of the building had occurred 20 or 30 minutes before the event. 

Many Americans are so brainwashed and so gullible that they are not capable of seeing that the evidence completely contradicts the official stories that they are fed by the authorities and the presstitutes. Dr. Lorraine Day was chief of trauma surgery at San Francisco General Hospital. She has completely and totally discredited and disproved the official Boston Marathon Bombing story. See for yourself: 

Sheila Casey uses photos from the alleged bombing scene to make it completely clear that the Boston bombing was a staged hoax by hired crisis actors:

Architects, engineers, and physicists have conclusively proven that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that the twin towers did not collapse because of airplanes and fire.

Almost all, if not all, of the carnage events have more unanswered than answered questions. You should ask yourself why the questions remain unanswered if the official stories are true.


Hon. Paul Craig Roberts is the John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. A former editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal and columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service, he is a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate in Los Angeles and a columnist for Investor's Business Daily. In 1992 he received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism. In 1993 the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists.

He was Distinguished Fellow at the Cato Institute from 1993 to 1996. From 1982 through 1993, he held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. During 1981-82 he served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy. President Reagan and Treasury Secretary Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department's Meritorious Service Award for "his outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy." From 1975 to 1978, Dr. Roberts served on the congressional staff where he drafted the Kemp-Roth bill and played a leading role in developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy.

In 1987 the French government recognized him as "the artisan of a renewal in economic science and policy after half a century of state interventionism" and inducted him into the Legion of Honor.

Dr. Roberts' latest books are The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with IPE Fellow Lawrence Stratton, and published by Prima Publishing in May 2000, and Chile: Two Visions - The Allende-Pinochet Era, co-authored with IPE Fellow Karen Araujo, and published in Spanish by Universidad Nacional Andres Bello in Santiago, Chile, in November 2000. The Capitalist Revolution in Latin America, co-authored with IPE Fellow Karen LaFollette Araujo, was published by Oxford University Press in 1997. A Spanish language edition was published by Oxford in 1999. The New Colorline: How Quotas and Privilege Destroy Democracy, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, was published by Regnery in 1995. A paperback edition was published in 1997. Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, co-authored with Karen LaFollette, was published by the Cato Institute in 1990. Harvard University Press published his book, The Supply-Side Revolution, in 1984. Widely reviewed and favorably received, the book was praised by Forbes as "a timely masterpiece that will have real impact on economic thinking in the years ahead." Dr. Roberts is the author of Alienation and the Soviet Economy, published in 1971 and republished in 1990. He is the author of Marx's Theory of Exchange, Alienation and Crisis, published in 1973 and republished in 1983. A Spanish language edition was published in 1974.

Dr. Roberts has held numerous academic appointments. He has contributed chapters to numerous books and has published many articles in journals of scholarship, including the Journal of Political Economy, Oxford Economic Papers, Journal of Law and Economics, Studies in Banking and Finance, Journal of Monetary Economics, Public Finance Quarterly, Public Choice, Classica et Mediaevalia, Ethics, Slavic Review, Soviet Studies, Rivista de Political Economica, and Zeitschrift fur Wirtschafspolitik. He has entries in the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Economics and the New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance. He has contributed to Commentary, The Public Interest, The National Interest, Harper's, the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Fortune, London Times, The Financial Times, TLS, The Spectator, Il Sole 24 Ore, Le Figaro, Liberation, and the Nihon Keizai Shimbun. He has testified before committees of Congress on 30 occasions.

Dr. Roberts was educated at the Georgia Institute of Technology (B.S.), the University of Virginia (Ph.D.), the University of California at Berkeley and Oxford University where he was a member of Merton College.

He is listed in Who's Who in America, Who's Who in the World, The Dictionary of International Biography, Outstanding People of the Twentieth Century, and 1000 Leaders of World Influence. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at: [email protected]

Please Donate

I listen to my readers. In March 2010, I terminated my syndicated column. Thousands of you protested. So persuasive were your emails asking me to reconsider and to continue writing that, two months later, I began writing again.

In order to create a coherent uncensored and unedited archive of my writings, The Institute For Political Economy, a non-profit organization that supports research, writing and books, has established this site, thus gratifying readers' demands that I continue to provide analyses of events in our time.

In order to stay up, this site needs to pay for itself.

[Most Recent Quotes from] [Most Recent USD from] [Most Recent Quotes from]

Send this article to a friend: