Media Blatantly Misreported the Atlanta Mass Murder Story; FBI Director Admits Race Wasn’t a Factor

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay

On Tuesday, a clearly disturbed 21-year-old white male killed eight women at three Atlanta-area massage parlors. Because six of those women were of Asian ethnicity, the media collectively and immediately began reporting this mass murder as the latest “hate crime” to be committed by a white supremacist against Asian Americans.

President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, who were to make a stop in Atlanta on Friday on their “Help is here” tour to promote their boondoggle of COVID relief package, abandoned their original purpose and instead devoted the visit to lecture the American people about racism.

Biden allowed “President Harris” to do the talking. “These facts are clear,” she said. “Six out of the eight people killed on Tuesday night were of Asian descent. Seven were women. The shootings took place in businesses owned by Asian Americans. The shootings took place as violent hate crimes and discriminations against Asian Americans has [sic] risen dramatically over the last year…”

She couldn’t resist taking a shot at former President Donald Trump for what she wants us to believe is his role in this crime.

“Racism is a real in America. And it has always been. Xenophobia is real in America and always has been…The last year we’ve had people in positions of incredible power scapegoating Asian Americans. People with the biggest pulpits spreading this kind of hate,” Harris said.

For the repellent Nicolle Wallace over at MSNBC, there was no doubt this was a hate crime against Asian Americans. “I just keep thinking of that domestic terror alert warning we got shortly after the insurrection. It warned us that until the end of April, we’d be living under the threat of domestic violence extremism from a combination of White supremacists, militias and extremists who are angry about both the election results because of Donald Trump’s big lie and the COVID restrictions. I wonder if you can speak to the intersection of that group we were warned about publicly [Trump supporters] and the targeting of Asian Americans.”

On Thursday night, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson devoted his opening monolog to the left’s campaign to make this a hate crime. (Please scroll down to the bottom of the page to view.)

David Leebron, the president of Rice University in Texas, Carlson told viewers, “immediately issued a statement that got key facts about the killings completely wrong, not that facts were the point of the statement. The point was making that sure everyone understood the political lesson.”

Leebron declared that, “The deliberate use of such terms as ‘the China virus’ to foster bigotry has played a significant role. … Sadly and predictably, this escalation of racially-based hatred has led to violence.”

“Leebron is telling us it was all entirely predictable,” Carlson explained, “because once you describe a Chinese virus as Chinese, people are naturally going to start murdering Korean women. You could have seen that coming.”

Next, it was Harvard’s turn to get involved. Harvard administrators issued a statement which said, “For the past year, Asians, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have been blamed for the pandemic.”

“Once again,” Carlson notes, “if you dare note that the novel coronavirus came from Wuhan, a mentally ill sex addict is certain to shoot up a brothel in Atlanta.”

He reminded us that Harvard has “publicly admitted” denying “admission to Asian students precisely because they are Asian.” They were forced to do so after they’d been caught.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki hopped on board the freight train. She told reporters, “You know, I think there’s no question that some of the damaging rhetoric that we saw during the prior administration, blaming — you know, calling COVID, you know, the ‘Wuhan virus’ or other things led to, you know, perceptions of the Asian-American community that are inaccurate, unfair…”

After the shooter, Robert Long, was caught, Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office held a press conference. Captain Jay Baker told reporters, “The suspect did take responsibility for the shootings. He said that early on, once we began the interviews with him. He claims that these, and as the chief said, this is still early, but he does claim that it was not racially motivated. He apparently has an issue, what he considers sex addiction, and sees these locations as something that allows him to go to these places, and it’s a temptation for him that he wanted to eliminate.”

Carlson reviews the facts:

So the police took a long and detailed statement from Robert Long, and to restate, here’s what they found: Long immediately confessed to the crimes. But while he admitted to committing multiple murders — a death penalty offense in the state of Georgia — Long denied having any racial motivation. Instead, he told police he had a sex addiction and an “issue with porn,” and that he shot up massage parlors in an effort to eliminate his own temptation to visit them.

Police arrested Long as he was heading to Florida, where he said he’d planned to kill more people in the sex industry. So, Robert Long was fixated on prostitution and pornography, and that’s why he said he committed the murders.

The next day, information came to light that seemed to confirm his story. A man called Tyler Bayless said he shared a room with Long in a Georgia rehab facility last year. Bayless was there for drugs, but Long was there for sex addiction.

“It was something that absolutely would torture him,” Bayless said. While at the facility, Long frequently relapsed and went “to massage parlors explicitly to engage in sex acts.”

Moreover, in the following audio clip, FBI Director Christopher Wray tells NPR in a Thursday interview: “And while the motive remains still under investigation at the moment, it does not appear that the motive was racially motivated.”

So how did this story immediately become about race? Because the left decided it should and would be about race.

Substack’s Andrew Sullivan wrote an especially good column on Friday about the media’s manipulation of this story headlined, “When The Narrative Replaces The News: How the media grotesquely distorted the Atlanta massacres.”

We have yet to find any credible evidence of anti-Asian hatred or bigotry in [the killer’s] history. Maybe we will. We can’t rule it out. But we do know that his roommates say they once asked him if he picked the spas for sex because the women were Asian. And they say he denied it, saying he thought those spas were just the safest way to have quick sex. That needs to be checked out more. But the only piece of evidence about possible anti-Asian bias points away, not toward it.

And yet. Well, you know what’s coming. Accompanying one original piece on the known facts, the NYT ran nine — nine! — separate stories about the incident as part of the narrative that this was an anti-Asian hate crime, fueled by white supremacy and/or misogyny. Not to be outdone, the WaPo ran sixteen separate stories on the incident as an anti-Asian white supremacist hate crime. Sixteen! One story for the facts; sixteen stories on how critical race theory would interpret the event regardless of the facts. For good measure, one of their columnists denounced reporting of law enforcement’s version of events in the newspaper, because it distracted attention from the “real” motives. Today, the NYT ran yet another full-on critical theory piece disguised as news on how these murders are proof of structural racism and sexism — because some activists say they are.

This is how it happens. It becomes a group effort. Every major mainstream media outlet reports the same story based on an agreed upon set of talking points and it gets repeated over and over again until most Americans believe it. ‘But I read it in the New York Times!’

Once a story reaches that point, it becomes nearly impossible to establish the truth, although we do try. And we won’t stop trying.

Prominent Conservative Notices How BADLY the Left Wants Him to Say the Election Was Fair

Advertisements

Former Trump Administration national security official and conservative scholar Michael Anton has a question for Biden supporters. Why do they require his agreement that the November presidential election was free and fair?

In a recent op-ed published on American Greatness, he wrote:

Recently, I appeared as a guest on Andrew Sullivan’s podcast. Sullivan is vociferously anti-Trump, so I expected us to disagree—which, naturally, we did. But I was surprised by the extent to which he insisted I assent to his assertion that the 2020 election was totally on the level. That is to say, I wasn’t surprised that Sullivan thinks it was; I was surprised by his evident yearning to hear me say so, too.

Which I could not do.

Sullivan badgered me on this at length before finally accusing me of being fixated on the topic, to which I responded, truthfully, that I was only talking about it because he asked.

After Anton was pressed on this by two other pundits, New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait and The National Review’s “conservative” (but not really) writer, Ramesh Ponnuru, he gave the issue some thought.

He wrote:

At any rate, why [Andrew] Sullivan or anyone else should care what I think of the 2020 election I find difficult to understand. Surely no one can seriously (as distinguished from crocodile fears) fret that my disbelief is a threat to the regime? If my opinion carried any weight at all, then my 406-page book and dozens of articles last year would have had some impact. They manifestly did not.

Or are they concerned for my soul, that I not be plagued (as Plato put it) by a “lie in the soul”? If that’s the case, let me worry about my own soul…

Machiavelli says in chapter six of The Prince that for a founder-prophet to be secure, “things must be ordered in such a mode that when [men] no longer believe, one can make them believe by force.” Does this regime currently possess that power? Is it seeking it? Chait would no doubt like to think so; would Sullivan agree? Is forced “belief” really belief?…

Sullivan repeatedly demanded that I explain how Our Democracy™ can survive as a democracy if something like half the country doesn’t believe in it anymore. The question was rhetorical. Sullivan knows the answer: it can’t. His purpose in asking was to shift blame from those who rig everything, refuse to explain anything but instead gaslight, gaslight, gaslight, onto those who, in response, decline to believe.

What I’ve noticed from liberals and anti-Trumpers is they frequently present the high number of state judges who declined to review Trump’s lawsuits as evidence that no fraud occurred.

For example, a headline in The Washington Post on this topic read: “From a presidential commission to Trump-nominated judges, here’s who has rebuked Trump’s voter fraud claims.”

Well, one can’t find something if they refuse to even look.

Rather than being proof that no improprieties occurred in the election, it could very well be they chose not to review the cases because what if, God forbid, they actually did find evidence of fraud?

If Sullivan, Chait and Ponnuru are so sure the vote was counted fairly, why are they so concerned that Anton doesn’t think so?

Anton’s position is that he really does not know if the election was stolen or not. None of us do. Below, he produces a list of “oddities” that make him skeptical.

The 2020 election came down to a narrower margin than the 2016 contest: fewer than 43,000 rather than 77,000 votes in just three states. In 2016, nothing fishy in Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin—the states on which 2016 turned—was detected. Certainly nothing like:

  • Counting shutdowns in five states, in which one candidate was ahead, only to lose after the counting resumed;
  • “Found” tranches of ballots going overwhelmingly—sometimes exclusively—to one candidate, the eventual “winner”;
  • Sworn affidavits alleging the backdating of ballots;
  • Historically low rejection rates—as in, orders of magnitude lower—of mail-in ballots, suggesting that many obviously invalid ballots were accepted as genuine;
  • Mail-in and absentee ballots appearing without creases, raising the question of how they got into the envelopes required for their being mailed in;
  • Thousands upon thousands of ballots all marked for one presidential candidate without a single choice marked for any down-ballot candidate.
  • The absolute refusal to conduct signature audits—indeed, the discarding of many envelopes which alone make such audits possible—i.e., of the kind of recounts which are performed not merely to get the math right but to evaluate the validity of ballots;
  • Other statistical and historical anomalies too numerous to mention here.

All of which, and much more, did occur in 2020. Any one of these things would have caused Hillary Clinton to march into court in 2016 with an army of lawyers larger than the force Hannibal brought to Cannae.

On Thursday, I posted the results of a survey of Democratic voters. They were asked to rank their greatest political concerns. The top spot went to “Donald Trump’s supporters.”

Why do Trump supporters pose a threat to Democrats? Why is it so important to them that we all move on?

Maybe they know something we don’t know – yet.